Kirby v. Shaw, 19822.

• Decision Date: 24 March 1966
• Docket Number: No. 19822.,19822.
• Parties: Klaytan W. KIRBY, Appellant, v. Leslie N. SHAW, individually and as Post-master of the City of Los Angeles, State of California, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

358 F.2d 446 (1966)

Klaytan W. KIRBY, Appellant, v. Leslie N. SHAW, individually and as Post-master of the City of Los Angeles, State of California, Appellee.

No. 19822.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

March 24, 1966.

Edwin M. Rosendahl, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Manuel L. Real, U. S. Atty., Donald A. Fareed, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Civil Sec., Milan M. Dostal, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and MUECKE, District Judge.

BROWNING, Circuit Judge:

On November 23, 1962, following a full trial-type hearing, the Judicial Officer of the Post Office Department issued a fraud order under 74 Stat. 654 (1960), 39 U.S.C.A. § 4005,¹ denying use of the mails to appellant, who was doing business under the name "Science of Life," for the sale of pills called "Stagg Bullets." The order was based upon a finding that appellant had fraudulently misrepresented that the product was capable of restoring sexual potency.

On March 9, 1964, the General Counsel of the Department filed a petition with the Judicial Officer seeking the issuance of a "supplemental order" pursuant to Rule 30 of the Department's Rules of Practice applicable to fraud order proceedings, 39 C.F.R. § 201.30.²

The petition alleged that appellant was distributing through the mail an advertising circular "offering for sale essentially the same product based on essentially the same misrepresentations as previously employed." The product was now called "Formula AZ-696 Activators"; and was distributed by appellant under the name "Eroc Druid (G.A.)." The petition stated that "According to the report of our medical expert dated February 20, 1964, the formula of the current product is essentially the same as the product previously sold by appellant in the `Science of Life' enterprise and found to be just as worthless for the purposes advertised." A copy of the advertising circular was attached to the petition, but no copy of the medical report was attached.

Appellant filed an answer and application for hearing. He admitted the distribution of the circular attached to the petition, but denied "that his present product is either essentially the same product as that previously distributed or that such product is based on essentially the same misrepresentations or on any misrepresentations at all." He asserted that he lacked notice of the charges against him and was deprived of the opportunity to meet them in the absence of knowledge of the contents of the medical report upon which the general allegations in the petition were based. He requested a hearing, alleging that the difference in the chemical composition of the two products and the effect of "Activators" upon the human body would be established by the testimony of witnesses at the hearing. He stated that he would present testimony of expert witnesses to controvert any such witnesses produced by the General Counsel, and he listed three proposed witnesses by name: one a physician who "would testify to the chemical content and effect on the human body of appellant's product"; and two who "would testify as to the efficacy of appellant's product to negate fraud."

The General Counsel responded by filing a "supplemental petition." He opposed the hearing requested by appellant. He contended that the advertising circulars which were before the Judicial Officer established that the two products were sold under essentially the same representations. He asserted that the report of his medical expert (a Dr. Campbell), a copy of which was said to be attached to the "supplemental petition," established that the difference in ingredients had no therapeutic significance with respect to the purpose for which the products were offered. He argued that appellant's answer offered nothing but denials, and that "absent submission by appellant of a medical report or some acceptable medical affirmation tending to establish the alleged dissimilarity of products," no "triable issues exist."

Five days later, and before the "supplemental petition" had been served upon appellant, the Judicial Officer denied appellant's request for hearing and issued the order sought by the General Counsel. The Judicial Officer held that under Rule 30 a hearing was discretionary, and that no hearing was necessary in the circumstances of this case. On the merits, the Judicial Officer held that the two products, and the representations under which they were sold, were essentially the same. "Looking at the advertisements for `Stagg Bullets' and that of `Activators,'" the Judicial Officer wrote, "one can see that some changes have been made but they are not significant." As to the identity of the two products, the Judicial Officer continued, "The formula for `Stagg Bullets' and that of `Activators' is the same with the exception of the ingredient `damiana.' The directions are the same on both bottles." The Judicial Officer concluded, "The similarity of the advertisements, those of the formula, and those of the directions show that the present product is so much like the product of `Stagg Bullets' and the advertisements are so similar that the Judicial Officer hereby issues a supplemental fraud order to cover the name `Eroc Druid' at Los Angeles, California."

