5:19-cv-05199
N.D. Cal.Feb 8, 2021Background:
- On March 29, 2019 HSI executed a search warrant at 1727 Cape Horn Place, San Jose, after a controlled delivery of a package from China containing “auto switch” devices addressed to Ray Ramos Jr.
- Agents found nine firearms, large amounts of assorted ammunition, gun-making equipment, and approximately 248 grams of cocaine plus drug-paraphernalia in the garage and other parts of the home.
- Ramos Jr. is a convicted felon who admitted to agents that he knew he could not possess firearms; in a related criminal case he pled guilty to Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine and agreed to forfeit the seized property.
- The United States filed a verified civil forfeiture complaint on August 20, 2019 seeking forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6); direct notice via certified mail and public notice by publication were provided.
- The Clerk entered default as to the defendant property; no claimants responded or opposed the Government’s subsequent motion for default judgment.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter & personal jurisdiction | Forfeiture action properly in federal court in Northern District of California because seizure and acts occurred there | No opposition / no argument asserted | Court: jurisdiction and venue proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1355 |
| Adequacy of notice/service | Government provided direct notice to potential claimants and published notice per Supplemental Rule G | No objection from potential claimants | Court: notice and service satisfied Supplemental Rule G and local rules |
| Timeliness under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1) (120-day rule) | Government initiated civil suit after seizure but claims it commenced administrative forfeiture (no proof provided) | No claimant response; court evaluates Government’s timeliness showing | Court: § 924(d)(1) claim is time-barred because Government did not substantiate any timely administrative proceeding |
| Merits under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) and Eitel factors for default judgment | Firearms and ammunition were purchased with drug proceeds and used to facilitate drug trafficking; Ramos Jr. admitted this in plea agreement; Eitel factors favor default judgment | No responsive filings or defenses asserted by claimants | Court: default judgment granted as to § 881(a)(6) forfeiture; property forfeited to U.S. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors guiding discretion to enter default judgment)
- Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1986) (default-judgment discretion principles)
- United States v. $191,910 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1994) (courts are wary of civil forfeiture and construe procedures strictly)
- United States v. $11,500.00 in U.S. Currency, 710 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) (government must prove by a preponderance that property is connected to drug trafficking)
- Marolf v. United States, 173 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 1999) (failure to satisfy procedural forfeiture requirements bars default judgment)
- PepsiCo, Inc. v. California Security Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (well-pleaded allegations in complaint are taken as true on default)