Ramoco Marketing Group LLC d/b/a Liberty, DAB TB10475 (2026)

ORDER GRANTING COMPLAINANT’S MOTION TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS AND INITIAL DECISION AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

On June 6, 2025, the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) served a complaint on Respondent, Ramoco Marketing Group LLC d/b/a  Liberty, at 501 Route 130, Mount Ephraim, New Jersey 08059.1  A copy of the complaint was also filed with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Division of Dockets Management.  CTP seeks to impose a $709 civil money penalty against Respondent for at least three violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 21 C.F.R. part 1140, within a 24-month period.2

Page 2

On June 23, 2025, Respondent, through counsel, filed a notice of appearance and an answer to the complaint denying the allegations in the complaint, offering defenses and stating that the penalty was too high.  Since filing its answer, however, Respondent has repeatedly disregarded my orders and has been non-responsive to CTP’s requests. Specifically, Respondent failed to respond to CTP’s request for production of documents, failed to respond to CTP’s motion to compel discovery, failed to comply with my order granting CTP’s motion to compel discovery, and failed to respond to the present Motion to Impose Sanctions.

Currently before me is CTP’s Status Report and Motion to Impose Sanctions (Motion to Impose Sanctions), which requests that I impose sanctions against Respondent for its repeated noncompliance.  As a sanction for Respondent’s failure to respond to CTP’s discovery requests and failure to comply with my orders and procedures, CTP requests that I strike Respondent’s answer and issue a default judgment against Respondent pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 17.35(c)(3).  For the reasons stated below, I find that the requested sanctions are warranted and appropriate under the circumstances.  Therefore, I grant CTP’s Motion to Impose Sanctions, strike Respondent’s answer, and issue this decision of default judgment imposing the requested civil money penalty against Respondent.

I. Relevant Procedural History

On June 6, 2025, CTP served an administrative complaint on Respondent by United Parcel Service, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. §§ 17.5 and 17.7.  Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Numbers (Nos.) 1, 1b.  On June 23, 2025, Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 4a; 21 C.F.R. § 17.9.

On June 26, 2025, I issued an Acknowledgment and Pre-Hearing Order (APHO).  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5.  The APHO outlined the procedures governing this case, provided various instructions and directives, and established deadlines for the parties to complete discovery and file pre-hearing exchanges.  Id.  With respect to discovery, the APHO stated that a party is required to produce any requested documents no later than 30 days after receiving a request for documents from the opposing party.  Id. ¶ 4; see also 21 C.F.R.  § 17.23(a).  I also warned the parties as follows:

• I may impose sanctions including, but not limited to, dismissal of the complaint or answer, if a party fails to comply with any order (including this order), fails to prosecute or defend its case, or engages in misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly, or fair conduct of the hearing.  21 C.F.R. § 17.35.

CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5 ¶ 21.

Page 3

On July 23, 2025, CTP filed an Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadlines and Notice of Pending Settlement, stating the parties have agreed to settle this matter and Respondent’s payment is forthcoming.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8.  CTP requested I extend “all deadlines in this case . . . for thirty (30) days, so that Respondent can pay the agreed-upon civil money penalty, and CTP can process the payment.”  Id. at 1.  Also, on July 23, 2025, I issued an Order granting CTP’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadlines, extending the parties’ deadlines.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9.  I extended CTP’s request for documents to no later than August 27, 2025, CTP’s pre-hearing exchange to no later than October 15, 2025, and Respondent’s pre-hearing exchange to no later than November 5, 2025.

On September 22, 2025, CTP filed a Motion to Compel Discovery stating that

Respondent failed to respond to CTP’s Request for Production of Documents (RFP),

which had been served on Respondent’s counsel by United States Postal Service Certified

Mail on July 10, 2025, with a confirmation that an individual picked up the item at the post office on July 17, 2025, but Respondent’s counsel failed to respond.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 10,10a, 10b, 10c.  Contemporaneously, CTP filed a Motion to Extend Deadlines, requesting that any deadlines, including the October 15, 2025 due date for CTP’s pre-hearing exchange, be extended by 30 days.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 11 at 2.

On September 26, 2025, I issued an Order granting CTP’s motion to extend deadlines and advised Respondent that it had until October 10, 2025, to file a response to CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 12 at 2, 5 ¶¶ 20-21; 21 C.F.R. § 17.32(c).

Respondent did not respond to CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery.  Accordingly, on October 20, 2025, after considering CTP’s statements and arguments, I granted the motion and ordered Respondent to produce all documents responsive to CTP’s document requests by November 4, 2025.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13 at 2.  I also extended the parties’ pre-hearing exchange deadlines.  Id. at 2.  In the order, I specifically warned Respondent:

• [F]ailure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions, including 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.

Id.

On November 6, 2025, CTP filed the present Status Report and Motion to Impose Sanctions.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 14.  In the motion, CTP states Respondent failed to comply with my October 20, 2025 Order granting CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery and has not produced any responsive documents.  Id. at 1-2.  CTP asks that I sanction Respondent by striking its answer and issuing an Initial Decision and Default Judgment imposing the requested $709 civil money penalty.  Id. at 2-3.  CTP also filed a separate 

Page 4

motion asking me to stay all deadlines pending resolution of its Motion to Impose Sanctions.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 15.

On November 12, 2025, I issued an Order advising Respondent that it had until November 26, 2025 to file a response to CTP’s Motion to Impose Sanctions.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 16 at 2.  I also granted CTP’s request to stay all deadlines pending resolution of CTP’s Motion to Impose Sanctions.  Id.

