United States of America v. $57,880.00 in U.S. Currency

Plaintiff: United States of America
Defendant: $57,880.00 in U.S. Currency
Case Number: 5:2010cv02022
Filed: September 10, 2010
Court: Ohio Northern District Court
Office: Akron Office
County: Summit
Presiding Judge: John R. Adams
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
July 21, 2011 13 Opinion or Order of the Court Memorandum, Opinion, and Order granting the Government's Motion to strike a claim (Related Doc # 8 ). Claimant's answer is stricken (Doc. # 9 ). The Government is directed to move for default within 14 days. Judge John R. Adams on 7/21/11.(K,C)

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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: United States of America v. $57,880.00 in U.S. Currency
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: United States of America
Represented By: James L. Morford
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: $57,880.00 in U.S. 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 [ 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.