United States of America v. $110,000 in US Currency

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
$110,000 IN US CURRENCY,
Defendant.
No. 4:25-CV-01109
(Chief Judge Brann)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MARCH 17, 2026
I. 	BACKGROUND
In June 2025, the United States of America (“United States”) filed a complaint
for forfeiture in rem related to approximately $110,000 that it had previously seized
from Joseph Louis Ortiz (the “Property”).1 In November 2025, upon motion from the
United States, a warrant of arrest in rem was issued by this Court.2 Later that month the
United States submitted proof that the complaint had been served on Ortiz by certified
mail, and that a notice of forfeiture had been published on an official Government
website for thirty days.3
To date, no answer has been filed to the complaint, and no claims related to the
Property have been submitted. In December 2025, the United States moved for an entry
1 	Doc. 1.
2 	Doc. 6.
3 	Docs. 7, 8.
Case 4:25-cv-01109-MWB Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 12

2
of default,4 and default was subsequently entered by the Clerk of Court.5 In January
2026, the United States filed this motion for default judgment.6 No response has been
filed, and the motion is now ripe for disposition. For the following reasons, the motion
will be granted.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Whether Default Judgment is Warranted
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 allows a district court to enter default
judgment upon application by a party.7 “Generally, the entry of a default judgment is
disfavored, and a court is required to exercise sound judicial discretion in deciding
whether to enter default judgment.”8 “This element of discretion makes it clear that the
party making the request is not entitled to a default judgment as of right, even when
defendant is technically in default and that fact has been noted under Rule 55(a).”9
“Three factors control whether a default judgment should be granted: (1)
prejudice to the plaintiff if default is denied, (2) whether the defendant appears to have
a litigable defense, and (3) whether defendant’s delay is due to culpable conduct.”10
“But when a defendant has failed to appear or respond in any fashion to the complaint,
this analysis is necessarily one-sided; entry of default judgment is typically appropriate
4 	Doc. 10.
5 	Doc. 11.
6 	Docs. 12, 13.
7 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
8 	Kibbie v. BP/Citibank, No. 3:08-CV-1804, 2010 WL 2573845, at *2 (M.D. Pa. June 23, 2010).
9 	10A Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND P ROCEDURE , § 2685
(Apr. 2020 Update).
10 	Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000).
Case 4:25-cv-01109-MWB Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 12

3
in such circumstances at least until the defendant comes forward with a motion to set
aside the default judgment under Rule 55(c).”11
A consideration of those factors favors a grant of default judgment. First, the
United States would be prejudiced by its “current inability to proceed with [its] action
due to [the] failure to defend.”12 This prejudice is amplified by “the fact that [the United
States] has no other remedy against the Defendant currency.”13 Similarly, the second
factor weighs in favor of default judgment. No one has “responded to the allegations
and,” accordingly, no one has “assert[ed] a defense.”14
Finally, there does not appear to be any excuse for a failure to respond to the
complaint or public notice regarding the Property. After the United States initiated this
action, it served Ortiz with the complaint and published notice that it was seeking to
arrest the Property.15 Because no responses have been filed and no parties have offered
an explanation for their failure to respond, the Court finds culpability.16 Therefore, the
Court finds that default judgment is appropriate under the circumstances.
11 	Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v. Strunz, No. 1:12-CV-01678, 2013 WL 122644, at *1 (M.D. Pa.
Jan. 9, 2013).
12 	Broad. Music, Inc. v. Kujo Long, LLC, No. 1:14-CV-00449, 2014 WL 4059711, at *1 (M.D.
Pa. Aug. 14, 2014).
13 	United States v. $16,010.00 in U.S. Currency, No. CIV.A. 11-945, 2011 WL 2746338, at *6
(D.N.J. July 13, 2011).
14 	Pesotski v. Summa & Iezzi, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00221, 2017 WL 3310951, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Aug.
3, 2017).
15 	Docs. 7, 8.
16 	See Laborers Loc. Union 158 v. Shaffer, No. 1:CV-10-1524, 2011 WL 1397107, at *1 (M.D.
Pa. Apr. 13, 2011).
Case 4:25-cv-01109-MWB Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 12

