United States v. National Dynamics Corp., 78 Civ. 3892 (VLB).
Decision Date | 16 October 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 78 Civ. 3892 (VLB).,78 Civ. 3892 (VLB). |
Citation | 525 F. Supp. 380 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION and Elliot Meyer, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
John S. Martin, Jr., U. S. Atty., S. D. N. Y. by Harvey J. Wolkoff, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, for the U. S.
Solomon Friend, Friend & Dorfman, New York City, for defendants.
I.
The United States seeks in this action a) the recovery of civil penalties pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 45(l) for alleged violations of cease and desist orders issued by the Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") in 1959 and 1973 (Counts 1-12 of the complaint); and b) a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from engaging in certain acts that were not encompassed within the cease and desist orders, but which allegedly violate the Federal Trade Commission Act ("the Act") (Count 13).
Defendants National Dynamics Corporation and Elliot Meyer ("defendants") have moved to dismiss Count 13. Succinctly put, defendants' position is that the government is not entitled to a permanent injunction against acts and practices that have not been prohibited by an order of the Commission. They argue that absent Commission administrative proceedings directed to such acts and practices the district court has no jurisdiction to enjoin them.
For the reasons which follow defendants' motion is denied.
Section 13(b) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) provides in pertinent part:
Defendants suggest that the second proviso clause should be interpreted as a permanent injunction only pending the issuance of a complaint by the Commission. I do not so interpret this proviso. While Section 13(b) conditions the continuance of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction upon the prompt issuance by the Commission of an administrative complaint, no such condition attaches to the issuance of a permanent injunction. The district court has jurisdiction permanently to enjoin violations of the Act, whether or not the Commission has initiated, or is about to initiate, an administrative proceeding with respect to the alleged violations. FTC v. Singer, No....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
FTC v. Kitco of Nevada, Inc., Civ. No. 4-83-467.
...716 F.2d 451, 456-57 (7th Cir.1983); FTC v. H.N. Singer, Inc., 668 F.2d 1107, 1110-1111 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. National Dynamics Corp., 525 F.Supp. 380, 380-381 (S.D.N.Y.1981); FTC v. Virginia Homes Manufacturing Corp., 509 F.Supp. 51, 54 (D.Md.1981). In FTC v. H.N. Singer, Inc., ......
-
F.T.C. v. Evans Products Co., 85-3691
...and implicitly confirmed, see FTC v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 580 F.Supp. 981 (D.D.C.1983); United States v. National Dynamics Corp., 525 F.Supp. 380 (S.D.N.Y.1981), by other courts which have granted permanent injunctions under Sec. In attempting to limit Sec. 13(b) to cases invol......
-
United States v. JS&A GROUP, INC.
...irrespective of the pendency of an administrative complaint. Three other district courts have so held. See United States v. National Dynamics Corp., 525 F.Supp. 380 (S.D.N. Y.1981); FTC v. Virginia Homes Manufacturing Corp., 509 F.Supp. 51 (D.Md.1981), aff'd, 661 F.2d 920 (4th Cir. 1981); F......
-
F.T.C. v. U.S. Oil & Gas Corp.
...injunctive relief. 2 The decisions in United States v. JS & A Group, Inc., 716 F.2d 451 (7th Cir.1983) and United States v. National Dynamics Corp., 525 F.Supp. 380 (S.D.N.Y.1981), cited by defendants, are not persuasive authority to the contrary. Those cases affirmed the power of federal d......