Skip to main content


U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government
              Here’s how you know
        Here’s how you knowDot gov**Official websites use .gov**
                 A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
                  HTTPS**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                 A **lock** (A locked padlock) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. 
  Menu Close
          HHS Search block
    Search
        








  
  
    

  
      

                                      About HHS
    
                        
                              
      
      
      Programs & Services
    
                        
                              
      
      
      Grants & Contracts
    
                        
                              
      
      
      Laws & Regulations Breadcrumb
    Home
                              About
                              Agencies
                              DAB
                              Decisions
                              ALJ Decisions
                              2023 ALJ Decisions
                              Royalty and Sons Inc. d/b/a BP, DAB TB6955 (2023)
 Navigate to:
  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB)
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      About DAB
                                            
            
            Organizational Overview
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Who are the Judges?
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      DAB Divisions
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Contact DAB
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Filing an Appeal Online
                                            
            
            DAB E-File
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Medicare Operations Division (MOD) E-File
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Different Appeals at DAB
                                            
            
            Appeals to DAB Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)
                          
            
            Forms
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Procedures
    
                                                                
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Appeals to Board
                          
            
            Practice Manual
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Guidelines
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Regulations
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      National Coverage Determination Complaints
    
                                                                
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Appeals to the Medicare Appeals Council (Council)
                          
            
            Forms
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Fully Integrated Duals Advantage (FIDA) Demonstration Project
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Alternative Dispute Resolution Services
                                            
            
            Sharing Neutrals
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      ADR Training
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Other ADR Services
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      DAB Decisions
                                            
            
            Board Decisions
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      DAB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Medicare Appeals Council (Council) Decisions
    
                                    
                              
            
      
      
      
      Stakeholder Feedback
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Careers
                                            
            
            Open Career Opportunities
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Internships & ExternshipsText resize icon

                    




Royalty and Sons Inc. d/b/a BP, DAB TB6955 (2023)








  
  
    

  
      
Department of Health and Human Services 
    DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
          Civil Remedies Division





Center for Tobacco Products,Complainant,v.Royalty and Sons, Inc.d/b/a BP,Respondent.
Docket No. T-23-1479FDA Docket No. FDA-2023-H-1035Decision No. TB6955August 31, 2023

        
              
    

