# In Re: 2019 Black Infiniti Q60, VIN - JN1FV7EK4KM360658

> District Court, M.D. Louisiana · April 18, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192638

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** April 18, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192638

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN RE: CIVIL ACTION
2019 BLACK INFINITI Q60, VIN -—
JN1IFV7EK4KM360658 NO. 22-00464-BAJ-SDJ
RULING AND ORDER
This action seeks civil forfeiture of a vehicle purchased with fraudulently
acquired funds. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs—the United States—Motion For
Entry Of Default Judgment And For Order Of Forfeiture (Doc. 10), seeking a
final default judgment forfeiting the Defendant Property to the United States, namely
the 2019 black Infiniti Q60, VIN: JNIFV7EK4KM360658. Claimant Maurice
Trosclair filed an Answer, (Doc. 6), to the United States’ original Complaint, (Doc. 1).
Claimant subsequently filed a Consent To Forfeiture, signed by both parties. (Doc. 7).
For reasons to follow, the Government’s motion will be granted.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 12, 2022, the United States filed its verified complaint for forfeiture
in rem, seeking forfeiture to the United States of property derived from proceeds
traceable to a violation of theft of government funds, wire fraud, and money
laundering, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C): namely the 2019 black Infiniti Q60,
VIN JNIFV7EK4KM360658. (the “Defendant Property’). (Doc. 1, the “Verified
Complaint”). The Defendant Property was seized on January 24, 2022, and is
currently in the possession of the United States Secret Service. (Doc. 1, p. 1).

The Verified Complaint alleges that Claimant Maurice Trosclair provided false
employee numbers and financial information to the Small Business Administration,
who administers Economic Injury Disaster Loans (“EIDLs”), on behalf of States Truck
Hauling, LLC, a company for which Claimant is the listed registered agent. (Doc. 1,
pp. 2-4). Further, Claimant wrongfully applied for EIDLs by applying for States
Truck Hauling, which was registered to do business after the EIDL loan deadline of
February 1, 2020. (Doc. 1, p. 4). The Verified Complaint further alleges that, following
the deposit of $139,900.00 through an EIDL loan, $43,886.00 of the funds were used
to purchase the Defendant Property at the Infiniti of Gwinnett, 3090 Satellite Blvd.,
Duluth, GA 30096. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5).
On July 19, 2022, the United States sent written notice of the Verified
Complaint by certified and regular U.S. Mail to Claimant; States Truck Hauling,
LLC; and Claimant’s attorney pursuant to Rule G(4)(b)(i) of the Supplemental Rules
for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (“Supplemental Rule G’). (Docs. 10-2, 10-3, 10-4). Consistent with
Supplemental Rules G(4)(b)(@i)(B) and G(5)(a)Gi), the United States’ July 19 notice
letters advised that any claimant to the Defendant Property was required to “file a
verified claim by August 26, 2022, which is ‘at least 35 days after the notice is sent.”
(Docs. 10-2, 3; 10-8, 4 3).
On August 26, 2022, Claimant, through his attorney, filed an Answer. (Doc. 6).
Subsequently, on October 25, 2022, a Consent to Forfeiture, signed by Claimant,
Claimant’s attorney, and the Assistant United States Attorney, was filed into the

record. (Doc. 7). Within the Consent to Forfeiture, Claimant withdrew his Answer
and any claim he may have had to the Defendant Property; agreed that he had no
interest, title, or claim to the Defendant Property; and consented to the forfeiture of
the Defendant Property.” (Doc. 7, p. 2).
Additionally, on August 25, 2022, the United States posted notice of the civil
forfeiture action against the Defendant Property to http://www.forfeiture.gov, a U.S.
Department of Justice forfeiture website, pursuant to Supplemental Rule
G(4)(a)(iv)(C). (Doc. 10-5). This internet notice ran for 30 consecutive days and
advised that any claimant to the Defendant Property was required to file a verified
claim within 60 days from the August 25, 2022, first date of publication. (Doc. 10-5).
No person or entity filed a timely verified claim.
Based on the foregoing, on October 25, 2022, the United States submitted its
Motion For Clerk’s Entry Of Default as to the Defendant Properties, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). (Doc. 8). The United States supported its
motion with the declaration of Assistant U.S. Attorney J. Brady Casey. (Doc. 8-1). On
October 28, 2022, the Clerk granted this motion, and entered default against the
Defendant Property. (Doc. 8).
Since the Clerk’s entry of default, no party has filed a claim or an answer for
the Defendant Properties, namely the 2019 black Infiniti Q60, VIN
JNIFV7EK4KM360658.
Now before the Court is the United States’ Motion For Entry Of Default
Judgment And For Order Of Forfeiture (Doc. 10), seeking confirmation of the Clerk’s

