Attached is the case ofPeople v. Ramos. Please brief this case with the following format is mind and in conjunction with the page entitled "How to Brief Cases and Analyze Case Problems":
1.Facts: Start with a paragraph which gives the "relevant facts" of the case. Relevant facts are facts that are essential to the understanding and outcome of the case (1 paragraph consisting of 4-5 related sentences).
2.Issue
:State clearly and concisely the issue (what question has the court been asked to answer -- phrase you issue as a question (1 sentence).
3.Rule: State the rule of law that answers the issue (1-2 sentences).
4.Analysis: Briefly summarize the reasons given by the court for its decision. This element should be at least one paragraph (4-5 related sentences).
5.Conclusion: State the court's answer to the issue. This is usually 1-2 words.
Page 1 17 Cal.App.4th 1615, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 161 (Cite as: 17 Cal.App.4th 1615, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 161) © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California. The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. $400 etc., Defendant; Dionicio Ramos et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. F018707. Aug. 4, 1993. Certified for Partial Publication FN* FN* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976(b), this opinion is certified for pub- lication with the exception of parts I–C & II. Forfeiture proceedings were brought involving items seized in connection with arrest for sale of co- caine, which included currency, bank account and car. The Superior Court, Kern County, No. 220661,John I. Kelly and Roger D. Randall, JJ., granted government's motion to strike claimants' answer, and claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal held that claimants were required to verify their answer to the forfeiture complaint, even though they were also required to verify their claim. Affirmed. West Headnotes [1] Forfeitures 180 100 180 Forfeitures 180III Proceedings for Forfeiture 180k100 k. Pleadings and claims. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 180k5) If claimant to seized property wishes to challenge administrative forfeiture, claimant must file verified claim with superior court; once claim is filed, nonjudicial forfeiture terminates and forfeiture can only be achieved through judicial forfeiture proce- dure. West's Ann.Cal.Health & Safety Code § 11488.5(a, e). [2] Forfeitures 180 100 180 Forfeitures 180III Proceedings for Forfeiture 180k100 k. Pleadings and claims. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 180k5) Claimants to seized property were required to verify their answer to the forfeiture complaint, even though they were also required to verify their claim, unless answer fell within statutorily designated ex- ception. West's Ann.Cal.C.C.P. §§ 446, 590; West's Ann.Cal.Health & Safety Code §§ 11488.1, 11488.4(i). **162 *1617 Donnalee H. Huffman, Bakersfield, for defendants and appellants. Edward R. Jagels, Dist. Atty., and Michael J. Yraceburn, Deputy Dist. Atty., for plaintiff and re- spondent. OPINION THE COURT. FN** FN** Before Best, P.J., Stone (W.A.), J., and Thaxter, J. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PERTINENT http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CASTMR976&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CASTMR976&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0244249501&FindType=h http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0244249501&FindType=h http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0104846001&FindType=h http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=180 http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=180III http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=180k100 http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=180k100 http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=180k100 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS11488.5&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS11488.5&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=180 http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=180III http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=180k100 http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=180k100 http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=180k100 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS446&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS590&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS11488.1&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS11488.1&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS11488.4&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_17a3000024864 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0262479401&FindType=h http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0166878801&FindType=h http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0214782601&FindType=h http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=PROFILER-WLD&DocName=0214782601&FindType=h Page 2 17 Cal.App.4th 1615, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 161 (Cite as: 17 Cal.App.4th 1615, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 161) © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. FACTS On May 21, 1992, Delano police officers seized several items of property in connection with an arrest for sale of cocaine. Seized were $400 and $42 in U.S. currency, $8,445.56 cash from a Bank of America account, and a 1990 Acura 2–door sedan, Vehicle Identification No. JH4DA9460LS010441. On May 27, 1992, apparently after receiving no- tice of forfeiture, appellants Jose Velasco and Sharely Rosete filed a verified claim opposing forfeiture of the $442 in cash. On the same date, appellant Fe Ramos filed a verified claim opposing forfeiture of the $8,445.56 seized from Bank of America as well as a joint verified claim with appellant FN1 Dionicio Ramos opposing forfeiture of the 1990 Acura sedan. Fe Ra- mos and Dionicio Ramos were the registered and legal owners of the vehicle. FN1. All claimants are referred to herein collectively as “appellants” unless otherwise noted. On July 8, 1992, the Kern County District At- torney (respondent herein) filed a