United States of America v. $11,500.00 (US)
| United States of America |
| $11,500.00 in United States Currency and $2,971.00 in United States Currency |
| Charles Guerrero |
| 3:2010cv00097 |
| February 1, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| Malcolm F. Marsh |
| Drug Related Seizure of Property |
| 21 U.S.C. ยง 881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs |
| None |
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
73
Opinion and Order : The Governments Motion to Strike and, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment as to Defendant $11,500 45 , and the Governments Motion to Strike the The Governments Cross Motion for Summary Judgment 66 is GRANTED as to Defendant $11,500 and DENIED as to Defendant $2,971. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Claimant Guerreros Cross Motion for Summary Judgment 51 is GRANTED as to his standing to contest the forfeiture of defendant $2,971.00, and is DENIED in all other respects. Claimant Guerreros Second Motion for Summary Judgment 59 is DENIED. Signed on 7/13/2011 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (sd)
|
|
Filing
42
OPINION AND ORDER: Claimant Guerrero's Motion to Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pleadings 36 is DENIED. Signed on 12/8/2010 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (mr)
|
|
Filing
29
OPINION AND ORDER: Claimant Guerrero's Motion to Dismiss 8 is DENIED. Signed on 7/28/2010 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (mr)
|
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 Oregon 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.
