Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00468-JLS-POR

Document 16

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 1 of 4

KIRT J. HOPSON Attorney at Law 9844 South Paramount Boulevard Downey, California 90240-3874 (562) 861-6313 State Bar No. 111091 Attorney for Claimant BLANCA IRENE CARDOZA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, -vsONE 2006 NISSAN ARMADA SUV, CA LICENSE NO. 5RQF180, VIN 5N1AA08A76N717100, ITS TOOLS AND APPURTENANCES, Defendant.

BLANCA IRENE CARDOZA, Claimant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil No. 08-CV-0468-JLS(POR) ANSWER OF CLAIMANT BLANCA IRENE CARDOZA TO COMPLAINT FOR FORFEITURE, AND, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Claimant BLANCA IRENE CARDOZA ("Claimant"), in answer to the Complaint For Forfeiture which is filed in the above-captioned case, hereby admits, denies, and alleges, as follows: 1. Answering Paragraphs 1, 2, and 9, of the Complaint,

Claimant admits each and every allegation contained therein. /// /// 1 ///

Case 3:08-cv-00468-JLS-POR

Document 16

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 2 of 4

2.

Answering Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, of the

Complaint, Claimant denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 3. Answering Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Claimant lacks

sufficient information or knowledge to enable her to answer same, and, on that ground, denies each and every allegation contained therein. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to

constitute a forfeiture against the Defendant vehicle and this answering Claimant, thus barring any right on the part of the Plaintiff to a judgment for, and enforcement of, the forfeiture asserted therein. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. Plaintiff has not established that there is probable

cause to believe that the Defendant vehicle was involved in any criminal wrongdoing. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. Any and all evidence to be used by Plaintiff in support

of forfeiture of the Defendant vehicle was seized in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth, Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the federal case law construing same. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. Claimant's interest in the Defendant vehicle was

acquired in good faith and by lawful means. /// /// 2 ///

Case 3:08-cv-00468-JLS-POR

Document 16

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 3 of 4

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. The forfeiture of Claimant's interest in the Defendant

vehicle would constitute an excessive fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. Claimant's interest in the Defendant vehicle is that

of an innocent owner within the meaning of subsection (d) of section 983 of Title 18 of the United States Code. WHEREFORE, Claimant prays that: 1. 2. Plaintiff take nothing by its action; The Defendant vehicle be returned to the possession of

Claimant forthwith, together with such amount as to compensate Claimant for the loss of its use; 3. Claimant recover her costs of suit and attorney's fees

incurred herein; and, 4. Claimant have such other and further relief as the

Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: July 15, 2008

s/ KIRT J. HOPSON Attorney for Claimant BLANCA IRENE CARDOZA

3

Case 3:08-cv-00468-JLS-POR

Document 16

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 4 of 4

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Claimant BLANCA IRENE CARDOZA hereby demands a trial by jury of the above-captioned case, in accordance with the United States Constitution and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: July 15, 2008

s/ KIRT J. HOPSON Attorney for Claimant BLANCA IRENE CARDOZA

4