complaint for for- feiture in Kern County Superior Court, invoking the *1618 provisions of Health and Safety Code sections 11488.4 and 11488.5 with respect to each item of property seized. The complaint alleged the property had been used in connection with the sale, manufac- ture, and possession of cocaine, and each of the ap- pellants knew or should have known this. On July 30, 1992, appellants filed their unverified answer to the complaint, admitting the value of the property and the fact of seizure. All other allegations of the complaint were denied. On August 11, 1992, respondent filed a motion to strike the answer and for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that appellants had failed to verify their answer as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 446. Appellants filed their opposition to the motion and the matter was heard and submitted on August 31, 1992. The motion was granted on September 1, 1992. An order striking the answer and entering judgment of forfeiture was filed on September 15, 1992. Appellants filed their timely notice of appeal on October 22, 1992. DISCUSSION Appellants contend the trial court abused its dis- cretion in granting the motion to strike because the forfeiture statute requires only that the claim opposing forfeiture be verified; it does not require that the an- swer be verified. Respondent counters that verifica- tion is required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 446. Appellants also contend even if the answer should have been verified, it was an abuse of discretion not to grant leave to amend. We disagree and affirm the judgment. I. VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED A. The Statutory Scheme Health and Safety Code sections 11470–11489 set forth the provisions of state law **163 which allow for the seizure and forfeiture of property used for, and proceeds traceable to, unlawful drug transactions. (People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1, 5, 277 Cal.Rptr. 672; *1619People v. Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Seventeen Dollars (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 720, 723, 268 Cal.Rptr. 450.) The statute is comparable to the federal forfeiture scheme. FN2 (Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, 21 U.S.C. § 881 et seq.; People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d 1, 6, 277 Cal.Rptr. 672; Nasir v. Sacramento County Off. of the Dist. Atty. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 976, 983, 15 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS11488.4&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS11488.4&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS11488.5&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS446&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS446&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS446&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS446&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS11470&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS11489&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991030951 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991030951 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991030951 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991030951 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1990071469 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1990071469 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1990071469 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=21USCAS881&FindType=L http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991030951 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991030951 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991030951 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=3484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992214658 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=3484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992214658 http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=CAMP1.0&vr=2.0&DB=3484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992214658 Page 3 17 Cal.App.4th 1615, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 161 (Cite as: 17 Cal.App.4th 1615, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 161) © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Cal.Rptr.2d 694.) FN2. Generally, pleadings are not verified in federal practice. (Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., rule 11; Albert Dickinson Co. v. Mellos Peanut Co. (7th Cir.1950) 179 F.2d 265; Federal Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Moon (D.Okla.1976) 412 F.Supp. 644.) We found no federal case addressing the issue raised by appellants. The statute provides for both judicial and nonjudicial forfeiture. Section 11488.4 of the Health and Safety Code allows the government to obtain forfeiture without judicial involvement when there is no objection and when the value of the property is small (under $100,000). [1] If an individual claiming an interest in prop- erty seized wishes to challenge the administrative forfeiture, he or she must file a verified claim with the superior court. (Health & Saf.Code, § 11488.5, subd. (a).) Once the claim is filed, nonjudicial forfeiture terminates and forfeiture can only be achieved through the judicial forfeiture procedure. (People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at pp. 6–7, 277 Cal.Rptr. 672; Nasir v. Sacramento County Off. of the Dist. Atty., supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at pp. 983–984, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 694; Health & Saf.Code, § 11488.5, subd. (e).) Appellants filed their verified claims in May 1992. After receiving appellants' verified claims, re- spondent filed a complaint in superior court, thereby initiating judicial forfeiture proceedings. Under the statute, appellants were required to answer the com- plaint within 30 days after service, which they did. The instant dispute arises because appellants failed to verify their answer. B. Code of Civil Procedure Section 446 There is no express provision in the forfeiture statute requiring a verified answer. The statute ex- pressly requires only that the claim be verified