      INITIAL DECISION AND DEFAULT JUDGMENTThe Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) filed an Administrative Complaint (Complaint) against Respondent, Royalty and Sons, Inc. d/b/a BP, alleging facts and legal authority sufficient to justify imposing a civil money penalty of $638.  CTP began this case by serving a Complaint on Respondent and filing a copy of the Complaint with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Division of Dockets Management.  The Complaint alleges that Respondent’s staff sold regulated tobacco products to underage purchasers and failed to verify that purchasers were of sufficient age, thereby violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act), 21 U.S.C. § 301 *et seq*., and its implementing regulations, 21 C.F.R. pt. 1140.1  CTP seeks a civil money penalty of $638, for three violations of the regulations within a 24-month period.**Page 2**During the course of these administrative proceedings, Respondent failed to comply with orders and procedures governing this proceeding and failed to defend its actions, which interfered with the speedy, orderly, or fair conduct of this proceeding.  21 C.F.R. § 17.35(a).  Accordingly, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 17.35(c)(3), I strike Respondent’s Answer and issue this decision of default judgment.I.     Procedural HistoryOn March 23, 2023, CTP served the Complaint on Respondent by United Parcel Service, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. §§ 17.5 and 17.7.  Respondent timely filed its Answer to CTP’s Complaint.  On April 14, 2023, I issued an Acknowledgment and Pre‐Hearing Order (APHO) that set deadlines for the parties’ filings and exchanges, including a schedule for discovery.  I directed that a party receiving a discovery request must provide the requested documents within 30 days of the request.  APHO ¶ 4; *see* 21 C.F.R. § 17.23(a).  I warned that I may impose sanctions if a party failed to comply with any order, including the APHO.  APHO ¶ 21.On June 21, 2023, CTP filed a Motion to Compel Discovery asserting that Respondent did not respond to its discovery request as required by my APHO and regulations.  On the same date, CTP also filed an Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadlines.  On June 23, 2023, I issued an Order informing Respondent of its deadline to file a response to CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery, and warned that if Respondent failed to respond, “I may grant CTP’s motion in its entirety.”  *See* *also* 21 C.F.R. § 17.32(c); APHO ¶ 21.  Respondent did not respond.On July 7, 2023, I issued an Order to Compel Discovery in which I granted CTP’s motion and ordered Respondent to produce documents responsive to CTP’s discovery request by July 21, 2023.  I warned Respondent that failure to comply may result in sanctions, which may include the issuance of an Initial Decision and Default Judgment finding Respondent liable for the violations listed in the Complaint and imposing a [civil money penalty].2  July 7, 2023, Order to Compel Discovery.On July 27, 2023, CTP filed a Status Report and Motion to Impose Sanctions (Motion to Impose Sanctions).  CTP advised that Respondent did not produce responsive documents as ordered.  On that same date, CTP also filed a Motion to Extend Deadlines.  On that same day, I issued an Order informing Respondent of its deadline to file a response to CTP’s motion and warned Respondent that if it failed to file a response, “**I may grant CTP’s [Motion to Impose Sanctions] in its entirety**.”  July 27, 2023 Order (emphasis added).  My July 27, 2023 Order also extended the pre-hearing exchange deadlines.  Respondent did not file a response.**Page 3**II.    Striking Respondent’s AnswerI may sanction a party for:(1)   Failing to comply with an order, subpoena, rule, or procedure governing the proceeding;(2)   Failing to prosecute or defend an action; or(3)   Engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly, or fair conduct of the hearing.21 C.F.R. § 17.35(a).Respondent failed to comply with the following orders and procedures governing this proceeding:Respondent failed to comply with 21 C.F.R. § 17.23(a) and paragraph 4 of my APHO, when Respondent failed to respond to CTP’s Request for Production of Documents within 30 days; andRespondent failed to comply with my July 7, 2023 Order to Compel Discovery, when it failed to submit the documents responsive to CTP’s Request for Production of Documents by July 21, 2023.Respondent also failed to defend its action despite my June 23, 2023, and July 27, 2023, orders informing Respondent of such opportunities and warning of consequences.I find that Respondent failed to comply with orders and procedures governing this proceeding, failed to defend its case, and, as a result, interfered with the speedy, orderly, or fair conduct of this proceeding.  I conclude that Respondent’s conduct establishes a basis for sanctions pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 17.35, and that sanctions are warranted.The sanctions I impose must relate to the nature and severity of the misconduct or failure to comply.  21 C.F.R. § 17.35(b).  Here, Respondent failed to comply with a regulation governing this proceeding.  Respondent failed to comply with two of my orders, despite my explicit warnings that its failure could result in sanctions.  I specified that those sanctions may include issuing an Initial Decision and Default Judgment finding Respondent liable for the violations listed in the Complaint and imposing a civil money penalty.  Order to Compel Discovery at 2; Order at 2, July 7, 2023.  Respondent also failed to defend its actions, despite my orders expressly reminding Respondent of the opportunity.  Respondent’s repeated misconduct interfered with the speedy, orderly, or fair conduct of this proceeding.I find that Respondent’s actions are sufficient to warrant striking its Answer and issuing a decision by default, without further proceedings.**Page 4**21 C.F.R. § 17.35(b), (c)(3).  Accordingly, I strike Respondent’s Answer, and issue this Initial Decision and Default Judgment, assuming the facts alleged in CTP’s Complaint to be true.  21 C.F.R. §§ 17.35(c)(3), 17.11(a).III.   Default DecisionStriking Respondent’s Answer leaves the Complaint unanswered.  Therefore, I am required to issue an initial decision by default, provided that the Complaint is sufficient to justify a penalty.  21 C.F.R. § 17.11(a).  Pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 17.11(a), I am required to “assume the facts alleged in the [C]omplaint to be true” and, if those facts establish liability under the Act, issue a default judgment and impose a civil money penalty.  