The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE: CIVIL ACTION
IN THE MATTER OF
$189,490 IN U.S. CURRENCY NO. 23-00665-BAJ-SDJ
RULING AND ORDER
This action seeks civil forfeiture of certain property derived from illegal drug
activities. Now before the Court is the United States’ Motion For Entry Of Default
Judgment As To $27,490.00 In U.S. Currency Of The Defendant Property And
For Order of Forfeiture (Doc. 17), seeking a final default judgment against the
interests of Khari Greene and Yanyang Ge Ge (“potential claimants”) and any and
all unknown possible claimants in this cause, forfeiting the remaining Defendant
Property to the United States, namely the $27,490.00 in U.S. Currency of the
$189,490.00 that was seized. For reasons to follow, the United States’ motion will be
granted.
I, FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2028, the United States filed its verified complaint for forfeiture
in rem, seeking forfeiture to the United States of a property allegedly traceable to
illegal drug activities, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6): namely (1) $27,490.00 in
U.S. Currency; (“Defendant Property”). (Doc. 1, the “Verified Complaint”). The
Defendant Property was seized from the potential claimants on or about February
22, 2028, on Interstate 12 near the Millerville Road exit in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
and is in the custody of the United States Marshals Service. (Doc. 1 at 1).
The Verified Complaint further alleges that the $189,490.00 in U.S. Currency
(recovered from a Toyota SUV registered to Ge Ge) were the proceeds of drug
transactions. (Id. at 4-6).
On August 22, 2023, the United States sent written notice of the Verified
Complaint by certified U.S. Mail to persons who reasonably appeared to be a potential
claimant(s), pursuant to Rule G(4)(b)()) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or
Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(Supplemental Rule G”). (Doc. 17-2, Doc. 17-3, Doc. 17-4). This written notice was
delivered to Khari Greene on August 29, 2023. (Doc. 17-3). Consistent with
Supplemental Rules G(4)(b)(i) and G(5)(a), the United States’ August 29th notice
letter advised that any claimant to the Defendant Property was required to “file a
verified claim within 35 days after the date of this notice, if the notice is delivered by
mail.” (Doc. 17-2 at ¥ 3).
On August 29, 2023, the United States posted notice of the Verified Complaint
to http://www.forfeiture.gov, a U.S. Department of Justice forfeiture website,
pursuant to Supplemental Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C). (Doc. 17-1). This internet notice ran
for thirty consecutive days and advised that any claimant to the Defendant Property
was required to file a verified claim within sixty days from the first day of
publication—i.e., not later than October 27, 2023. (Id. at p. 1).
Thereafter on September 28, 2023, Greene timely filed a claim, asserting an
interest in $27,490.00 in the U.S. currency of the Defendant property.
On April 24, 2024, after several communications with Greene, the United
States filed a motion to strike Green’s claim to the $27,490.00 in U.S. Currency of the
Defendant property because he failed to comply with several requirements of the
Supplemental Rules including failure to sign the claim under penalty of perjury,
failure to file a valid answer and failure to provide full and complete verified
responses to Special Interrogatories. (Doc. 17-1). (See also Doc. 11). On April 26, 2024,
the Court issued an Order (Doc. 12) granting the United States’ Motion to Strike
Khari Greene’s claim. (Doc. 11).
On September 8, 2023, Ge Ge filed a claim (Doc. 4), asserting an interest in
$162,000.00 in U.S. currency of the Defendant property. However, she did not file a
claim for the subject of the motion, specifically regarding the $27,490.00 in U.S.
currency of the Defendant Property. (Doc. 17-1 at n1).
On May 17, 2024, the United States submitted its Motion For Clerk’s Entry Of
Default as to the Defendant Currency, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
55(a), on the basis that “[n]o other persons or entities have filed a claim for $27,490.00
in U.S. currency of the [D]efendant property” within the time periods set forth at
Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(A) and (B). (Doc. 18 at 2). The United States supports
its motion with the declaration of Assistant U.S. Attorney J. Brady Casey. (Doc. 13-
3).
On May 20, 2024, the Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
entered a default of $27,490.00 of the Defendant property in accordance with Rule
55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 14). (See also Doc. 17-1 at 1, 2).
Since the Clerk’s entry of default, no party has filed a claim or an answer for
the remaining Defendant Currency, namely the $27,490.00 in U.S. Currency of the
Defendant property.
Now before the Court is the United States’ Motion (Doc. 17), seeking
confirmation of the Clerk’s entry of default, and a final judgment forfeiting the
Defendant Currency to the United States. (Doc. 15).
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 187, 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, 893 (5th Cir. 1998). These factors
are: (1) whether there are material issues of fact at issue, (2) whether there has been
substantial prejudice, (8) 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.3d at 898). Here, however, the United States’ Verified Complaint
remains unanswered, 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 no person or entity filed a
timely claim to the remaining Defendant Property.
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.
il. Sufficiency of the Pleadings
Moreover, the merits of the United States’ case is strong. Title 21 U.S.C. §
881(a)(6) provides that “[a]ll moneys ... or other things of value furnished or intended
to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance ... [and] all
proceeds traceable to such an exchange” are “subject to forfeiture to the United States
and no property right shall exist in them.” Here, the Verified Complaint sets forth
that the Defendant Currency consists of money furnished or intended to be furnished
by Greene and Ge Ge in exchange for a controlled substance, or are proceeds traceable
to such an exchange, or are money used or intended to be used to facilitate a drug
offense, in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Such money is unquestionably
subject to forfeiture.
Moreover, upon entry of a default judgment in this matter, no one will have an
interest in, or claim to, the Defendant Currency. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). As such, a
forfeiture judgment vesting all interests in, claims to, and title to, the Defendant
Currency with the United States is warranted.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Motion For Entry Of Default
Judgment And For Order Of Forfeiture (Doc. 17) be and is hereby GRANTED.
Judgment shall be issued separately. ff
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, thie Tay of July, 2024
Dea.
lst
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA