1 O

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 2:24-cv-03647-CAS-PVCx

12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND JUDGMENT 13 v.

14 $141,684.62 IN BANK FUNDS,

15 Defendant.

16 17 On May, 2024, the government filed a Verified Complaint for 18 Forfeiture as to the defendant, 141,684.62 in Bank Funds (“defendant 19 bank funds”), pursuant to

(a)(1)(A) and (C) and 984. 20 A Default by Clerk was entered on December 4, 2024, against the 21 interests of Selead Global Trade Inc and Zaihua Li, victims R.M. of 22 Virginia, A.E., R.E., J.B., M.N., M.S., R.M. of Arizona, K.B., S.B., 23 S.L., J.S., E.C., R.J., S.W., Y.C., N.J., M.T., W.T., R.K., H.R., 24 M.M., M.P, H.W., P.G., J.D., H.M., C.K., M.L., X.Y., C.R., P.W., 25 C.W., J.J., N.T., W.W., and R.P., and all other potential claimants. 26 “Granting or denying a motion for default judgment is a matter 27 within the court’s discretion.” Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. Parth 1 Circuit has identified seven factors courts may consider when 2 exercising this discretion: “(1) the possibility of prejudice to the 3 plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the 4 sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the 5 action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; 6 (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the 7 strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 favoring decisions on the merits.” Eitel v. McCool,

, 9 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). 10 The Eitel factors support entry of a default judgment here. 11 First, Plaintiff would be prejudiced absent a default judgment by 12 being “forced to continue the litigation even though no party has 13 filed an answer or a claim.” United States v. Approximately $194,752 14 in U.S. Currency, No. 11-cv-1400-EMC,

, at *3 (N.D. 15 Cal. Aug. 19, 2011). As to the second and third factors, the 16 complaint sufficiently states a claim that the bank funds were 17 obtained through false and fraudulent means and are therefore subject 18 to civil forfeiture under

, 984. Fourth, the amount 19 of money at stake, while substantial, is not so large as to warrant 20 denial of default judgment here. Fifth, there is unlikely to be a 21 serious dispute over any material fact. Sixth, there is no evidence 22 of excusable neglect. Lastly, despite the policy preferring decisions 23 on the merits, when no party appears to oppose the action, there is 24 likely no dispute on the merits, and thus default judgment is 25 appropriate. See PepsiCo, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177. The Eitel 26 factors favor entry of a default judgment. 27 The Court having been duly advised of and having considered the 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 2 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 3 action and over the parties. 4 2. The Complaint for Forfeiture states a claim for relief 5 pursuant to

(a)(1)(A) and (C) and 984. 6 3. Notice of this action has been given in the manner required 7 by law. No Claim or Answer was filed in this action by any claimant. 8 The Court deems that all potential claimants, including Selead Global 9 Trade Inc and Zaihua Li, victims R.M. of Virginia, A.E., R.E., J.B., 10 M.N., M.S., R.M. of Arizona, K.B., S.B., S.L., J.S., E.C., R.J., 11 S.W., Y.C., N.J., M.T., W.T., R.K., H.R., M.M., M.P, H.W., P.G., 12 J.D., H.M., C.K., M.L., X.Y., C.R., P.W., C.W., J.J., N.T., W.W., and 13 R.P., admit the allegations of the Complaint for Forfeiture to be 14 true. 15 4. A default judgment shall be and hereby is entered against 16 the interests of all potential claimants, including Selead Global 17 Trade Inc and Zaihua Li, victims R.M. of Virginia, A.E., R.E., J.B., 18 M.N., M.S., R.M. of Arizona, K.B., S.B., S.L., J.S., E.C., R.J., 19 S.W., Y.C., N.J., M.T., W.T., R.K., H.R., M.M., M.P, H.W., P.G., 20 J.D., H.M., C.K., M.L., X.Y., C.R., P.W., C.W., J.J., N.T., W.W., and 21 R.P., in the defendant bank funds. 22 5. The defendant bank funds shall be and hereby are forfeited 23 to the United States of America, which shall dispose of the defendant 24 bank funds in the manner required by law. 25 // 26 // 27 1 6. The Court finds there was reasonable cause for the seizure 2 defendant bank funds, and this judgment shall be construed as a 3 certificate of reasonable cause under

. 4 Dated: January 30, 2025

6 HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28