## Facts

- Ana Chretien owned a multi-tenant commercial building in Oakland, California located at 1840 Embarcadero (the defendant property).
- Chretien operated a security business from the building and provided security services connected to the property, including in the on-site parking lot used by tenants.
- Chretien leased space in the building to Harborside Health Center (Harborside), a large marijuana retailer that held a local permit to sell marijuana from the premises.
- The United States filed a civil in rem forfeiture action against the defendant property under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), alleging the property was used to commit or facilitate federal drug felonies.
- The government’s theory was that Harborside’s sales constituted unlawful distribution of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), including 21 U.S.C. § 841, and that the landlord’s leasing or making space available for that activity violated 21 U.S.C. § 856.
- Based on those alleged CSA violations, the government sought forfeiture of the real property and improvements as property used to commit or facilitate the unlawful distribution of marijuana.
- Claimants with asserted interests in the property included the owner/landlord (Chretien), Harborside, and secured or financial interest holders.
- While this forfeiture case was pending, related litigation by the City of Oakland sought to challenge the federal decision to pursue forfeiture; the forfeiture proceeding was managed in light of that related dispute, including orders addressing case scheduling and a stay during an appeal in the related matter.

## Issues

1. Whether the real property and improvements located at 1840 Embarcadero were subject to civil forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) on the theory that the premises were used to commit or facilitate CSA felonies involving marijuana distribution.
2. Whether leasing or otherwise making space available to Harborside for marijuana sales could constitute “facilitation” of a CSA felony sufficient to support forfeiture of the property.
3. Whether Harborside’s local permit and compliance with state or municipal medical-marijuana rules affected the federal forfeiture analysis based on alleged CSA violations.
4. Whether the district court should pause or stay the forfeiture action in light of closely related litigation that could affect how the forfeiture case proceeds.

## Decision

- The United States initiated a civil in rem forfeiture action against the 1840 Embarcadero property under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), based on alleged marijuana distribution and drug-premises violations under the CSA.
- The district court managed the case through procedural orders, including case-management scheduling.
- During the pendency of related litigation challenging the government’s pursuit of forfeiture, the district court stayed the forfeiture proceeding for a period while the related dispute proceeded on appeal.
- Publicly available summaries and docket-based materials do not reflect a widely published, merits-level decision in this forfeiture case resolving forfeiture, defenses, or final disposition of the res.

## Legal Principles

- Under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), real property may be forfeited if it is used, or intended to be used, to commit or facilitate the commission of a federal drug felony.
- The government may base forfeiture on alleged violations of the CSA, including marijuana distribution (21 U.S.C. § 841) and maintaining, leasing, or making available a place for drug distribution (21 U.S.C. § 856).
- State or local authorization to sell marijuana does not, by itself, bar application of federal CSA-based forfeiture theories to property allegedly used for federally prohibited conduct.
- In managing civil forfeiture litigation, a district court may enter scheduling orders and may stay proceedings to avoid duplication or conflict with related litigation that bears on how the forfeiture case should move forward.

## Conclusion

United States v. Real Property and Improvements Located at 1840 Embarcadero, Oakland, California, Case No. CV 12-3567 (2012), is a federal civil in rem forfeiture action in which the government sought forfeiture of an Oakland commercial building leased to Harborside based on alleged CSA violations, including marijuana distribution and making the premises available for that distribution; the case record reflected procedural management (including a stay tied to related litigation), and publicly available materials do not show a broadly published merits ruling finally deciding forfeiture in the action.
