G Eric Kuskey vs Salvatore A Garofalo et al

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 in the original motion 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.")

(3) Supplemental Declaration

On June 12, 2026, the court issued an order continuing this motion so that the People could file a supplemental declaration addressing the issue of public notice, establishing the elements of notice required by Health and Safety Code section 11488.4, subdivisions (e) and (f). The court has reviewed the supplemental declaration by Adam C. Howland filed on June 16, 2026. The declaration states in part that, attorney Howland is "informed and believe, based upon an email from Debra Giles, Pacific Coast Business Times Office Manager and Director of Circulation, that this Notice of Forfeiture was published on the following dates: August 8, 2025; August 15, 2025; and August 22, 2025." (Supp. Howland Decl., P. 6, Ex. A.)