United States v. Real Property Located at Incline Village, Brian J. Degen and Karyn Degen, Claimants-Appellants

Bad Law
47 F.3d 1511
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 5, 199593-16996California5,669 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hall, J.

Brian and Karyn Degen appeal from judgments entered against them in the district court on their claims to the defendant properties in this civil forfeiture action. The district court held in a published opinion that Brian Degen (hereinafter referred to as “Brian”) was “disentitled” from pursuing his claim to the defendant properties under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. See, e.g., United States v. $129,374 in United States Currency, 769 F.2d 583 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1086 , 106 S.Ct. 863 , 88 L.Ed.2d 901 (1986). Two and one-half years later, the district court entered judgment against Karyn Degen (“Karyn”) pursuant to Local Rule 140-6 of the District of Nevada, which provides in part that the failure of a party to file an opposition to a motion “shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” The district court entered judgment under this rule when Karyn failed to file a response to the government’s summary judgment motion against her, despite receiving several extensions of time and being warned that the court intended to invoke Local Rule 140-6.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and now affirm as to both appellants.

FACTS AND…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.