Legal Opinion

United States v. Funds From Prudential Securities

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided February 6, 2003No. CIV.A. 00-3046 RMUPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING The Claimant’s Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment And Granting The Claimant Leave To Respond To The Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike

URBINA, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This in rem civil forfeiture matter 1 is before the court by way of four post-judgment motions submitted by the pro se claimant. Each motion asks the court to alter or amend the court’s prior ruling that granted both the plaintiffs motion to strike the claimant’s answer and the plaintiffs motion for default judgment. Specifically, the claimant asserts the right to defend herself because, as a procedural…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
  3. Myrna O'Dell Firestone v. Leonard K. FirestoneCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996
  4. James H. Neal v. Sharon Pratt Kelly, MayorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1992
  5. Thomas C. Fox v. Marion D. StricklandCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Globalaw Ltd. v. Carmon & Carmon Law OfficeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
  2. United States v. Funds From Prudential SecuritiesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
  3. Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2009
  4. Dean v. American Federation of Government Employees, Local 476District Court, District of Columbia · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API