4
However, a finding that default judgment is warranted “is not the end of the
inquiry.”17 The Court must further consider whether the “unchallenged facts constitute
a legitimate cause of action.”18 The Court therefore analyzes whether the complaint
states a claim for relief.
B. 	Whether the Allegations Sufficiently State a Claim
1. 	Facts
The facts alleged in the amended complaint, which the Court must accept as true
for the purposes of determining whether the United States has stated a claim, are as
follows.
In the early morning hours of November 20, 2024, Pennsylvania State Police
(“PSP”) Officer Jeremy Hoy initiated a traffic stop of a white Honda CRV after having
observed that vehicle commit multiple 	traffic 	violations.19 	Hoy 	approached 	the
passenger side of the vehicle and noticed two large suitcases in the rear cargo area.20
Hoy obtained a driver’s license, registration and insurance from the driver,
Ortiz.21 After Hoy informed Ortiz of the traffic violations, Ortiz responded that he was
lost and that “Waze had him all over the place.”22 During this conversation Hoy smelled
17 	Martin v. Nat’l Check Recovery Servs., LLC, No. 1:12-CV-1230, 2016 WL 3670849, at *1
(M.D. Pa. July 11, 2016).
18 	Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Spring Mount Area Bavarian Resort, Ltd., 555 F.Supp.2d 537, 541
(E.D. Pa. 2008).
19 	Doc. 1 ¶ 11.
20 	Id. ¶ 12.
21 	Id.
22 	Id.
Case 4:25-cv-01109-MWB Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 4 of 12

5
marijuana odor emanating from the vehicle.23 Hoy asked Ortiz to sit inside of Hoy’s
vehicle while Hoy checked Ortiz’s information.24
While inside Hoy’s vehicle, Ortiz stated “that he and his wife, the passenger in
his vehicle, were traveling to Glendale, Arizona to spend Thanksgiving with family and
then to California, where he also has family.”25 When asked to confirm his current
address, Ortiz stated that his mother owned the address listed on Ortiz’s drivers’ license;
after being asked how long he had been married, Ortiz paused before stating that he had
been married for approximately one year.26
Ortiz informed Hoy that he worked “in a union building sets for tv shows and
movies and that he was off for about a month.”27 Ortiz stated that he and his wife were
traveling to Glendale, Arizona to spend Thanksgiving with his family before traveling
to California, where Ortiz also had family.28 He further informed Hoy that they were
looking for homes to purchase in Glendale, as they may move there soon.29 While Ortiz
waited outside Hoy’s vehicle, Hoy returned to Ortiz’s vehicle to speak with Ortiz’s
wife.
Ortiz’s wife, Nicole Martucci, informed Hoy that she and Ortiz were traveling to
Phoenix, Arizona, to spend Thanksgiving with Ortiz’s family.30 During that interaction
23 	Id.
24 	Id.
25 	Id. ¶ 13.
26 	Id.
27 	Id.
28 	Id.
29 	Id.
30 	Id. ¶ 14.
Case 4:25-cv-01109-MWB Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 5 of 12

6
Hoy could still smell marijuana emanating from Hoy’s vehicle.31 Upon returning to his
vehicle, Hoy inquired about the marijuana smell, and Ortiz stated that Martucci had
“just smoked.”32 When asked whether any marijuana remained, Ortiz stated that they
still had an eighth of an ounce remaining.33
Ortiz consented to a search of his vehicle.34 Hoy informed Martucci that Ortiz
had 	consented 	to 	a 	search 	and 	asked 	if 	she 	possessed 	marijuana; 	Martucci
acknowledged that she did and handed Hoy a bag of marijuana that she retrieved from
the passenger side floor.35 Martucci then nonverbally consented to a search of the
vehicle, whereupon Hoy asked her to exit the vehicle.36
Hoy searched the suitcases; those “were full of clothes, but not enough for the
reported length of the trip.”37 In the back seat was a box that contained approximately
thirty fentanyl drug tests, as well as a backpack that held two bundles of money—one
held one-dollar bills, while the other was mixed denominations with “10k” written on
the outside. 38
Hoy later opened the front driver’s side door and “noticed a loose panel under
the steering wheel, removed it, and observed a large vacuum sealed package of rubber
31 	Id.
32 	Id. ¶ 16.
33 	Id.
34 	Id. ¶ 17.
35 	Id. ¶ 18.
36 	Id.
37 	Id. ¶ 19.
38 	Id. ¶¶ 20-21.
Case 4:25-cv-01109-MWB Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 6 of 12

