Cases

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2622 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Thirty-two thousand eight hundred twenty dollars and fifty-six cents ($32,820.56)

ORDER LEONARD T. STRAND, United States Magistrate Judge. This case is before me on a motion (Doc. No. 32) for attorney fees, costs and interest (hereafter, collectively, Fees) filed by claimants Carole Hinders and Mrs. Lady’s, Inc. (the Claimants). Plaintiff United States of America (the Government) has filed a resistance (Doc. No. 34) and the Claimants have filed a reply (Doc. No. 35). I heard oral argum

MEMORANDUM CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief Judge. Presently before the court in the above-captioned matter is the motion (Docs. 14, 17) filed by Ernesto Ruiz, Eusebia Ruiz, and Ely Felix Ruiz (collectively, “the Ruizes”), Seeking the return of property and the award of attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and interest, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) and 28 Ü.S.C. § 2465(b)(1). T

WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether the district court abused its discretion when it permitted the government to dismiss its complaint for forfeiture without prejudice and whether the dismissal entitled the claimants to attorney's fees under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, see

T. S. Ellis, III, United States District Judge At issue in this mail and wire fraud, money laundering conspiracy, and identity *692theft prosecution is whether the Government improperly seized defendant's assets without probable cause to believe those assets will ultimately be proved at trial to be forfeitable as tainted, and not substitute ass

24-1421 United States v. Ross In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM 2024 No. 24-1421-cv UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RI

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: In this civil forfeiture case, the United States claims that $200,000 in cash discovered in a storage unit leased by Byron Phillips is subject to forfeiture because the cash is connected to the "exchange [of] a controlled substance." See

Government’s Financial Rescue and Takeover of American International Group (AIG); Fifth Amendment Taking and Illegal Exaction Claims; Shareholder Class Action; Demand for Corporate Equity and Voting Control as Consideration for Loan; Section 13(3), Federal Reserve Act; Effect of AIG Board’s Approval of Terms; Damages; Economic Loss Analysis. OPINION AND ORDER

651 F.Supp.2d 219 (2009) SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Civ. Action No. 05-2575 (KSH). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. August 28, 2009. *221 William J. O'Shaughnessy, Richard Hernandez, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, NJ, Charles W. Hall, William S. Lee, Nancy T.

OPINION BUSH, Judge. This matter comes before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I, IV and V is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts I and IV-VI of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is also granted in part and denied in part.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Supplement and/or Complete the Administrative Record, and for Limited Discovery, filed November 25, 2013 (Doe. 106) (“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on November 7, 2014. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Plaintiffs have shown that Defendant United States Forest Service acte

ORDER LEONARD T. STRAND, United States Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This case is before me on a motion (Doc. No. 25) by plaintiff the United States of America (USA) to dismiss without prejudice. Claimants Carole Hinders and Mrs. Lady’s Inc. (Claimants) have filed a resistance (Doc. No. 28) in which they contend, among other things, that any dismissal of this action must b

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Federal Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, filed February 7, 2013 (Doc. 53)(“Motion to Reconsider”). The Court held a hearing on July 26, 2013. The primary issue is whether the Court should reconsider the portion of its earlier Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed J

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION1 JAMES 0. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dis-*1020misa Count 1 for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, filed February 18, 2013 (Doc. 55)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on July 26, 2013. The primary issue

747 F.Supp.2d 49 (2010) FIDELITY INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY ADVISOR A FUND, LLC, BY the TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Fidelity High Tech Advisor a Fund, LLC, by the Tax Matters Partner, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant. Civil Nos. 05-40151-FDS, 06-40130-FDS, 06-40243-FDS, 06-40244-FDS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

219 F.Supp.2d 403 (2002) UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY and American Home Assurance Company, Plaintiffs, v. BRASPETRO OIL SERVICES COMPANY, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd. (formerly known as Bank of Tokyo Ltd.-Japan), and Long Term Credit Bank of Japan, Ltd., Defendants. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company and American Home Assurance Company, Plaintiffs, v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. — Petrobras, et al., Defendants.<

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge: David Jack Vogt, Jr. appeals from a final judgment and commitment order entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of a RICO violation under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), and of conspiring to defraud the government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. We affirm his conviction on both counts. I In the light most

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. BACKGROUND 370 A. Plaintiffs Motion in Limine 372 B. Has Defendant Furnished an Accounting? 373 II. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 374 A. Claims 1 and 2 375 B. Claims 3 and 4 378 III. THE NON-ACCOUNTING CLAIMS 378 A. Expendit

118 F.Supp. 621 (1953) UNITED STATES v. MORGAN et al. Civ. A. No. 43-757. United States District Court, S. D. New York. October 14, 1953. *622 *623 *624 Victor H. Kramer, Washington, D. C., Richard B. O'Donnell, New York City, Walter K. Bennett, Margaret H.

BESOSA, District Judge. Before the Court is claimant Reimundo Román-Benjamín ("Román")'s motion for attorney's fees pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 ("CAFRA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2465 et seq. (Docket No. 10.) For the reasons set forth below, Román's motion for attorney's fees is D