United States v. Lazarenko
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.
This case compels the Court to delve into a complex and easily-misunderstood area of the law: the protection of third party rights in criminal forfeiture. In their motion for summary judgment, claimant Eurofed contends that a third party may use the “ancillary proceeding” established by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) to raise any argument whatsoever, and may thereby relitigate the forfeitability of the property seized. Contrarily, the government argues in its motion for summary judgment that a third party is limited in an ancillary proceeding to…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Chaim v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2010
- United States v. LazarenkoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2008
- United States v. LazarenkoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2009
- United States v. YaoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2013