United States of America v. $169,740.00 in U.S. Currency et al
| United States of America |
| 169,740.00 In U.S. Currency and 194,840.00 In U.S. Currency |
| 2:2015cv02683 |
| April 10, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Alicia G. Rosenberg |
| Otis D. Wright |
| Drug Related Seizure of Property |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
22
AMENDED JUDGMENT ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: In accordance with this Courts Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Currency and Interested Parties Daniel Soto, Colette Park, Hong Natasha Sun, Gurdeep Singh and Julio Soto Perez (ECF No. 17), the Court hereby orders judgment in favor of Plaintiff United States and against Defendant Currency, in the total amount of $364,580.00. (lc)
|
|
Filing
21
JUDGMENT ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court hereby orders judgment in favor of Plaintiff United States and against Defendant Currency, in the total amount of $364,548.00. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc). Modified on 11/18/2015 (lc).
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 17 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff is granted forfeiture of Defendants currency in the amount of $364,548.00. A separate judgment will issue. (lc). Modified on 10/29/2015 (lc).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
