THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs 51,180.00 IN US CURRENCY

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 Court’s 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

24CV016186: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs 51,180.00 IN US CURRENCY 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Striking Claim in Department 16D

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 Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

Petitioner’s motion for terminating sanctions striking Real Party in Interest Adam Mark Benton’s claim and amended claims opposing forfeiture for his failure to comply with this Court’s 10/7/2025 order compelling his responses to requests for production of documents is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

The earlier discovery order required Real Party in Interest to provide no later than 11/7/2025 responses to requests for production of documents seeking basic documents relevant to his claim and amended claims opposing forfeiture. According to the moving papers, Real Party has failed to provide the responses to requests for production of documents and petitioner now seeks an order imposing a terminating sanction striking Real Party in Interest Benton’s claim.

While not germane to the present motion, the Court simply notes the Register of Actions reflects that on 10/21/2025 Real Party in Interest Benton filed a “motion to stay action and discovery” but no hearing date for this motion was ever reserved or noticed. Even to the extent Real Party in Interest may have filed this motion during the temporary suspension of the Court’s hearing reservation system (during the Civil Home Court transition) and thereby requiring an initial indication of “TBD” for the hearing date, moving party was required to obtain a hearing date promptly upon the reopening of the hearing reservation system and serve notice of the hearing with the hearing date specified.

Clearly, Real Party in Interest failed to do so. Moreover, the Register of Actions also does not reflect any proof of service of such motion on Petitioner. Thus, even if a hearing date had been obtained, such motion would have been dropped in any

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016186: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs 51,180.00 IN US CURRENCY 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Striking Claim in Department 16D

event. Therefore, no stay has been imposed in this case and Real Party in Interest has no properly presented to this Court any motion seeking a stay.

As to the present motion for terminating sanctions, Real Party in Interest failed to comply with the Court’s 10/7/2025 order compelling his responses to requests for production of documents. Indeed, nearly eight months have passed without Real Party in Interest serving any responses to the discovery requests originally propounded well over one year ago. The Court finds that the failure to comply is willful, justifying a terminating sanction. Petitioner cannot perform an analysis of legitimate versus illegitimate income without the discovery.

Although no California cases have been decided on this point, in a related federal case, forfeiture for failure to comply with discovery orders was upheld, as it is presumed that dismissal is not an abuse of discretion if the party has the ability to comply with a discovery order but does not. (United States v. Reyes (6th Cir. 2002) 307 F.3d 451, 455.) Federal cases may properly be cited as persuasive, although not binding, authority. Moreover, federal case law is instructive in the area of forfeiture because the California forfeiture statute is patterned after the federal drug forfeiture statute. (Cf.

Health & Safety Code §11470 et seq. with 21 U.S.C. §881.) Thus, as noted above, Real Party in Interest's failure to respond to discovery and failure to comply with the Court’s order constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (CCP §2023.010(d),(g).) Bolstering this conclusion, it is to be observed that Health & Safety Code §11488.4(c)(3) provides that “[T]he provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to proceedings under this chapter unless otherwise inconsistent with the provisions or procedures set forth in this chapter.” (See also, Jauregi v.

Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 931, 938.) Pretrial discovery according to standard civil procedure is available. (People v. 25651 Minoa Drive (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 787.) It would be absurd for the Legislature to have mandated the discovery provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to such actions but not import the sanctions for failure to comply. (See, e.g. Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 554.) In ordering terminating sanctions or not, the Court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction to be applied under the factual circumstances.

Additionally, Real Party in Interest has filed no opposition to this motion. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See, e.g., D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

Therefore, this motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED but no judgment is entered at this time. Instead, as a result of the Court’s terminating sanctions order, Real Party in Interest Benton’s claim is now hereby stricken and the Clerk is ordered to enter default on the Petition if and when requested by the People. The People are directed to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016186: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs 51,180.00 IN US CURRENCY 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Striking Claim in Department 16D

thereafter proceed with default judgment prove-up on the Petition pursuant to Health & Safety Code §11488.5(b)(1) through the Court’s Default Judgment Unit.

The Court declines to sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers because it incorrectly specifies that this matter was heard and granted by Judge Krueger while sitting in the Hall of Justice. Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, petitioner to prepare a corrected proposed order for the Court’s consideration.

Moving party to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)