Choyj, Inc. d/b/a Young's Quick Stop 2, DAB TB10567 (2026)

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

The Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) filed an Administrative Complaint (Complaint) against Respondent, Choyj, Inc. d/b/a Young's Quick Stop 2, alleging facts and legal authority sufficient to justify imposing a civil money penalty of $7,115.  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 the purchasers were 21 years of age or older, 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.  CTP seeks a civil money penalty of 

Page 2

$7,115 against the Respondent for at least five violations of the tobacco regulations within a 36-month period.1

Respondent filed a timely Answer to CTP’s Complaint.  However, during the course of this administrative proceeding, 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).

Currently, CTP’s Status Report and Motion to Impose Sanctions (Motion to Impose Sanctions) is pending before me.  CTP’s Motion to Impose Sanctions requests that I strike Respondent’s Answer as a sanction for failing to respond to CTP’s discovery requests and issue a default judgment against Respondent.  After carefully considering the entire record, I grant CTP’s Motion to Impose Sanctions, strike Respondent’s Answer, and issue this default decision, pursuant to the provisions of 21 C.F.R. §§ 17.35(a), (c)(3).

I. Procedural History

On July 3, 2025, CTP served the Complaint on Respondent, located at 605 West Market Street, Aberdeen, Washington 98520, by United Parcel Service, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. §§ 17.5 and 17.7.  Civil Remedies Division (CRD) Docket (Dkt.) Entry Nos. 1 (Complaint), 1b (UPS Delivery Notification).  On July 21, 2025, CRD received Respondent’s timely filed Answer. CRD Dkt. Entry No. 3.  In its Answer, Respondent denied the allegations in the Complaint and offered defenses, stating that Respondent does not have employees, and as a family business, they check the identifications of buyers before making a sale.  Respondent also requested a reduced civil money penalty.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 3 at 1-2. 

On July 23, 2025, I issued an Acknowledgment and Pre-Hearing Order.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 4 (APHO).  The APHO set deadlines for the parties’ filings and exchanges, including a schedule for discovery.  The APHO also stated that a party receiving a discovery request must provide the requested documents within 30 days of the request.  Id. ¶ 4; see also 21 C.F.R. § 17.23(a).  Specifically, the APHO warned: 

• I may impose sanctions including, but not limited to, dismissal of the [C]omplaint 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.

Page 3

Id. ¶ 21.

On August 21, 2025, CTP filed a Joint Status Report stating the parties intended to engage in further settlement discussions, and that Respondent authorized CTP to file the Status Report.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 6 at 1. 

On September 26, 2025, CTP filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (MTC) with two exhibits consisting of its Request for Production and the UPS Delivery Notification.  CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 7, 7a-7b.  In its MTC, CTP stated that Respondent had not responded to its discovery request, as required by the APHO and the regulations.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 7.  On that same date, CTP also filed a Motion to Extend Deadlines requesting a 30-day extension of “any deadlines, including the October 14, 2025 due date for CTP’s pre-hearing exchange . . . .”  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8.

On October 2, 2025, I issued an Order advising Respondent that it had until October 16, 2025, to file a response to CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9.  I also warned that if Respondent failed to respond, “I may grant CTP’s motion in its entirety.”  Id. at 2; see also APHO ¶¶ 20-21.  In my Order, I also extended the pre‑hearing exchange deadlines.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 9 at 2.  Respondent failed to respond to either CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery or my October 2, 2025 Order, or otherwise comply with CTP’s Request for Production of Documents. 

On October 23, 2025, I issued an Order granting CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery and ordered Respondent to produce responsive documents to CTP’s Request for Production of Documents by November 7, 2025.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10.  Again, I warned:

• . . . [F]ailure to comply [. . . .] 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. at 2.

On November 10, 2025, CTP filed a Status Report and Motion to Impose Sanctions.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 11.  CTP advised that Respondent had not complied with the APHO or my October 23, 2025 Order Granting CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery.  Id. at 1.  CTP argued that sanctions against Respondent for its repeated non-compliance are an appropriate remedy.  Id. at 2.  Specifically, CTP asked that I strike Respondent’s Answer as a sanction and issue an Initial Decision and Default Judgment finding Respondent liable for the violations listed in the Complaint and imposing a $7,115 civil money penalty.  Id. at 2-3.  On November 10, 2025, CTP also filed a Motion to Stay Deadlines.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12.

