Motion for Trial Preference
25CV021617: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs $33,012.00 IN US CURRENCY 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
*** If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov, which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 17A at (916) 874- 5487 for assistance.
Please take notice that effective April 13, 2026, the Presiding Judge Law & Motion calendar has been moved to Department 17A at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse, the Honorable Lawrence G. Brown presiding. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Hon. Lawrence G. Brown Department 17A 916-874-5487 dept17A@saccourt.ca.gov ***
TENTATIVE RULING:
By stipulation of the parties, this matter was continued from July 17, 2026, to allow the Court to consider the late-filed opposition from Petitioner People of the State of California (Petitioner) and to provide Real Party in Interest Alize Beermann (Beermann) with the opportunity to file a reply.
Beermann did not file a reply.
Having now considered Petitioners opposition, the Court rules on Beermanns motion for trial preference as follows.
25CV021617: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs $33,012.00 IN US CURRENCY 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A
This is an asset forfeiture case. The respondent property is $33,012.00 in currency seized on August 13, 2025. The Petition for Forfeiture of Property (Petition) lists Beerman, Rashad Duncan, and Genelle Duncan as Real Parties in Interest.
Petitioner provides the following factual summary in its opposition to the motion concerning the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the subject currency and the status of the related criminal proceedings concerning Beermann and Rashad Duncan:
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Sacramento PD officers and Elk Grove PD officers executed a search warrant at Rashad Duncans residence, 5269 Senesta Circle, Sacramento, CA 95820. Alize Beermann exited the house at the start of the search carrying a black backpack. Inside the backpack officers located $29,812.00 in cash, a stolen handgun, loose ammunition, and numerous items of indicia belonging to both Rashad Duncan and Alize Beermann. Inside the house, in the master bedroom, officers located approximately 4.85 pounds of packaged marijuana, a functioning digital scale, and $800.00 cash. Rashad Duncan was found to have another $2,400.00 in cash in his pant pocket.
In Sacramento Superior Court case number 25FE016073, Beermann was charged with PC 25850(a). On 2/2/2026 she pled no contest to that charge as a misdemeanor. Rashad Duncan is still pending charges in case number 25FE016047. He is charged with PC 29800, PC 30305, and HS 11359(b) related to the marijuana located in the house. Mr. Duncan also has 2 additional felony cases pending (25FE025040 and 25FE016048).
Rashad Duncan has applied for Mental Health Diversion in all of his cases. His application has not yet been granted. The next scheduled court date is 8/13/2026 at 1:30pm in Department 4A.
All of the cash recovered during the search was seized pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 11470, et seq. The only
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV021617: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs $33,012.00 IN US CURRENCY 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A
claim filed was by Alize Beermann in the amount of $18,700.00.
(Petr Oppn 1:27-2:19.)
Beermann now moves for trial preference under Health and Safety Code section 11488.5, subdivision (c), which provides that [i]f a verified claim [opposing forfeiture] is filed, the forfeiture proceeding shall be set for hearing on a day not less than 30 days therefrom, and the proceeding shall have priority over other civil cases.
Petitioner opposes the motion, rejoining that trial is premature and asking for a stay of the asset forfeiture proceeding until the associated criminal case is completed. Petitioner argues:
Because the cash seizure in this case is less than $40,000.00, a qualifying criminal conviction must be obtained in order for the People to move forward with forfeiture (HS 11488.4). The only possible qualifying charge in this case is the HS 11359(b) in case number 25FE016047. That case is now pending an application for Mental Health Diversion. If MHD is granted, and Mr. Duncan successfully completes the program, all criminal charges will be dismissed. For this reason, setting the forfeiture case for trial at this time is premature.
Health & Safety Code section 11488.5(e) states: The forfeiture hearing shall be continued upon motion of the prosecution or the defendant until after a verdict of guilty on any criminal charges specified in this chapter and pending against the defendant have been decided. The stay is available even if the claimant is not the defendant in the criminal case (see United States vs. One Ford Galaxie (1970) 49 F.R.D. 295).
In this case, forfeiture requires a conviction of the narcotic sales charge. If that charge is not sustained, the claimed money will necessarily be released to the claimant by [Petitioner] without
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV021617: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs $33,012.00 IN US CURRENCY 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A
the necessity of a trial or any other motion to the court. In addition to the possibility of dismissal due to completion of the MHD program, it is also quite possible that the criminal case may be resolved for a plea to other charges with the misdemeanor drug charge being dismissed in the interest of justice. This scenario happens frequently. Therefore, until a conviction of the drug sales charge occurs, the setting of a trial in this matter is premature and a waste of judicial resources. For this reason, [Petitioner is] requesting a limited stay of the Motion to Set Trial, pursuant to HS 11488.5(e), until the conclusion of the underlying criminal case.
(Petr Oppn 2:23-3:14.)
As stated above, Beermann did not file a reply to Petitioners opposition.
The Court finds it appropriate to stay decision on the forfeiture proceedings under Health and Safety Code section 11488.5, subdivision (e) until the criminal case (25FE016047) against Rashad Duncan has concluded.
Accordingly, Beermanns motion for trial preference is denied.
Petitioner is ordered to notify the Court of the outcome of Mr. Duncans criminal case and its impact on this forfeiture proceeding within two weeks of its conclusion in a written filing served on Ms. Beermann.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; CRC 3.1312.)
*** This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV021617: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs $33,012.00 IN US CURRENCY 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided. ***