United States of America v. $17,260.00 in United States Currency
Plaintiff: United States of America and USA
Defendant: $17,260.00 in United States Currency
Case Number: 2:2022cv00052
Filed: April 20, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Presiding Judge: Edward B Atkins
Referring Judge: David L Bunning
Nature of Suit: Forfeit/Penalty: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1345 Complaint for Forfeiture
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 20, 2022 Filing 6 PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN by USM: Currency in USMS custody as of 1/5/2022. (TJZ)
April 20, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 STANDING REFERRAL ORDER: 1) Case referred to assigned U.S. Magistrate Judge at Covington to supervise discovery and pretrial proceedings; 2) Magistrate Judge is authorized to conduct all pretrial and status conferences, to hold such hearings as may be required, and to rule on nondispositive motions, except motions in limine. Dispositive motions and motions in limine will be referred by the Clerk of this court to the undersigned. The final pretrial conference and trial will also be before the undersigned, unless parties agree to a trial by a Magistrate Judge; 3) Discovery disputes shall be resolved in the following manner: (1) Parties to meet/confer in an attempt to resolve disputes; (2) If parties unable to resolve such disputes formally, they shall attempt to resolve their disagreements by telephone conference with the Magistrate Judge; (3) If parties unable to resolve their disputes after conference with the Magistrate Judge, they may file appropriate written motions with the Court, which shall include the certification required. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 1/13/2011.(TJZ)cc: COR
April 20, 2022 Filing 4 Warrant in Rem Issued as to $17,260.00 in United States Currency; attested copy to USM (Attachments: #1 USM 285)(TJZ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/20/2022: #2 receipt) (TJZ).
April 20, 2022 Filing 2 APPLICATION for Warrant of Arrest by United States of America (Attachments: #1 Warrant of Arrest in Rem, #2 USM285)(TJZ)
April 20, 2022 Filing 1 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR FORFEITURE IN REM, filed by United States of America. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Nicholas Nimeskern, #2 Affidavit of Nicholas Nimeskern, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(TJZ)
April 20, 2022 Conflict Check run. (TJZ)

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

Search for this case: United States of America v. $17,260.00 in United States Currency
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: Rajbir Datta, AUSA
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 ]
Plaintiff: USA
Represented By: Rajbir Datta, AUSA
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: $17,260.00 in United States Currency
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?