USA v. Real property located at 9445 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California, Sacramento County, APN Nos: 063-0060-045 and 063-0060-046
Plaintiff: United States of America
Defendant: Real property located at 9445 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California, Sacramento County, APN Nos: 063-0060-045 and 063-0060-046
Claimant: David Johns and Mary Johns
Case Number: 2:2011cv01902
Filed: July 20, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Dale A. Drozd
Presiding Judge: John A. Mendez
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 13, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 57 FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 1/12/2017 ADOPTING the 56 Stipulation for Final Judgment of Forfeiture; ORDERING Claimants David Johns and Mary Johns to send a cashier's check, made payable to the U.S. M arshal Service in the amount of $5,000.00, to the U.S. Attorney's Office, Attn: Asset Forfeiture Unit, 501 "I" Street, Suite 10-100, Sacramento, CA 95814; SUBSTITUTING all right, title and interest in said funds for the defendant property, to be FORFEITED to the United States and disposed of according to law; ORDERING the United States to record a withdrarawl of lis pendens against the defendant property within thirty (30) days of full payment of the settlement amount; DEEMIN G Claimants David Johns and Mary Johns in default in the event payment in full is not made within the stipulated time and AUTHORIZING the U.S. Marshal to sell the defendant property; RELEASING the United States and its servants, agents, and employees and all other public entities, their servants, agents, and employees, from any and all liability arising out of or in any way connected with the filing of the Complaint and the posting of the defendant property with the Complaint and Notice of Compl aint; ORDERING all parties to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees; ORDERING that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Hon. John A. Mendez, District Judge, retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Final Jud gment of Forfeiture; ENTERING a Certificate of Reasonable Cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465; FINDING that there was reasonable cause for the filing of the Complaint and the posting of the defendant property with the Complaint and Notice of Complaint, and for the commencement and prosecution of this forfeiture action. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G.)
December 29, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/28/2016 ORDERING that this matter is STAYED until 1/30/2017. On or before 1/30/2017, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Zignago, K.)
November 28, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 53 ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/28/16 ORDERING that this matter is STAYED pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) until 12/28/2016. On or before 12/28/2016, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Kastilahn, A)
August 26, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 50 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 8/26/16 ORDERING that the matter is continued STAYED until 11/28/16; on or before 11/28/16, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Washington, S)
May 26, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 47 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 05/26/16 ORDERING that the matter is continued STAYED until 08/29/16; on or before 08/29/16, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Benson, A)
February 26, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 45 STIPULATION and ORDER 44 for extension of stay signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 2/26/2016. This matter is STAYED pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2) and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) until 5/27/2016. On or before 5/27/2016, parties will advise Court whether further stay is necessary. (Marciel, M)
December 28, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 43 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/28/15: This matter is stayed until February 29, 2016. On or before February 29, 2016, the parties shall advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Kaminski, H)
September 22, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 40 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/22/2015 ORDERING that this matter is STAYED until 12/29/2015. On or before 12/29/2015, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Zignago, K.)
March 4, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 38 ORDER 37 granting stay signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/4/2015. This matter is STAYED until 9/30/2015. Parties will advise Court whether further stay is necessary. (Marciel, M)
September 8, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/8/14: This matter is stayed until March 30, 2015. On or before March 30, 2015, the parties shall advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Kaminski, H)
March 27, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/26/14: This matter is stayed until September 30, 2014. On or before September 30, 2014, the parties shall advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Kaminski, H)
October 30, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 32 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/29/13 ORDERING that this matter is STAYED pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) until 3/31/14. (Manzer, C)
July 30, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 30 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/29/2013 STAYING CASE until 10/30/2013; ORDERING the parties to advise the court, by 10/30/2013, whether a further stay is necessary. (Michel, G)
May 1, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 28 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/30/13: This matter is stayed until July 30, 2013. (Kaminski, H)
January 30, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 26 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/29/13 ORDERING this matter is stayed until 4/30/13. On or before 4/30/13, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Becknal, R)
November 2, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/2/2012 STAYING this matter until 1/30/2013; ORDERING the parties to advise the court whether a further stay is necessary by 1/30/2013. (Michel, G)
August 1, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 22 STIPULATION and ORDER 21 for extension of stay signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/31/2012. This is STAYED until 11/1/2012. On or before 11/1/2012, parties will advise Court whether further stay is necessary. (Marciel, M)
May 1, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 20 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/1/2012 ORDERING that this matter is STAYED pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) until 8/1/2012. On or before 8/1/2012, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Zignago, K.)
February 1, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/1/2012 ORDERING 15 that this matter is STAYED pursuant to 18:981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21:881(i) until 5/1/2012. On or before 5/1/2012, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Reader, L)
November 28, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 14 STIPULATION and ORDER for Stay signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/28/2011. This matter is STAYED until 2/1/2012. On or before 2/1/2012, parties will advise Court whether further stay is necessary. (Marciel, M)
September 15, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 11 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/14/11 ORDERING the matter STAYED until 12/1/11. On or before 12/1/11, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary. (Meuleman, A)
July 21, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER for 1 PUBLICATION signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/20/2011. (Marciel, M)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: USA v. Real property located at 9445 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California, Sacramento County, APN Nos: 063-0060-045 and 063-0060-046
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: United States of America
Represented By: Kevin Christopher Khasigian
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Real property located at 9445 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento, California, Sacramento County, APN Nos: 063-0060-045 and 063-0060-046
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Claimant: David Johns
Represented By: Kristin S. Door
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Claimant: Mary Johns
Represented By: Kristin S. Door
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?