WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Case No. 5:05-CV-767-FL(3)
:
Plaintiff, :
: POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
v. : OF CLAIMANTS' MOTION FOR
: TRANSFER OF VENUE
$19, 985.90 in U.S. Currency, etc. :
:
Defendant. :
:
:
AVEDIS DJEREDJIAN, :
CARMEN BADRIAN, :
ASHKHEN DJEREDJIAN, AND :
STAR TOBACCO, INC., :
:
Claimants. :
____________________________________:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This civil forfeiture case arises from the same factual allegations that later gave rise to the criminal indictments of Claimants Avedis Djeredjian and Carmen Badrian in criminal case 5:06-CR-41.
From the time of the filing of the civil forfeiture case - November, 14, 2005 - the federal government has seized or restrained virtually all of the assets Avedis Djeredjian and Carmen Badrian own - as well as Avedis' mother's home, and a vehicle belonging to a corporation wholly owned by Avedis Djeredjian. These assets were all seized in California, where both claimants reside. The two parcels of real estate, which the government has restrained by filing a lis pendens - preventing their use to fund their defense - are both located in California. Because of the seizure and/or restraint of their property, claimants have run out of funds to pay their retained counsel of choice. After Carmen Badrian's indictment, she lacked the funds to hire counsel of choice and was given a court-appointed attorney.
On April 9, 2007, this Court granted Avedis Djeredjian's motion for transfer of venue, and transferred all pending motions in the criminal cases of both Avedis and his wife, Carmen Badrian, to the Central District of California. However, the list of pending motions which were transferred did not mention the pending motion for reconsideration of Claimants' motions for the release of assets to pay defense attorneys fees.(1)
Upon issuance of the order changing venue, Carmen Badrian's court-appointed criminal attorney notified her that he would no longer be able to represent her, so she is once again without counsel. Once again, she seeks release of assets so she can be represented by counsel of choice. Additionally, attorney Michael Mayock, who was retained by Avedis Djeredjian, is owed a substantial sum but is continuing to work on his defense in the hope that assets will be released soon. Claimants intend to renew their motion for the release of assets to pay attorneys fees in the criminal case once it gets docketed in the Central District.
ARGUMENT
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." Under 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b) a civil forfeiture action may be brought in the district where "any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture case occurred" or in any district where venue is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1395 - which includes where the action accrues, where the defendant is found, or where the property is found. All of these factors point to the Central District of California as an appropriate venue.
All of the reasons that justified change of venue of the criminal case apply equally to the civil forfeiture case. All of the claimants(2) and almost all of the witnesses in the forfeiture case are located in California. Claimants' counsel in the forfeiture case is located in California, and if assets are released, she will be entering an appearance in the criminal case as well.
Additionally, the pendency of a duplicative civil forfeiture case in one district, while a criminal forfeiture action goes forward in another presents a host of problems. If the forfeiture case is not transferred and defendants file a renewed motion for release of assets in the criminal case - as they intend to do since circumstances have changed - the court could not give the defendants complete relief because the assets would remain under restraint in the duplicative civil forfeiture case in North Carolina. If these cases are not consolidated before the same court, if either party appeals the decision on the pending motion for reconsideration, this case will be split between two circuits. Should the renewed motion for release of assets also result in an appeal in the criminal case, there would be two appeals pending simultaneously in different circuits.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons this civil forfeiture case and the pending motions for reconsideration should be transferred to the Central District of California.
Respectfully submitted,
BRENDA GRANTLAND, ESQ.
Attorney for Claimants
California State Bar No. 165899
20 Sunnyside Suite A-204
Mill Valley, CA 94941
415-380-9108
Fax 415-381-6105
W. Michael Mayock
Attorney for Avedis Djeredjian
California State Bar No. 54074
35 South Raymond Ave., Suite 400
Pasadena, CA 91105
(626) 405-1465
(626) 405-0158
mayocklaw@sbcglobal.net
__/s/ Joseph Zeszotarski, Esq. ___
Joseph Zeszotarski, Esq.
Local counsel
Poyner & Spruill
P.O. Box 10096
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-783-1005
fax 919-783-1075
State Bar No. 21310
LR 83.1 Counsel
1. That may be because, due to clerical error, the support staff failed to e-file the motions for release of assets in the criminal case docket as well as the civil docket. Claimants are attempting to correct this oversight by separate motion filed today in the criminal case.
2. Jason Gulvartian - the claimant who owns the East Colorado Street property which was recently added to the stayed civil forfeiture case - is also a California resident.