entry of default, and a final judgment forfeiting the Defendant Property to the United
States. (Doc. 10).
II. LAWAND ANALYSIS
A. Standard
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has adopted a three-step process
to obtain a default judgment. See New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 141
(5th Cir. 1996). First, a default occurs when a party “has failed to plead or otherwise
defend” against an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Next, an entry of default must be
entered by the Clerk when the default is shown “by affidavit or otherwise.” See id.
Third, a party may apply for a default judgment after an entry of default. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 55(b); New York Life, 84 F.3d at 141.
After a party files for a default judgment, the Court applies a two-part analysis
to determine whether a final default judgment should be entered. First, the Court
considers whether the entry of default judgment is appropriate based on the factors
set forth in Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 898 (5th Cir. 1998). These factors
are: (1) whether there are material issues of fact at issue, (2) whether there has been
substantial prejudice, (3) whether the grounds for default have been clearly
established, (4) whether the default was caused by excusable neglect or good faith
mistake, (5) the harshness of the default judgment, and (6) whether the court would
think itself obliged to set aside the default on a motion for relief from the judgment.
Id.
Second, the Court assesses the merits of the action to determine whether the

plaintiff has a claim for relief. Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.
2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975); Reyes v. VH Acoustic Ceilings, LLC, No. 18-cv-00790,
2020 WL 504659, at *2 (M.D. La. Jan. 31, 2020) (Jackson, J.).
B. Discussion
“Default judgments are a drastic remedy, not favored by the Federal Rules and
resorted to by courts only in extreme situations.” Reyes, 2020 WL 504659, at *2 (citing
Lindsey, 161 F.8d at 893). Here, however, the United States’ Verified Complaint
remains consented to by Claimant and unanswered by any other potential claimant,
the Clerk of Court has entered default, and the United States has filed a motion for
default judgment. Thus, the procedural requirements for default judgment have been
satisfied, New York Life, 84 F.3d at 141, and the Court may turn to the merits of the
Government’s request.
i. Lindsey Factors
All Lindsey factors plainly favor entry of default judgment in the United States’
favor.
First, there are no material facts in dispute because Claimant has consented
to the forfeiture and no other person or entity filed a timely claim to the Defendant
Property, namely the namely the 2019 black Infiniti Q60, VIN
JNIFV7EK4KM360658.
Second, any putative claimants would not be unduly prejudiced by a default
judgment because the United States has provided ample opportunity to respond
under the requisite procedures.

Third, the grounds for granting a default judgment against any potential
claimants are clearly established by this action’s factual and procedural history and
the Clerk’s entry of default.
Fourth, there is no evidence that default was caused by excusable neglect or
good faith mistake.
Fifth, an entry of default would not be unduly harsh to any putative claimants
because any and all such claimants were provided sufficient notice and opportunity
to file a claim to the Defendant Property based on the direct mailings and the
publication on the DOJ website.
Finally, there has been no showing of any facts that would lead the Court to
anticipate that it may set aside a default judgment if a claimant appears and contests
it.
ii. Sufficiency of the Pleadings
The merits of the United States’ case are strong. The Verified Complaint
clearly traced the proceeds from the fraudulent EIDL application to Claimant
Maurice Trosclair as registered agent of States Truck Hauling, LLC, to the purchase
of the Defendant Property. Such property is unquestionably subject to forfeiture.

III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Motion For Entry Of Default
Judgment And For Order Of Forfeiture (Doc. 10) be and is hereby GRANTED.
Judgment shall issue separately.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, nisl Poy of April, 2023
Ala
JUDGE BRIAN A/JACKSON
UNITED STATESBISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192638. Public record. Not legal advice.