Accordingly, I must determine whether the allegations in the Complaint establish violations of the Act.Specifically, CTP alleges the following facts in its Complaint:Respondent owns BP, an establishment that sells tobacco products and is located at 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429.  Complaint ¶¶ 11 - 12.An FDA-commissioned inspector conducted an inspection of Respondent’s establishment on June 23, 2022, at approximately 11:19 AM, during which “a person younger than 21 years of age was able to purchase a package of two Swisher Sweets Classic Diamonds cigars . . . .”  Additionally, “the underage purchaser’s age was not verified before the sale . . . .”  Complaint ¶ 15.On August 9, 2022, CTP issued a Warning Letter to Respondent regarding the June 23, 2022 inspection.  The letter explained that the inspector documented violations of federal law, and that the named violations were not necessarily intended to be an exhaustive list of all violations at the establishment.  The Warning Letter also stated that if Respondent failed to correct the violations, regulatory action by the FDA or a civil money penalty action could occur and that it is Respondent’s responsibility to comply with the law.  Complaint ¶¶ 15-16.An FDA-commissioned inspector conducted a subsequent inspection of Respondent’s establishment on December 14, 2022, at approximately 9:00 AM, during which “a person younger than 21 years of age was able to purchase a package of two Swisher Sweets Classic Diamonds cigars. . . .”  Additionally, “the underage purchaser’s age was not verified before the sale . . . .”  Complaint ¶ 13.These facts establish Respondent BP’s liability under the Act.  The Act prohibits misbranding of a regulated tobacco product.  21 U.S.C. § 331(k).  A regulated tobacco product is misbranded if sold or distributed in violation of regulations issued under**Page 5**section 906(d) of the Act.  21 U.S.C. § 387f(d); *see also* 21 U.S.C. § 387c(a)(7)(B); 21 C.F.R. § 1140.1(b).  The Secretary issued the regulations at 21 C.F.R. pt. 1140 under section 906(d) of the Act.  21 U.S.C. § 387a-1; *see*21 U.S.C. § 387f(d)(1); 75 Fed. Reg. 13,225, 13,229 (Mar. 19, 2010); 81 Fed. Reg. 28,974, 28,975 76 (May 10, 2016); 21 U.S.C. § 387f (note) (directing the Secretary to change references to persons younger than 18 to younger than 21, and to change the age verification requirements from individuals under the age of 26 to under the age of 30, in 21 C.F.R. subpart B of part 1140).  Under section 906(d)(5) of the Act, no retailer may sell regulated tobacco products to any person younger than 21 years of age and retailers must verify, by means of photographic identification containing a purchaser’s date of birth, that no regulated tobacco product purchasers are younger than 21 years of age.Taking the above alleged facts as true, Respondent had at least three violations of regulations found at 21 C.F.R. pt. 1140 within a 24-month period.  Respondent violated the prohibition against selling regulated tobacco products to persons younger than 21 years of age on June 23, 2022, and December 14, 2022.  Act § 906(d)(5).  On those same dates, Respondent also violated the requirement that retailers verify, by means of photo identification containing a purchaser’s date of birth, that no regulated tobacco product purchasers are younger than 21 years of age. 3  *Id.*; 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(b)(2)(i).  Therefore, Respondent’s actions constitute violations of law that merit a civil money penalty.CTP has requested a civil money penalty of $638, which is a permissible penalty for three violations of the regulations found at 21 C.F.R. pt. 1140 within a 24-month period.  21 C.F.R. § 17.2.  Therefore, I find that a civil money penalty of $638 is warranted and so order one imposed.ENDNOTES1    As of December 20, 2019, the Act was amended to raise the federal minimum age for the sale of tobacco products to 21 years of age or older.  *See*Act, § 906(d)(5).2    The July 7, 2023 Order mistakenly included language regarding a No-Tobacco-Sale-Order, when it should have referenced the civil money penalty at issue.3    I note that CTP cites 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(b)(2)(i), which has not been updated to reflect the age change, for the identification violations alleged on June 23, 2022, and December 14, 2022.  *See*Complaint ¶¶ 13.b, 15.b; *see also supra*fn.1.
  
          /s/
        Steven T. Kessel

                      Administrative Law Judge Back to top
    Contact HHS
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Careers
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      HHS FAQs
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Nondiscrimination NoticeHHS Archive
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Accessibility Statement
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Privacy Policy
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Viewers & PlayersBudget/Performance
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Inspector General
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Web Site Disclaimers
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      EEO/No Fear ActFOIA
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      The White House
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      USA.gov
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
        Sign Up for Email Updates

Receive the latest updates from the Secretary, Blogs, and News Releases.

Sign Up
  HHS Headquarters
          200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
                  Washington, D.C. 20201
                  Toll Free Call Center: 1-877-696-6775​ Disclaimer Policy: Links with this icon () mean that you are leaving the HHS website. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot guarantee the accuracy of a non-federal website.
                  Linking to a non-federal website does not mean that HHS or its employees endorse the sponsors, information, or products presented on the website. HHS links outside of itself to provide you with further information.
                  You will be bound by the destination website's privacy policy and/or terms of service when you follow the link.
                  HHS is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on private websites. For more information on HHS's web notification policies, see Website Disclaimers.
 Continue
                  Go back