7
banded U.S. Currency.”39 Ortiz stated that the currency was his, that he had packaged
it, and that the package contained $100,000.40 Hoy detained Ortiz and requested that
Martucci follow them to the PSP barracks.41 Upon reaching the barracks, Hoy explained
to Ortiz and Martucci that they were being detained, but were not under arrest, and
informed them of their Miranda42 rights.43
Ortiz told law enforcement that he had obtained the cash found in his vehicle “by
working union, breeding dogs, and as part owner of a body shop.”44 He stated that he
earned approximately $120,000 per year.45 Ortiz further stated that he was bringing the
money with him to Arizona to purchase a house and, although he knew a realtor, he
could not recall the realtor’s name.46
Martucci stated that she knew nothing about the money found in the vehicle and
did not see Ortiz place it in the vehicle.47 Martucci informed Hoy that she lived with
Ortiz, but was unable to provide a clear address where she lived.48 Martucci reiterated
that they were traveling to Phoenix to see Ortiz’s family, and that they were planning
39 	Id. ¶ 22.
40 	Id. ¶ 23.
41 	Id. ¶ 24.
42 	Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
43 	Id. ¶¶ 25, 28.
44 	Id. ¶ 26.
45 	Id.
46 	Id. ¶ 27.
47 	Id. ¶ 28.
48 	Id. ¶ 29.
Case 4:25-cv-01109-MWB Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 7 of 12

8
to buy an investment property there.49 She stated that she earns approximately 35 to 40
thousand dollars per year.50
Later that afternoon, a PSP officer arrived with a drug detection canine that had
been “trained to detect odors of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.”51
“Prior to the scan, the defendant property was stored in multiple random locations
throughout the garage. During two separate passes, the Canine displayed alert and
indication behavior for narcotics on the seized currency but did not alter or indication
to the control currency.”52 In November 2025, an ion scan was conducted of the
Property, which “alarm[ed] for a high presence of narcotics, specifically cocaine.”53
2. 	Analysis
Turning to the question of whether these facts state a claim, the government bears
burden of demonstrating the existence of three elements:
(1) 	the 	subject 	property 	must 	be 	moneys, 	negotiable 	instruments,
securities, or other things of value; (2) there must be probable cause to
believe that there exists illicit drug activity that renders the seized property
subject to forfeiture; and (3) there must be probable cause to believe that
a connection, or nexus, exists between the seized property and the
predicate drug activity the government has identified.54
The second and third elements may be established where the Government
provides “probable cause to believe that the property at issue either: (1) was ‘furnished
49 	Id.
50 	Id.
51 	Id. ¶ 30.
52 	Id.
53 	Id. ¶ 31.
54 	United States v. Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars & No Cents in U.S. Currency, 258 F.3d
215, 222 (3d Cir. 2001).
Case 4:25-cv-01109-MWB Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 8 of 12

