City of N.Y. v. Golden Feather Smoke Shop, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 June 2013
• Docket Number: 08-CV-03966 (CBA) (JMA)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
• Parties: THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN FEATHER SMOKE SHOP, INC., KIMO SMOKE SHOP, INC., SMOKE AND ROLLS INC., SHAWN MORRISON, KIANA MORRISON, in her individual capacity, MONIQUE'S SMOKE SHOP, ERNESTINE WATKINS, in her individual capacity, JESSEY WATKINS, WAYNE HARRIS, PEACE PIPE SMOKE SHOP, RODNEY MORRISON, Sr., CHARLOTTE MORRISON, in her individual capacity, RED DOT & FEATHERS SMOKE SHOP, INC., RAYMOND HART, in his individual capacity, SMOKING ARROW SMOKE SHOP, DENISE PASCHALL, in her individual capacity, TONY D. PHILLIPS, TDM DISCOUNT CIGARETTES, and THOMASINA MACK, in her individual capacity, Defendants.

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff,

v. GOLDEN FEATHER SMOKE SHOP, INC., KIMO SMOKE SHOP, INC.,SMOKE AND ROLLS INC., SHAWN MORRISON, KIANA MORRISON,in her individual capacity, MONIQUE'S SMOKE SHOP, ERNESTINE WATKINS,in her individual capacity, JESSEY WATKINS, WAYNE HARRIS, PEACE PIPESMOKE SHOP, RODNEY MORRISON, Sr., CHARLOTTE MORRISON,in her individual capacity, RED DOT & FEATHERS SMOKE SHOP, INC.,RAYMOND HART, in his individual capacity, SMOKING ARROW SMOKE SHOP,DENISE PASCHALL, in her individual capacity, TONY D. PHILLIPS, TDM DISCOUNTCIGARETTES, and THOMASINA MACK, in her individual capacity, Defendants.

08-CV-03966 (CBA) (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

June 20, 2013

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM

& ORDER^*

AMON, Chief United States District Judge.

The City of New York ("the City") initiated this action against the above-captioned defendants, individuals and businesses engaged in the sale of cigarettes from the Poospatuck Indian Reservation in Mastic, New York (the "Poospatuck Reservation" or the "Reservation"), where members of the Unkechauge Indian Nation reside. The City contends principally that defendants violated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act ("CCTA"), 18 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq., and the Cigarette Marketing Standards Act ("CMSA"), N.Y. Tax Law § 483 et seq., by engaging in bulk re-sales of cigarettes on which State and City taxes have not been paid ("unstamped cigarettes") to the public, either directly or through trafficker intermediaries.Several defendants have entered into consent orders pursuant to which they will no longer engage in or benefit from transactions with unstamped cigarettes. (See DE #138, 398, 412, 418.) Against the remaining defendants, the City seeks a permanent injunction against their purchase, receipt, possession, sale, distribution, offer and advertisement of unstamped cigarettes, damages, civil penalties and attorney's fees. In the midst of multiple rounds of motion practice and some discovery, the Court previously preliminarily enjoined defendants' sales of unstamped cigarettes other than to members of the Unkechauge Nation for their personal use. City of New York v. Golden Feather Smoke Shop, Inc. ("Golden Feather II"), No. 08-CV-3966, 2009 WL 2612345 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2009). Although it has since revisited the viability of the preliminary injunction in light of various legal developments, the Court has declined to vacate or modify it. (DE # 353). The parties now cross-move for summary judgment.

The City argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the requested forms of relief because: (1) based on the undisputed facts, it has succeeded on the merits of its claims and demonstrated that defendants are likely to violate the CCTA and the CMSA in the future, thus warranting an injunction permanently enjoining defendants from engaging in any transactions with unstamped cigarettes; (2) the CCTA and CMSA authorize damages awards, and there are no disputed issues of fact with regards to the City's damages calculations; (3) the CCTA authorizes civil penalties, and defendants offer no legitimate basis for precluding them here; and (4) the CMSA authorizes attorney's fees and defendants' claims that the Court should not award them here are legally flawed.

Defendants Thomasina Mack and TDM Discount Cigarettes ("TDM") (collectively the "TDM defendants"), and Rodney Morrison, Charlotte Morrison and Peace Pipe Smoke Shop ("Peace Pipe") (collectively the "Peace Pipe defendants"), contend that the City's case should bedismissed with prejudice because the City cannot establish that their alleged violations of the CCTA have actually or proximately caused harm to the City, raising an issue of the City's standing. They dispute, moreover, that the City has demonstrated that there are no genuine issues of material fact warranting summary judgment in its favor; that the City's request for damages was properly pleaded; and that attorney's fees are appropriate.

Defendant Raymond Hart, the owner of Red Dot & Feathers Smoke Shop, Inc., later known as Red Dot Smokes (collectively "Red Dot"), asserts that Hart's "good faith" belief that he was not violating any tax laws or criminal statutes shields him from CCTA liability and warrants exemption from or mitigation of the amount of any penalty or tax assessment.

