civil-litigation court-watch

Judge Brinkema signs consent order of forfeiture involving Erlinda Ramos-Bobadilla

Active Court order issued Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema signed a consent order of forfeiture involving Erlinda Ramos-Bobadilla on March 28, 2023. The order reflects agreement on forfeiture terms without contest.

Latest development

Consent ORDER of Forfeiture as to Erlinda Ramos-Bobadilla.. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 3/28/23. (yguy) (Entered: 03/28/2023)

Order · May 10, 2026

Judge Leonie issued an order.

Key Issues

  • Consent order
  • Forfeiture
  • Erlinda Ramos-Bobadilla
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
fact_check

Docket Snapshot

account_balance

Court

Court not identified

Awaiting court metadata

tag

Docket

Not captured

Civil

timeline

Stage

Court order issued

Active

event

Filed

Date unavailable

Not in the available feed

new_releases

Latest Filing

Consent ORDER of Forfeiture as to Erlinda Ramos-Bobadilla.. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 3/28/23.

Order · May 11, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

0 articles

0 sources tracked

groups

Participants

1 Presiding Judge

1 linked entity

gavel

Judge

Leonie M. Brinkema

What the record shows

The court metadata has not been resolved yet, so Juryvine is keeping the page conservative until a reliable court match lands.

The newest docket activity we have is a order dated May 11, 2026.

The visible party/entity graph currently includes Leonie M. Brinkema.

No independent press coverage is attached yet; this page is currently docket-led rather than media-led.

chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 1 day, 18 hours ago

The court entered a Consent Order of Forfeiture against Erlinda Ramos-Bobadilla on March 28, 2023. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema signed the order, formalizing the forfeiture agreement.

The order resolves the forfeiture claims tied to Ramos-Bobadilla, though the underlying facts and claims remain undisclosed in the public docket. The case remains active, but the forfeiture marks a significant procedural milestone. The court has not released additional filings or rulings clarifying the scope or assets involved in the forfeiture.

Judge Brinkema’s involvement signals this matter is before a federal district court, but the specific district is not identified in the available records. The case’s next steps likely involve addressing any remaining claims or enforcement actions related to the forfeiture.

The docket lacks detailed filings, so the forfeiture order stands as the most recent substantive development. This order may conclude the government’s claims against Ramos-Bobadilla or set the stage for related proceedings involving other parties or assets. The absence of public filings limits insight into the broader litigation context or potential appeals.

The case remains open, but the forfeiture order narrows the dispute to the terms agreed upon by the parties and approved by the court.

smart_toy Juryvine case narrative generated from the full docket timeline. How we verify our work.

update What Changed This Week

1 event
gavel
Order 1 day ago
Judge Leonie issued an order.
receipt_long Source expand_more

Consent ORDER of Forfeiture as to Erlinda Ramos-Bobadilla.. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 3/28/23. (yguy) (Entered: 03/28/2023)

Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

1 event
gavel
Order May 10, 2026

Consent ORDER of Forfeiture as to Erlinda Ramos-Bobadilla.. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 3/28/23. (yguy) (Entered: 03/28/2023)

Judge Leonie issued an order.

Advertisement
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

0 outlets · 0 articles

Timeline events

1 record on file

Last updated

8 hours, 53 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.