35 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 219,512 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 114,772 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them
Rand v. Rowland
154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 6,707 times
Holding that the appellant "may well have fared better [with appointed counsel]—particularly in the realms of discovery and the securing of expert testimony—but this is not the test"
Nissan Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Co.
210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 4,448 times
Holding that once the moving party carries its initial burden of production, "the nonmoving parties were obligated to produce evidence in response"
Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles
782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 5,781 times
Holding that in exercising its power to control its own docket, the Court may impose sanctions
LSR Consulting, LLC ex rel. Karna v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
835 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 2016) Cited 141 times
Finding that affidavits were properly admitted because they "contain sufficiently specific statements for the district court to infer that the affiants had personal knowledge of the facts attested therein"
Marchand v. Mercy Med. Ctr.
22 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 1994) Cited 161 times
Holding Rule 37 sanctions appropriate where party denied admission but had "no reasonable basis" for doing so
F.T.C. v. Medicor Llc.
217 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (C.D. Cal. 2002) Cited 76 times
Finding that even if earnings representations were qualified with the statement "results may vary," consumers could reasonably believe that the statements of earnings potential represented typical or average earnings
United States v. Funds in the Amount of $574,840
719 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2013) Cited 42 times 2 Legal Analyses
Observing that “[i]t's all too easy for someone who has no colorable claim to property in government hands to file a claim in the forfeiture proceeding.... Rule G provides an escape hatch for the government by allowing it to respond to the claim with a motion to strike ...”
U.S. v. 2204 Barbara Lane
960 F.2d 126 (11th Cir. 1992) Cited 65 times
Finding no fact dispute based on deemed admissions under Rule 36
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 334,280 times 159 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 2 - Principals
18 U.S.C. § 2 Cited 24,189 times 58 Legal Analyses
Holding aiders and abettors punishable as principals under federal criminal law
Section 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
18 U.S.C. § 371 Cited 21,782 times 142 Legal Analyses
Requiring proof of an "act to effect the object of the conspiracy"
Section 1956 - Laundering of monetary instruments
18 U.S.C. § 1956 Cited 9,553 times 144 Legal Analyses
Defining “specified unlawful activity” to include, inter alia, controlled substance violations, murder, bribery, smuggling, various forms of fraud, concealment of assets, various environmental offenses, and health care offenses
Rule 36 - Requests for Admission
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 Cited 6,245 times 13 Legal Analyses
Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"
Section 1344 - Bank fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1344 Cited 5,035 times 60 Legal Analyses
Defining the maximum prison terms for wire fraud that affects a financial institution and bank fraud, which define the penalties for the conspiracy crime that Anderson pleaded guilty to according to 18 U.S.C. § 1349, as "not more than 30 years"
Section 981 - Civil forfeiture
18 U.S.C. § 981 Cited 3,810 times 33 Legal Analyses
Adopting 19 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq.
Section 1957 - Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity
18 U.S.C. § 1957 Cited 3,394 times 41 Legal Analyses
Finding an error in the trial court's jury instructions harmless "[b]ecause overwhelming evidence support[ed] the jury's finding" of guilt
Section 1345 - United States as plaintiff
28 U.S.C. § 1345 Cited 2,981 times 3 Legal Analyses
Granting the district courts jurisdiction over "all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States"
Section 983 - General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings
18 U.S.C. § 983 Cited 2,840 times 8 Legal Analyses
Noting that for purposes of the innocent owner defense to civil forfeiture, "no person may assert an ownership interest under this subsection in contraband or other property that it is illegal to possess"

United States of America v. Ten Parcels of Real Property (Vacant Lots) Located in San Bernardino County, California

35 Cited authorities

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

Holding that the appellant "may well have fared better [with appointed counsel]—particularly in the realms of discovery and the securing of expert testimony—but this is not the test"

Holding that once the moving party carries its initial burden of production, "the nonmoving parties were obligated to produce evidence in response"

Holding that in exercising its power to control its own docket, the Court may impose sanctions

Finding that affidavits were properly admitted because they "contain sufficiently specific statements for the district court to infer that the affiants had personal knowledge of the facts attested therein"

Holding Rule 37 sanctions appropriate where party denied admission but had "no reasonable basis" for doing so

Finding that even if earnings representations were qualified with the statement "results may vary," consumers could reasonably believe that the statements of earnings potential represented typical or average earnings

Observing that “[i]t's all too easy for someone who has no colorable claim to property in government hands to file a claim in the forfeiture proceeding.... Rule G provides an escape hatch for the government by allowing it to respond to the claim with a motion to strike ...”

Finding no fact dispute based on deemed admissions under Rule 36

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Holding aiders and abettors punishable as principals under federal criminal law

Requiring proof of an "act to effect the object of the conspiracy"

Defining “specified unlawful activity” to include, inter alia, controlled substance violations, murder, bribery, smuggling, various forms of fraud, concealment of assets, various environmental offenses, and health care offenses

Noting that facts admitted pursuant to a Rule 36 discovery request are "conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended"

Defining the maximum prison terms for wire fraud that affects a financial institution and bank fraud, which define the penalties for the conspiracy crime that Anderson pleaded guilty to according to 18 U.S.C. § 1349, as "not more than 30 years"

Adopting 19 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq.

Finding an error in the trial court's jury instructions harmless "[b]ecause overwhelming evidence support[ed] the jury's finding" of guilt

Granting the district courts jurisdiction over "all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States"

Noting that for purposes of the innocent owner defense to civil forfeiture, "no person may assert an ownership interest under this subsection in contraband or other property that it is illegal to possess"