United States v. Superpharm Corp., CV-81-0087.

• Decision Date: 08 December 1981
• Docket Number: No. CV-81-0087.,CV-81-0087.
• Citation: 530 F. Supp. 408
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. SUPERPHARM CORPORATION, a corporation, and Norman E. Rubin, an individual, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

530 F. Supp. 408

UNITED STATES of America v. SUPERPHARM CORPORATION, a corporation, and Norman E. Rubin, an individual, Defendants.

No. CV-81-0087.

United States District Court, E. D. New York.

December 8, 1981.

Abraham Y. Skoff, Asst. U. S. Atty., Edward R. Korman, U. S. Atty., E. D. N. Y., Brooklyn, N. Y., for the U. S.

George M. Burditt, James A. Davids, and Deborah B. Norton, Burditt & Calkins, Chicago, Ill., for defendants Superpharm Corp. and Norman E. Rubin.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

COSTANTINO, District Judge.

This is an action under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ("the Act") 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. to enjoin alleged violations of the Act and for other forms of relief. The suit, initiated in January, 1981, contends that Superpharm Corporation ("Superpharm"), and Norman E. Rubin, president of Superpharm, engaged in the manufacture and distribution of a human drug, furosemide, in the absence of approval by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Specifically, defendants are alleged to be violating drug approval provisions that prohibit the marketing of "new drugs", 21 U.S.C. § 321(p), in interstate commerce without FDA approval. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a).

On January 9, 1981 this court issued a restraining order prohibiting the further manufacture or sale of this drug unless and until approval is obtained from the FDA. Upon mutual consent of the parties, this order remains in effect pending the outcome of this decision. Although settlement discussions ensued and numerous issues resolved, the parties have been unable to settle whether this court has the authority to order the recall of drug products improperly marketed in interstate commerce. Thus, this issue is now before the court.

The Government maintains that this court has the authority pursuant to section 302 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 332, to order a recall. Section 302 provides in pertinent part that:

the district courts of the United States ... shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain violations of Section 301 of this Title ... (emphasis supplied)

In addition, the Government contends that the court's general equitable power also authorizes the issuance of a recall order. (Citing Mitchell v. DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288, 80 S.Ct. 332, 4 L.Ed.2d 323 (1960); Porter v. Warner Co., 328 U.S. 395, 66 S.Ct. 1086, 90 L.Ed. 1332 (1945).) After examining both the case law and the Act's legislative history, it is quite apparent that there is little support for the Government's position. The prevailing law on the subject leads this court to conclude that no such statutory or equitable power exists, and that to order a recall would be an abuse and/or an improper use of its power. Thus, for reasons set forth below, the Government's request for an order mandating the recall of the drugs now on the market is denied.

An examination of the Act itself reveals that Congress specifically did not include a judicially ordered recall remedy when the Act was passed. It did, however, provide a threefold enforcement scheme: (1) injunctive relief, 21 U.S.C. § 332; (2) criminal prosecution, 21 U.S.C. § 333; and (3) seizure, 21 U.S.C. § 334. Moreover, in reading the legislative history behind the Act when passed in 1938, it is clear that Congress considered seizures to be the most drastic remedy, and that the injunction remedy was included to temper the hardship inherent in seizures:

In some cases it should avoid the hardship and expenses to litigants in seizure cases. In many instances seizure is a harsh remedy and should be discouraged ... In many instances it is believed ... injunctions can be used with equal effectiveness and with less hardship.

H.R.Rep.No.2139, 75th Cong., 3d Sess. 3-4 (1938). Thus, injunctive relief was obviously viewed as a means to alleviate the hardship seizure might cause to manufacturers, and given this orientation, it is difficult to conclude that Congress intended Section 302(a) to authorize judicial recalls. United States v. C. E. B. Products, Inc., 380 F.Supp. 664, 668 (N.D.Ill.1974).

In effect, the Government is asking this court to do something that the FDA itself cannot do. While there are provisions in the FDA regulations which provide for recalls, recalls cannot be ordered by the FDA, see 21 CFR § 7.40(a), as they are usually undertaken voluntarily, 21 CFR § 7.40(a), at the request of the FDA. 21 CFR § 7.40(b). See generally 21 CFR § 7.1, et seq. The authorized vehicle for FDA removal of goods from the marketplace is the seizure remedy. 21 U.S.C. § 334. It is simply not within the FDA's stated authority to order a manufacturer to recall its own goods.

If for medical and public safety reasons the FDA believes the removal of the restrained pharmaceutical product is imperative, they have the seizure remedy at their disposal. To order a recall under the Act would be an unwarranted act of judicial legislation because the FDA, through the Government, and/or the Government itself, would have yet another method of attacking the allegedly illegal distributions of drugs without being restricted by either the Act or the regulations promulgated thereunder. Recalls are simply not within the enforcement powers of the Act, and the court perceives no reason to expand the remedies currently in effect by including such a remedy. See United States v. C. E. B. Products, Inc., supra; see also National Confectioners Assoc. v. Califano, 569 F.2d 690 (D.C.Cir.1978).

In the alternative, the Government argues that the court's inherent equitable power includes the power to order a recall. In support, the Government cites two Supreme Court cases, Mitchell v. DeMario Jewelry, Inc., supra; Porter v. Warner Co., 328 U.S. 395, 66 S.Ct. 1086, 90 L.Ed. 1332 (1945), which admittedly contain persuasive language. Upon an examination of the cases, however, it appears that the use of the court's equitable power in those cases was necessary to accomplish the purposes of the legislation, and absent such power, the statutes would have been unenforceable.

In Mitchell v. DeMario, supra, the court exercised its equitable powers to order the reimbursement of lost wages to employees who had lost their positions after bringing suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The effectiveness of the FSLA's enforcement, as structured by Congress, was completely dependent on employees' coming forward to...