United States v. 91 PACKAGES, ETC.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1950 |
| Docket Number | 11878.,Civ. No. C 11705 |
| Citation | 93 F. Supp. 763 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. 91 PACKAGES, MORE OR LESS, NUTRILITE FOOD SUPPLEMENT, etc. UNITED STATES v. 89 PACKAGES, MORE OR LESS, NUTRILITE FOOD SUPPLEMENT, etc., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Alfred E. Modarelli, United States Attorney, Newark, N. J., for libelant, by Roger M. Yancey, Assistant United States Attorney, Newark, N. J.
Stryker, Tams, & Horner, Newark, N. J., for claimant, by Walter F. Waldau, Newark, N. J.
The issues here arise on motions to consolidate and remove some ten libel actions instituted by the United States in divers jurisdictions about the country. They involve the same parties and substantially the same issues bearing on alleged violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.
The above act expressly provides for the seizure of drugs in interstate commerce for violations of the act, the seizures to be made by libels as in admiralty. It further provides that when such libel proceedings are pending in two or more jurisdictions, a claimant may apply to the Court of one such jurisdiction for an order consolidating such proceedings for trial in one district, and in the words of the statute that district shall, in the absence of "good cause to the contrary" be "a district of reasonable proximity to the claimant's principal place of business". The weight of authority is that "a district of reasonable proximity to the claimant's principal place of business" excludes the district of claimant's place of business. United States v. 29 Bottles, More or Less of Ocean-Lax, D.C., 44 F.Supp. 317; United States v. Six Dozen Bottles, More or Less of Dr. Peter's Kuriko, D.C., 55 F.Supp. 458; United States v. 600 Units Containing Neu-Ovo, D.C., 60 F.Supp. 144; United States v. 26 Dozen Bottles, etc., of Wheatamin Brand Cevigards, D.C., 60 F.Supp. 626.
I conclude that under this statute, the district of reasonable proximity for the trial of the actions considered here is the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division.
Claimants argue that 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404 (a) is applicable. That statute is directed toward Change of Venue and provides: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought."
There is no doubt but that the actions under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clinton Foods v. United States
...Cream, D.C., 86 F.Supp. 824; United States v. 11 Cases etc. Ido-Pheno-Chon, D.C., 94 F.Supp. 925; United States v. 91 Packages etc. Nutrilite Food Supplement, D.C., 93 F.Supp. 763, 764. As was well said by Judge Fake in the case last cited: "There is no doubt but that the actions under cons......
-
United States v. 353 CASES, ETC.
...district which has not been given authority under Section 334 to try the action." See, also, United States v. 91 Packages, More or Less, Nutrilite Food Supplement, etc., D.C.N.J., 93 F.Supp. 763. When the claimant obtained the order transferring the case to the Eastern District of Arkansas ......
-
United States v. VITASAFE CORPORATION
...of the condemnation action under which the injunction is sought. That action was in rem, see United States v. 91 Packages, More or Less, Nutrilite Food Supplement, 93 F.Supp. 763 (D.N.J. 1950), and was brought against the advertising itself and not against the Vitasafe Company. It establish......
-
United States v. 353 CASES, ETC.
...without weight in deciding the question now before the court. Another case relied upon was that of United States v. 91 Packages, More or Less, Nutrilife Food Supplement, D.C., 93 F.Supp. 763, which is authority to support the proposition that when libel proceedings under the Federal Food, D......