United States v. $141,680.00 in United States Currency
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-02915
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In United States v. $141,680.00, Judge Gardephe granted the government’s motion to strike Lance Steglich’s claim to the currency.
Lance Steglich’s claim to the $141,680.00 was struck; the government’s motion was granted. The opinion does not state that a final forfeiture judgment had been entered.
What happened
In United States v. $141,680.00 in United States Currency, the government sought to strike Lance Steglich’s claim in the civil forfeiture case. The government said Steglich had not filed a required answer by the deadline.
The court had ordered any opposition to the motion by April 26, 2021, but no opposition was filed. The government also stated that no other claims or answers had been filed and that the applicable deadlines had expired.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted the government’s motion to strike Steglich’s claim under Rule G(5)(b) of the Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. The government said it intended to seek a forfeiture judgment, but the opinion does not state that such a judgment had been entered.
The detailed version
- United States v. $141,680.00 in United States Currency · No. 1:20-cv-02915
- Paul Gardephe
- Jan. 20, 2022
Background
This is a civil forfeiture case involving $141,680.00 in United States currency. Lance Steglich filed a claim to the currency. On April 14, 2021, the government moved to strike that claim.
Procedural history
On April 19, 2021, the court directed that any opposition to the government’s motion be filed by April 26, 2021. The government reported that Steglich had not filed an opposition by that deadline. It also stated that no other claims or answers had been filed and that the time to file them had expired.
Ruling
The court granted the government’s motion to strike Steglich’s claim. The endorsement states that Steglich failed to file a timely answer as required by Rule G(5)(b) of the Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. It further states that, because of that failure, Steglich did not have statutory standing to bring a claim. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 8.
The government stated that it intended to move for a judgment of forfeiture. The opinion does not state that the court entered that judgment. The ruling addressed the motion to strike the claim, not the ultimate forfeiture of the currency.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.