9
or intended to be furnished’ in exchange for a controlled substance; (2) constitutes
‘proceeds traceable’ to a drug exchange; or (3) was ‘used or intended to be used to
facilitate’ a violation of federal drug laws.”55 “The government may establish probable
cause for the existence of the underlying drug activities and the currency’s nexus to the
illicit conduct by relying on circumstantial evidence.”56
All three elements are sufficiently alleged by the complaint. First, the Property
quite obviously is money.57 Second and third, there is some evidence to establish
probable cause that the Property was connected to illicit drug activity. Much of the
currency was vacuum sealed and hidden behind a panel under the vehicle’s steering
wheel.58 Importantly, a trained drug detection canine alerted to the presence of narcotics
on the currency, but did not alert to control currency,59 and an ion scan revealed a
significant presence of cocaine on the Property.60 Furthermore, Ortiz and Martucci
provided inconsistent accounts of their travel. 61
This sufficiently establishes probable cause that the Property was connected to
drug trafficking, specifically, that it was proceeds traceable to drug trafficking.62
55 	Id. at 223 (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6)).
56 	Id.
57 	Doc. 1 ¶ 2.
58 	Id. ¶ 22.
59 	Id. ¶¶ 30.
60 	Id. ¶ 31.
61 	Id. ¶¶ 13, 14, 27, 29.
62 	See, e.g., United States v. $88,000.00 in United States Currency, No. CV 17-1439, 2018 WL
1217446, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 7, 2018) (currency “bundled in a manner indicative of how
drug-money couriers transport illegal drug proceeds” along with a “positive canine alert to
drug exposure” and fictitious account for source of currency sufficiently established probable
Case 4:25-cv-01109-MWB Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 9 of 12

10
Accordingly, the Government has met all three elements of this claim, and default
judgment is warranted.
C. 	Procedural Requirements for Forfeiture
Finally then, the Court considers whether the United States has complied with
the procedural requirements for an in rem forfeiture action. To properly bring such an
action, “the government must satisfy certain requirements.” 63
“First, the government must file a Verified Complaint that states the grounds for
subject-matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the defendant property, and
venue.”64 The complaint “must describe the property with reasonable particularity” and
“identify the statute under which the forfeiture action is brought and state sufficiently
detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its
burden of proof at trial.”65
“Second, if the property is already in a government agency’s possession, custody,
or control, the Clerk of the Court must issue a warrant to arrest the property before the
government can seize it from its administrative agency for any judicial forfeiture
proceedings.” 66 “Finally, the government must publish notice about the action for any
potential claimants of the property that it does not know and must directly notify any
cause), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 17-1439, 2018 WL 1183219 (W.D. Pa.
Mar. 7, 2018).
63 	$16,010.00 in U.S. Currency, 2011 WL 2746338, at *4.
64 	Id.
65 	Id.
66 	Id.
Case 4:25-cv-01109-MWB Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 10 of 12

11
potential claimants that it does know.”67 “For potential claimants of the property that
the government does not know, the government must publish notice within a reasonable
time after the Verified Complaint is filed, and it can publish notice on an official internet
government forfeiture site for at least thirty consecutive days.”68
These requirements have been met. The complaint states the grounds for subject-
matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the Property, and venue.69 It further describe
the Property with reasonable particularity and identifies the statute under which the
forfeiture action is brought.70 Moreover, as described above, the complaint sufficiently
details facts to support a reasonable belief that the United States will be able to meet its
burden of proof at trial.
Second, the Government moved for the Clerk of Court to issue an arrest warrant
for the Property, and such a warrant issued.71 Finally, the Government served a copy of
the complaint on Ortiz—the known potential claimant of the property—and published
notice for thirty days on a Government website for any unknown potential claimants.72
The 	Government 	has 	therefore 	adequately 	complied 	with 	the 	procedural
requirements for seeking in rem forfeiture. Consequently, the Court will enter default
judgment in its favor and award forfeiture.
67 	Id. at *5.
68 	Id.
69 	See Doc. 1.
70 	See id.
71 	Docs. 5, 6.
72 	Docs. 7, 8.
Case 4:25-cv-01109-MWB Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 11 of 12

12
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the United States is entitled
to default judgment. The motion will therefore be granted and an order of forfeiture will
be entered.
An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-01109-MWB Document 14 Filed 03/17/26 Page 12 of 12