MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. Introduction Plaintiff United States of America commenced this forfeiture action against defendant property $4,183,402.74 in United States currency seized from Regions Bank account *1113, in the name of R.S. IOTA Trust Acct and $722,327.52 in United States currency seized from Regions General Ledger *200 bearing Cost Code (CC) *300. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Pending is claimant Richard Stuart Ross’s motion to lift stay, (Dkt. No. 39), Ross’s petition to release $1,213,113.11 of the defendant property (hereinafter “the Contested Funds”), (Dkt. No. 8), the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against the Contested Funds, (Dkt. No. 44), Ross’s crossmotion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the Contested Funds, (Dkt. No. 51), and the government’s motion for an entry of default with respect to the other $3,692,617.15 of the defendant property (hereinafter “the Uncontested Funds”), (Dkt. No. 28). For the reasons that follow, the stay is lifted, the government’s motions for default as to the Uncontested Funds and motion to dismiss as to the Contested Funds are granted, and Ross’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to release the Contested Funds are denied as moot. II. Background The government commenced this civil forfeiture proceeding by filing a verified complaint. (Compl.); see Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions G(2). The Clerk then issued an arrest warrant in rem. (Dkt. No. 2.) The government sent a copy of the complaint, warrant, and notice of complaint to all known potential claimants, and published public notice of this action on an official government forfeiture website for thirty consecutive days. (Dkt. No. 28, Attach. 1
5-6.) Ross and Company 1 both filed notices of claim to the Contested Funds. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 11.) There were no claims to the Uncontested Funds filed. (Dkt. No. 28, Attach. 1 11.) In July 2022, the government requested a stay of the action, (Dkt. No. 34), which this court granted, (Dkt. No. 38). III. Standards of Review A. Motion for Default “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides a two-step process that the [c]ourt must follow before it may enter a default judgment.” United States v. $179,710 in U.S. Currency, No. 1:20-CV-1607, 2021 WL 5961312, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2021) (citation omitted). “First, under Rule 55(a), when a party fails to plead or otherwise defend…the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Second, under Rule 55(b)(2), the party seeking default judgment must present its application for an entry of judgment to the court. See $179,710 in U.S. Currency, 2021 WL 5961312, at *2 (citation omitted). “Notice of the application must be sent to the defaulting party so that it has an opportunity to show cause why the court should not enter a default judgment.” Id. (citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). “When an action presents more than one claim for relief…, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties…if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” $179,710 in U.S. Currency, 2021 WL 5961312, at *2 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). In considering a motion for default judgment, a court “[m]ust accept[] as true all of the factual allegations of the complaint. However, the court cannot construe the damages alleged in the complaint as true. Rather, the court must conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain the amount of damages with reasonable certainty.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Ascertaining such an amount requires two steps: “[1] determining the proper rule for calculating damages on such a claim, and [2] assessing plaintiff’s evidence supporting the damages to be determined under this rule.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). When calculating damages, the court does not need to find that the facts alleged by plaintiff “constitute a valid cause of action.” Id. (quoting Au Bon Pain, 653 F.2d at 65). B. Voluntary Dismissal Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, after an answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request except where all parties have signed a stipulation of dismissal, or upon order of the court.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B), (a)(2); D’Alto v. Dahon Cal., Inc., 100 F.3d 281, 283 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Once a defendant has answered the complaint, a plaintiff may no longer dismiss an action as a matter of right.”). Rule 41(a) further provides that, unless the stipulation or order states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B), (a)(2). Generally, a district court may exercise its discretion to permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) “if the [opposing party] will not be prejudiced thereby.” Correspondent Servs. Corp. v. First Equities Corp. of Fla., 338 F.3d 119, 126 (2d Cir. 2003); see Paulino v. Taylor, 320 F.R.D. 107, 109 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“Voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not a matter of right. However, the presumption in this circuit is that a court should grant a dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) absent a showing that [the opposing party] will suffer substantial prejudice as a result” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The decision whether to grant a Rule 41(a) motion for voluntary dismissal lies within the sound discretion of the court, see Catanzano v. Wing, 277 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2001), and is to be ordered “on terms that the court considers proper,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). C. Certificate of Reasonable Cause Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2465(a)(2): Upon the entry of a judgment for the claimant in any proceeding to condemn or forfeit property seized or arrested under any provision of Federal law…if it appears that there was reasonable cause for the seizure or arrest, the court shall cause a proper certificate thereof to be entered and, in such case, neither the person who made the seizure or arrest nor the prosecutor shall be liable to suit or judgment on account of such suit or prosecution, nor shall the claimant be entitled to costs, except as provided in [a later subsection]. D. Judgment on the Pleadings “The standard for addressing a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Wright v. Monroe Cmty. Hosp., 493 F. App’x 233, 234 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). That standard of review is well settled and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the governing standard, the court refers the parties to its prior decision in Ellis v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 701 F. Supp. 2d 215, 218 (N.D.N.Y. 2010), abrogated on other grounds by Altman v. J.C. Christensen & Assocs., Inc., 786 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2015). IV. Discussion As a preliminary matter, Ross’s motion to lift the stay, (Dkt. No. 39), which the government does not oppose, (Dkt. No. 43), is granted. A. Motion for Partial Default Regarding the government’s motion for partial default, (Dkt. No. 28), the court has reviewed both the verified complaint, (Dkt. No. 1), and the government’s affidavit in support, (Dkt. No. 28, Attach. 1). For the reasons noted by the government, (Dkt. No. 28, Attach. 1
