Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Articles of drug as described in Attachment A of the Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 16, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARTICLES OF DRUG AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT A OF THE COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

ORDER

Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [12]

Plaintiff United States of America filed its Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Articles of drug as described in Attachment A of the Complaint ("Defendant Articles") on October 06, 2010 [12]. The matter was originally set for hearing on November 09, 2010. Having taken the matter under submission on November 05, 2010, and having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to this Motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Articles is GRANTED. The Court hereby issues a Decree of Condemnation, Forfeiture, and Destruction against Defendant Articles.

The Court finds that the Government seized Defendant Articles on July 22, 2010, pursuant to a warrant issued by this Court. The Court further finds that no person having interest in Defendant Articles has appeared as claimant to file a responsive pleading or otherwise defend in this Action within the time permitted by law. On October 05, 2010, the Court Clerk entered default against Defendant Articles of drug and all persons and entities having any right, title, or interest in the Defendant Articles, including Keystone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [11].

With regard to entry of default judgment pursuant to Local Rule 55, Plaintiff has met all procedural requirements. Furthermore, based on a balancing of the Eitel v. McCool factors, Plaintiff has met the substantive requirements. 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Therefore, because Plaintiff has met all procedural and substantive requirements, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED.

As to the Decree of Condemnation, Forfeiture, and Destruction, the Court finds that Defendant Articles are adulterated or misbranded pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 334(a)(1), and thus, may be destroyed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 334(d)(1). Accordingly, this Court hereby issues a Decree of Condemnation, Forfeiture, and Destruction against Defendant Articles of drug as described in Attachment A of the Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101116

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.