United States of America v. $88,029.08, More or Less, in United States Currency

Plaintiff: United States of America
Defendant: $88,029.08, More or Less, in United States Currency
Case Number: 2:2010cv01087
Filed: September 10, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office: Charleston Office
County: Mingo
Presiding Judge: Thomas E. Johnston
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 18, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 174 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 160 MOTION motion for a Certificate of Reasonable Cause; denying 163 MOTION for Recusal. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 1/18/2013. (cc: attys; case manager 4CCA; any unrepresented party) (tmr)
September 28, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 159 JUDGMENT ORDER In accordance with the 158 Memorandum Opinion and Order entered this date, it is directed that the United States of America take the entirety of the sum sought for forfeiture herein, namely $88,028.08, as against the interested parties and any other individual entitled to claim thereunder, in this action; entering judgment in favor of the United States of America, with costs and interest as allowed by law; dismissing this action with prejudice and striking it from the docket. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 9/28/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (ras)
January 20, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 147 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 136 MOTION by Katherine A. Hoover, John F. Tomasic to Determine Competence of Judge Copenhaver; and denying 137 MOTION to Strike and MOTION for Sanctions by United States of America. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 1/20/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (cbo)
November 9, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 132 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 131 MOTION by Katherine Anne Hoover, John F. Tomasic to Require Competent Article III Judge and Remove Magistrate Mary Stanley; to the extent movants seek reconsideration of the 9/9/2011 108 ruling, that request is denied. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/9/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (skh)
September 9, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 108 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 107 REQUEST by Katherine Anne Hoover and John F. Tomasic for a stay of proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal, which the court construes as a motion to certify and interlocutory appeal, denying the motion to certify. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 9/9/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (tmh)
August 24, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 101 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing Dr. Hoover to appear at her deposition, as previously ordered by the United States Magistrate Judge on 8/12/2011; the 8/12/2011, directive and its cautionary language are reproduced in pertinent part, as more fully set forth herein. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/24/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties by facsimile and priority overnight delivery) (mkw)
August 8, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 93 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying interested parties' 72 MOTION for a perjury charge; granting United States' 76 MOTION to Dismiss civil action 2:11-0101; the USM is directed forthwith to return the seized currency to the interested parties and to reflect their receipt of the monies within the record of this case; denying as moot interested parties' 67 MOTION to Dismiss civil action 2:11-0101 as fraudulent and untimely; denying as moot interested parties' 68 VERIFI ED MOTION to Dismiss civil action 2:11-0101 for failure to state a claim; denying as moot interested parties' 80 MOTION for summary judgment; denying as moot interested parties' 86 REQUEST for an order returning $27,671.50 with pre judice; denying as moot United States' 73 MOTION for a hearing as to the United States' motions to dismiss and the interested parties' motions concerning a perjury charge against an Assistant U.S. Attorney and federal law enforcement agent; denying without prejudice the United States' 77 motion for entry of a certificate of reasonable cause; denying without prejudice interested parties' 79 and 87 MOTIONS to remove the assigned Assistant U.S. Attorney; the court d eclines the request seeking disciplinary action against the AUSA and the federal law enforcement agent; denying interested parties' 58 MOTION to clarify the 4/12/2011 order; to the extent that the interested parties seek at this point a ruling on the merits respecting their entitlement to the seized money involved in the lead action, the request is premature and denied without prejudice; denying interested parties' 62 MOTION for a grand jury investigation; denying as moot intereste d parties' 65 MOTION for Consolidation; denying interested parties' 85 MOTION for an order regarding subject matter jurisdiction; the United States is relieved of its further obligations under the 4/20/2011 scheduling order pending the magistrate judge's consideration of the 84 motion for modification of the scheduling order; this action is referred anew to the magistrate judge for further action that she deems appropriate. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/8/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party; U.S. Marshal) (skh)
April 12, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 53 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 45 MOTION to Set Aside Default Judgment by Katherine Anne Hoover and John F. Tomasic; directing that the defaults previously entered are set aside and vacated; denying 46 MOTION by Katherine Anne Hoover and John F. Tomasic to Declare Mary Stanley's Response Denying Motion to Comply with Treaty Law a Nullity and to have Mary Stanley Accept the Legal Requirement that She is Recused; denying 47 MOTION by Katherine Anne Hoover and John F. Tomasic to Reinstate Docket Number 38 and to Nullify Ms. Stanley's Response; denying as moot 50 MOTION to Strike United State's Response. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 4/12/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)
December 16, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 23 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating the Proposed Findings and Recommendation; the motions for return of property, summary judgment, declaratory judgment, and default judgment in miscellaneous action number 2:10-mj-37 are denied; t he companion requests to invalidate filed in miscellaneous action numbers 2:10-mj-28, 2:10-mj-29, 2:10-mj-32, and 2:10-mj-35 are denied; denying the 19 request for clarification. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 12/16/2010. (cc: United States Magistrate Judge, Monica K. Schwartz, Assistant United States Attorney, and to Dr. Hoover and Mr. Tomasic, via fax transmission to 242-328-4014 or, alternatively, by Federal Express) (mkw)

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 West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: United States of America v. $88,029.08, More or Less, in United States 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: Betty A. Pullin
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: $88,029.08, More or Less, 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 [ 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?