For the reasons below, the Court grants the City summary judgment as to defendants' liability under the CCTA and the CMSA. With respect to relief, the Court (1) grants the requested permanent injunction against defendants' "purchase, receipt, possession, sale, distribution, offer and advertisement of unstamped cigarettes—even to tribe members for personal use"; (2) awards damages as against the Peace Pipe and TDM defendants; (3) awards civil penalties as against the Red Dot defendants, the amount of which will be determined at a later hearing; and (4) awards the City attorney's fees, the amount of which will be determined in the first instance by Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack by report and recommendation.

BACKGROUND

I. The New York Cigarette Tax Scheme and Procedural History

To provide the necessary context, the Court sets forth below the relevant procedural history of this action and the legal developments in New York's cigarette tax scheme. Because the procedural history of this case intersects with a number of these legal developments—including decisions by the New York Court of Appeals and the Second Circuit and amendmentsto the New York Tax Law ("NYTL")—the Court summarizes the progress of both in tandem in roughly chronological order. Although the Court repeats some of the aspects of its prior orders in this action, some familiarity with the legal context and history of this litigation is assumed.

A. Basics of New York's Cigarette Tax Scheme

1. The imposition of cigarette tax on Native American cigarette sales

Article 20 of the NYTL imposes a tax on all cigarettes possessed for sale or use in New York State, except for those cigarettes that New York is "without power" to tax. See N.Y. Tax Law ("NYTL") § 471; Dep't of Taxation & Fin. of N.Y. v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc., 512 U.S. 61, 64 (1994). Under § 471, all cigarettes are presumed taxable "until the contrary is established." NYTL § 471(1). The City of New York also imposes its own cigarette tax pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code § 11-1302.

The State normally collects this cigarette tax through a system of prepayments where the cost of the tax is passed down the distribution chain. The process begins with State-licensed "stamping agents," usually wholesalers, who buy cigarettes from manufacturers and then pre-pay the State tax by purchasing tax stamps from the State and affixing them to cigarette packages as evidence of payment. This stamping system "mandates that these agents be the only entry point for cigarettes into New York's stream of commerce." Oneida Nation of N.Y. v. Cuomo, 645 F.3d 154, 158 (2d Cir. 2011). The tax burden is subsequently built into the cost of the cigarettes and thereby passed on to other wholesalers or retailers, such as defendants, and ultimately to the consumer. See NYTL § 471(2); In re N.Y. Assoc. of Convenience Stores v. Urbach, 92 N.Y.2d 204, 209 (1998). The purpose of this system is to prevent the widespread evasion of New York cigarette taxes. See Milhelm Attea, 512 U.S. at 75.

Due to the unique status of Native American tribes, however, federal and state governments lack authority to tax cigarettes sold to members of Native American tribes for their own consumption. New York is thus "without power" to tax cigarettes to be consumed on the reservation by enrolled tribal members, rendering cigarettes sold for that purpose tax-exempt. Milhelm Attea, 512 U.S. at 64. "On-reservation cigarette sales to persons other than reservation Indians, however, are legitimately subject to state taxation." Id. The specific mechanism for collecting taxes on cigarettes sold on qualified reservations is set forth in § 471-e of the NYTL.

On June 21, 2010, after the City commenced this action, the New York State Legislature amended NYTL §§ 471 and 471-e, focusing in large part on clarifying the cigarette tax scheme as related to Native American cigarette sales ("Tax Law Amendments" of "Amendments"). Both the pre-amendment framework and the post-amendment framework of the NYTL as applied to Native American cigarette sales are discussed below.

2. The CMSA and the cost of cigarettes

Through the CMSA, NYTL § 483 et seq., New York's cigarette tax is incorporated into a set of minimum price requirements for the sale of cigarettes within the state. The CMSA "prohibits the sale of cigarettes below cost when the seller intends thereby to harm competition or evade taxes." Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Roth, 99 N.Y.2d 316, 319 (2003). Specifically, the statute makes it unlawful for

any agent, wholesale dealer or retail dealer, with intent to injure competitors or destroy or substantially lessen competition, or with intent to avoid the collection or paying over of such taxes as may be required by law, to advertise, offer to sell, or sell cigarettes at less than the cost of such agent wholesale dealer or retail dealer, as the case may be.

NYTL § 484(a)(1). "Cost" is defined to include several components, which incorporates the added costs at each step in the supply chain. Most relevant to this case is the "cost of the retail dealer," which is the minimum price at which a retail dealer may sell cigarettes to a customer.

The CMSA defines the "cost of the retail dealer" as (1) the "basic cost of cigarettes," plus (2) "the cost of doing business by the retail dealer," plus (3) "the cost of doing business by the agent with respect to the sales of cigarettes to retail dealers." Id. § 483(b)(3)(A). The "basic cost of cigarettes," meanwhile, is defined as "the invoice cost of cigarettes to the agent who purchases from the manufacturer . . . less all trade discounts, except discounts for...