To date, Respondent has not filed any response to CTP’s Motion to Impose Sanctions. Further, Respondent has not produced any documents in response to CTP’s discovery requests or otherwise complied with my October 20, 2025 Order granting CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery.

II. Striking Respondent’s Answer

I 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).

Here, I find that Respondent failed to comply with multiple judicial orders and directives. Specifically, Respondent failed to:

• Respond to CTP’s Request for the Production of Documents within 30 days pursuant to the requirements stated in 21 C.F.R. § 17.23(a) and paragraph 4 of the APHO; and
• Produce documents responsive to CTP’s discovery requests by November 4, 2025, in accordance with my October 20, 2025 Order granting CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery.

In addition, I find that Respondent has failed to defend this action.  Other than the Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadlines and Notice of Pending Settlement that CTP filed on July 23, 2025 with Respondent’s concurrence, CTP’s other filings have gone unanswered by Respondent.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 8, 10, 11, 14.  I also find that Respondent has interfered with the speedy, orderly, and fair conduct of this proceeding by preventing the case from moving forward to adjudication.  Therefore, I conclude that 

Pag 5

Respondent’s conduct establishes a basis for sanctions pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 17.35, and that sanctions are warranted under the circumstances.

The sanctions I impose must relate to the nature and severity of the misconduct or noncompliance.  21 C.F.R. § 17.35(b).  Here, Respondent’s conduct has caused unnecessary delays and disruptions, interfered with CTP’s ability to prosecute its case, and prevented me from conducting a hearing or issuing a decision on the merits.  Under the circumstances, Respondent’s behavior suggests it has abandoned its defense and is no longer interested in participating in this proceeding.

Based on the severity and ongoing nature of Respondent’s conduct, I find that the appropriate sanction is to strike Respondent’s answer to the complaint.  21 C.F.R. § 17.35(b), (c)(3); see also KKNJ, Inc. d/b/a Tobacco Hut 12, DAB No. 2678 at 10-11 (2016) (concluding administrative law judge did not abuse discretion by striking Respondent’s answer for failure to comply with discovery order).  While I recognize that this is a severe remedy, I conclude that a lesser sanction would not effectively address Respondent’s repeated noncompliance and failure to defend its case.  Indeed, Respondent’s conduct has effectively brought this proceeding to a standstill. Respondent’s actions are sufficiently egregious to warrant striking its Answer and issuing a decision by default, without further proceedings.  21 C.F.R. § 17.35(b), (c)(3).

Therefore, CTP’s Motion to Impose Sanctions is GRANTED and Respondent’s answer to the complaint is hereby stricken from the record.

III. Default Decision

Striking 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).  Accordingly, I must determine whether the allegations in the complaint establish violations of the Act.

For purposes of this decision, I assume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, pursuant to the provisions of 21 C.F.R. § 17.11(a).  Specifically:

• Respondent owns an establishment that does business under the name Liberty, that sells tobacco products including Garcia y Vega Game Grape cigars and Black & Mild Original cigars, and is located at 501 Route 130, Mount Ephraim, New Jersey 08059.  Complaint ¶¶ 11-12.
• An FDA-commissioned inspector conducted an inspection at approximately 10:36 AM on October 30, 2023, at Respondent’s business establishment.  During this inspection, a person younger than 21 years of age was able to purchase a Black & Mild Original cigar.  Additionally, Respondent’s staff failed to verify, by means 

Page 6

• of photographic identification containing a date of birth, that the purchaser was 21 years of age or older.  Complaint ¶ 14.
• In a warning letter dated December 5, 2023, CTP informed Respondent of the inspector’s October 30, 2023, documented violations, and that such actions violate federal law.  The letter further warned that Respondent’s failure to correct its violations could result in a civil money penalty or other regulatory action. Complaint ¶¶ 14-15.
• An FDA-commissioned inspector conducted a subsequent inspection at approximately 7:13 PM on December 19, 2024, at Respondent’s business establishment.  During the inspection, a person younger than 21 years of age was able to purchase a package of two Garcia y Vega Game Grape cigars. Additionally, Respondent’s staff failed to verify, by means of photographic identification containing a date of birth, that the purchaser was 21 years of age or older.  Complaint ¶ 13.

These facts establish Respondent Liberty’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 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 of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued the regulations at 21 C.F.R. Part 1140 under section 906(d) of the Act. 21 U.S.C. § 387a-1; see also 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); 89 Fed. Reg. 70,483, 70,485 (Aug. 30, 2024).  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. 

Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, I find that Respondent violated the prohibition against selling regulated tobacco products to purchasers younger than 21 years of age on October 30, 2023, and December 19, 2024.  Act § 906(d)(5).  I further find that, on those same dates, Respondent 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.  Id.; 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(b)(2)(i).  Therefore, I conclude that CTP has established that Respondent committed at least three3 violations of the Act within a 24-month period.  CTP has 

Page 7

requested a civil money penalty of $709, which is a permissible penalty under 21 C.F.R. § 17.2.  Therefore, I conclude that a civil money penalty of $709 is appropriate and impose a penalty in that amount against Respondent.

ORDER

For these reasons, I enter default judgment in the amount of $709 against Respondent, Ramoco Marketing Group LLC d/b/a  Liberty.  Pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 17.11(b), this order becomes final and binding upon both parties after 30 days of the date of its issuance.