United States Postal Service v. Beamish
| Decision Date | 01 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1330.,72-1330. |
| Citation | 466 F.2d 804 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE v. Robert BEAMISH, d/b/a Natural Products, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
David L. Ficksman, Bass & Ullman, New York City, for appellant.
Herbert J. Stern, U. S. Atty., James B. Smith, Newark, N. J., for appellee.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge and VAN DUSEN and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) August 1, 1972.
Defendant appeals an order of the district court perliminarily enjoining delivery of certain mail to defendant's Newark, New Jersey postal address.
Robert Beamish ("the defendant"), operating as Natural Products, manufactures products under the trade name "Seacreme." Purchases are solicited through mail order advertising whereby defendant represents Seacreme products as effective in eliminating excess body fat. On January 13, 1972, postal authorities placed an order with defendant by mail and authorized that tests be made on the merchandise received. The Seacreme products were compared against defendant's advertising and it was determined that they were "absolutely . . . worthless as a cure or treatment for obesity and that the advertising claims made for them were grossly false and irrational." An administrative proceeding was commenced on February 22, 1972, charging defendant with seeking and receiving remittance of money through the mails by means of false representations. See 39 U.S.C. § 3005. Under § 3005 the Postal Service could, if successful, require defendant to return all unfilled orders for Seacreme products and prevent defendant from negotiating any postal money orders accompanying such orders.
The Postal Service realized that the administrative proceeding would not reach completion for approximately 90 days. Pending completion the Service had no autonomous authority to direct that defendant desist from accepting orders or make restitution to interim purchasers. The Service therefore sought and obtained, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3007, a preliminary injunction preventing the Newark postmaster from delivering to defendant any new orders for Seacreme products. The injunction did not affect orders from prior Seacreme consumers. Defendant appeals the preliminary injunction on several grounds.
First it is contended that the injunction fails for want of a showing by the Postal Service of irreparable harm. According to defendant the general rule applicable to the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief here applies requiring both a showing of irreparable interim harm should an injunction not issue and a finding by the court to that effect. See Sims v. Greene, 161 F.2d 87 (3d Cir.1947). We might agree with defendant were it not for the express language of § 3007 which authorized the preliminary injunctive relief here granted. Section 3007 provides that "the United States district court. . . shall. . . upon a showing of probable cause to believe that § 3005 is being violated, enter a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction pursuant to rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . ." The legislative history of the section is silent as to its intended interpretation. However, it appears that its controlling substantive standard is restricted to the probable cause showing of a § 3005 violation. We think that the reference to Rule 65 intends merely to delineate the procedural mechanics applicable to the hearing on probable cause, the notice requirements and the form of the order. It does not suggest incorporation into § 3007 of the common law standards, including that of irreparable harm, typically required of preliminary injunctions issued on the strength of Rule 65 alone.
Defendant correctly points out that analysis of § 3007, involving as it does interference with defendant's use of the mails, necessarily requires due consideration of First Amendment freedoms. Cf. FTC v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 215 F.Supp. 327, 333 (S.D.N.Y.1963)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. William Savran & Associates, Inc.
...harm in RICO action brought by Attorney General, cert. denied, 420 U.S. 925, 95 S.Ct. 1121, 43 L.Ed.2d 395 19753; United States Postal Serv. v. Beamish, 466 F.2d 804, 806 3d Cir.1972 common-law requirement of irreparable harm and likelihood of success are inapplicable to injunctions sought ......
-
Assisted Living Associates v. Moorestown Tp.
...any additional showing of irreparable harm. Id. at 286. The Court specifically approved the approach of United States Postal Serv. v. Beamish, 466 F.2d 804 (3d Cir.1972), which held that a statutory provision authorizing preliminary injunctive relief upon a showing of probable cause to beli......
-
U.S. v. Sriram
...meet the common law standards (including irreparable harm) typically required for a Rule 65 injunction. United States Postal Service v. Beamish, 466 F.2d 804, 806 (3d Cir.1972). Although Section 3007 provides that an injunction issued under that provision would be "pursuant to Rule 65 of th......
-
WATERFRONT COM'N v. CONST. & MARINE EQUIP.
...the relevant statute provided for preliminary injunctive relief upon a "prima facie showing of a violation"); United States Postal Service v. Beamish, 466 F.2d 804 (3d Cir.1972) (affirming district court's injunction where it did not use its equitable discretion in applying provision that "......
-
Doing Equity in Bankruptcy
...& Cultural Affairs v. Virgin Island Paving, Inc., 714 F.2d 283, 286 (3d Cir. 1983).87. See United States Postal Serv. v. Beamish, 466 F.2d 804, 806 (3d Cir. 1972).88. See United States v. William Savran & Assocs., 755 F. Supp. 1165, 1179 (E.D.N.Y. 1990).89. See SEC v. Mgmt. Dynamics, Inc., ......