David Meave vs Ricardo Guerrero

"Any person claiming an interest in the property seized pursuant to Section 11488 may, unless for good cause shown the court extends the time for filing, at any time within 30 days from the date of the last publication of the notice of seizure, if that person was not personally served or served by mail, or within 30 days after receipt of actual notice, file with the superior court of the county in which the defendant has been charged with the underlying or related criminal offense or in which the property was seized or, if there was no seizure, in which the property is located, a claim, verified in accordance with Section 446 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating the claimant's interest in the property.

An endorsed copy of the claim shall be served by the claimant on the Attorney General or district attorney, as appropriate, within 30 days of the filing of the claim. The Judicial Council shall develop and approve official forms for the verified claim that is to be filed pursuant to this section. The official forms shall be drafted in nontechnical language, in English and in Spanish, and shall be made available through the office of the clerk of the appropriate court. A claim under this section is an unlimited civil case, regardless of the value of the seized property." (Health & Saf.

Code, Sec. 11488.5, subd. (a)(1).)

"If at the end of the time set forth in subdivision (a) there is no claim on file, the court, upon motion, shall declare the property seized or subject to forfeiture pursuant to subdivisions (a) to (g), inclusive, of Section 11470 forfeited to the state. In moving for a default judgment pursuant to this subdivision, the state or local governmental entity shall be required to establish a prima facie case in support of its petition for forfeiture. There is no requirement for forfeiture thereof that a criminal conviction be obtained in an underlying or related criminal offense." (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11488.5, subd. (b)(1).)

Pursuant to Civil Code section 11470, "[a]ll moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance, [and] all proceeds traceable to such an exchange" are subject to forfeiture. (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11470, subd. (f).)

Here, the People have established that the Property is traceable to the sale of controlled substances in violation of the Health and Safety Code and that Reigard executed a stipulation forfeiting his interest in the Property. (Howland Decl., P.P. 4-13, Exs. A-D.) Further, it is apparent that no other claimants have filed claims in this matter or any response to the Petition.

However, the evidence provided as to public notice of seizure is insufficient. Howland testifies that "[n]otice of seizure was also published in an appropriate newspaper for the statutorily required three consecutive weeks." (Howland Decl., P. 8.) This is insufficient to establish a prima facie case that: "All notices shall set forth the time within which a claim of interest in the property seized or subject to forfeiture is required to be filed pursuant to Section 11488.5. The notices shall explain, in plain language, what an interested party must do and the time in which the person must act to contest the forfeiture in a hearing. The notices shall state what rights the interested party has at a hearing. The notices shall also state the legal consequences for failing to respond to the forfeiture notice." (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11488.4, subd. (f).)

"When a forfeiture action is filed, the notices shall be published once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the seizure was made or where the property subject to forfeiture is located." (Id., subd. (e).)

"A forfeiture proceeding is a civil in rem action in which property is considered the defendant, on the fiction that the property is the guilty party. [Citations.] Statutes imposing forfeitures are disfavored and are to be strictly construed in favor of the persons against whom they are sought to be imposed." (Cuevas v. Superior Court (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1312, 1320, internal quotation marks omitted.) "This disfavor applies 'notwithstanding the strong governmental interest in stemming illegal drug transactions.' " (Id. at p. 1322; see also People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1556, 1561 (in the context of bail statutes, forfeiture procedures "must be precisely followed or the court loses jurisdiction and its actions are void.")

The court will continue this matter so that the People may file a supplemental declaration or other information establishing the elements of notice required by Health and Safety Code section 11488.4, subdivisions (e) and (f).

Tentative Ruling: David Meave vs Ricardo Guerrero Tentative Ruling: David Meave vs Ricardo Guerrero Case Number