Appellant petitioned for revocation of the order. He alleged that he was not served with a copy of the General Counsel's "supplemental petition" until after the Judicial Officer's order was issued; and was not, even then, furnished with a copy of Dr. Campbell's report — notwithstanding the recitation in the "supplemental petition" that a copy was attached. Appellant contended that he was entitled by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and by the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act to notice of the contents of Dr. Campbell's report, to an opportunity to reply to the "supplemental petition," and to a hearing on the issues. Appellant's petition for revocation was denied. A copy of Dr. Campbell's report was mailed to appellant with the order of denial.³

Appellant brought suit in the district court to enjoin the enforcement of the order. Judgment was entered denying relief. We reverse.

Postal fraud proceedings under 39 U.S.C.A. § 4005 must comply with sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 239 (1946), 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 1004-1006 Cates v. Haderlein, 342 U.S. 804, 72 S.Ct. 47, 96 L.Ed. 609 (1951), reversing 189 F.2d 369 (7th Cir.); Olesen v. Stanard, 227 F.2d 785, 788 n.7 (9th Cir. 1955); see also Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S.Ct. 768, 770, 98 L.Ed. 1151 (1954) (Mr. Justice Douglas); Door v. Donaldson, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 188, 195 F.2d 764 (1952); see generally, Comment, 35 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1201 (1960); Cutler, 47 Nw.U.L.Rev. 72 (1952); and we see no basis for distinguishing, in this regard, between initial fraud order proceedings and "supplemental" ones.⁴

The government argues that the hearing requirement of section 5(b) of the Act was not applicable to the 1964 "supplemental" proceeding because the issues of fraud and identity of the violator had been finally determined in the 1962 proceeding, and the only issue before the Judicial Officer when a "supplemental" order was sought was "whether the same product or a similar product was being advertised with the same representation and by the same operator of the business." But even if we assume that the issue of actual intent to deceive Reilly v. Pinkus, 338 U.S. 269, 276-277, 70 S.Ct. 110, 94 L.Ed. 63 (1949); Brandenfels v. Day, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 374, 316 F.2d 375, 378 n. 4 (1963) could be decided without a hearing, the issue which the government propounds could be resolved only in accordance with the requirements of section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The burden rested upon the Post Office Department, as proponent of the order (60 Stat. 241 (1946), 5 U.S.C.A. § 1006(c)), to at least establish that the two products were essentially the same and were offered for sale by appellant on essentially the same representations. And with respect to these issues appellant was entitled to notice of the matters of fact asserted (60 Stat. 239 (1946), 5 U.S.C.A. § 1004(a) (3)), and, if the facts asserted were in good faith controverted, to an opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence and conduct cross-examination. 60 Stat. 241 (1946), 5 U.S.C.A. § 1006(c).

The government contends that summary proceedings are essential to prevent "fly-by-night" operators from evading the statute simply by changing the name, address, and inconsequential details of their fraudulent enterprise. The Department's claim of necessity has been subjected to searching criticism. See 31 Ind.L.J. 257, 266-68 (1956). Other remedies are available to the government Hart, 11 Food Drug Cosmetic L.J. 245, 258-60 (1956), including criminal sanctions. 62 Stat. 763 (1948) as amended, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341; 62 Stat. 763 (1948), 18 U.S.C.A. § 1342; see Comment, 35 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1201, 1204-05 (1960). Moreover, Congress has indicated that the power conferred upon the Postmaster General to refuse to deliver mail to persons conducting fraudulent schemes must be "zealously watched and strictly confined" Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 156 n. 18, 66 S.Ct. 456, 90 L.Ed. 586 (1946); see also Toberoff v. Summerfield, 256 F.2d 91, 94 (9th Cir. 1958); and there is substantial evidence that Congress intended to deny the Postmaster General the power, which he now asserts, to base such a final refusal upon a summary determination. In 1960 Congress adopted the provision now found in 39 U.S.C.A. § 4007, authorizing the district court "upon a showing of probable cause to believe the statute is being violated" to enter a temporary restraining order directing the detention of defendant's incoming mail pending conclusion of administrative proceedings under 39 U.S.C.A. § 4005 or § 4006. It is unlikely in the extreme that Congress would have required that a temporary restraining order be...