Page 4

On November 14, 2025, I issued an Order giving Respondent until December 1, 2025, to file a response to CTP’s Motion to Impose Sanctions.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13.  The November 14, 2025 Order also stayed the parties’ pre-hearing exchange deadlines and warned Respondent that if it failed to file a response, “I may grant CTP’s motion in its entirety.”  Id.  To date, Respondent has not filed any response. 

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).

Respondent failed to comply with the following orders and procedures governing this proceeding:

• Respondent failed to comply with the regulation at 21 C.F.R. § 17.23(a) and paragraph 4 of my July 23, 2025 APHO by failing to respond to CTP’s RFP within 30 days; and  
• Respondent failed to comply with my October 23, 2025 Order Granting CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery by failing to submit documents responsive to CTP’s RFP by November 7, 2025. 

Respondent also failed to defend its action.  21 C.F.R. § 17.35(a)(2).  Specifically:

• Respondent did not file a response to CTP’s MTC, as permitted by the regulations, or file a response to my October 2, 2025 Order, giving Respondent until October 16, 2025 to file a response; and
• Respondent did not file a response to CTP’s Motion to Impose Sanctions (MTIS), as permitted by the regulations, or file a response to my November 14, 2025 Order, giving Respondent until December 1, 2025 to respond to CTP’s MTIS.
   

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, and 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 harshness of 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 

Page 5

comply with regulatory requirements and two judicial orders, despite my explicit warnings that its failure to do so could result in sanctions.  See CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 10, 13; see also APHO ¶ 21.  Respondent’s repeated misconduct interfered with the speedy, orderly, or fair conduct of this proceeding.  In fact, other than the Joint Status Report that CTP filed on August 21, 2025 with Respondent’s concurrence, Respondent has not participated in this action in any meaningful fashion since filing its Answer.  Accordingly, I find that 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); see also KKNJ, Inc. d/b/a Tobacco Hut 12, DAB No. 2678 at 8 (2016) (concluding that “the ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] did not abuse her discretion in sanctioning Respondent’s ongoing failure to comply with the ALJ’s directions by striking Respondent’s answer to the Complaint.”); Carolina Cigar of Delray, LLC d/b/a Carolina Cigar, DAB No. 3134, at 11 (2024).   

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).  Pursuant to the regulations, I must “assume the facts alleged in the [C]omplaint to be true” and, if those facts establish liability under the Act, issue a default judgment imposing the “maximum amount of penalties provided for by law for the violations alleged” or the civil money penalty “amount asked for in the complaint, whichever is smaller.”  Id.  Accordingly, I must determine whether the allegations in the Complaint establish violations of the Act. 

Specifically, CTP alleges the following facts in its Complaint:

• On April 18, 2024, CTP initiated a previous civil money penalty action, CRD Docket Number T-24-2577, FDA Docket Number FDA-2024-H-1881, against Respondent for at least three violations2 of the Act.  CTP alleged those violations to have occurred at Respondent’s business establishment, 605 West Market Street, Aberdeen, Washington 98520, on August 23, 2022, and February 9, 2024.  Complaint ¶ 14.
• The previous action concluded when Respondent admitted all of the allegations in the Complaint and paid the agreed upon monetary penalty.  Further, “Respondent expressly waived its right to contest such violations in subsequent actions.”  Complaint ¶ 15.
   

Page 6

• An FDA-commissioned inspector conducted a subsequent inspection of Respondent’s establishment on January 22, 2025, at approximately 2:06 PM, during which “a person younger than 21 years of age was able to purchase a package of Newport Box cigarettes . . . .” Additionally, “the underage purchaser’s age was not verified before the sale . . . .”  Complaint ¶ 13.

These facts establish that Respondent Young's Quick Stop 2 is liable under the Act.  The Act prohibits misbranding of a tobacco product.  21 U.S.C. § 331(k).  A tobacco product is misbranded if sold or distributed in violation of regulations issued under section 906(d) of the Act.  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. 

Taking the above alleged facts as true, Respondent violated the prohibition against selling regulated tobacco products to persons younger than 21 years of age on August 23, 2022, February 9, 2024, and January 22, 2025.  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.  Act § 906(d)(5); 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(a)(2)(i).  Therefore, Respondent’s actions constitute violations of law that merit a civil money penalty.

CTP has requested a civil money penalty of $7,115, which is a permissible penalty for at least five violations of the regulations found at 21 C.F.R. pt. 1140 within a 36-month period.  21 C.F.R. § 17.2.  Therefore, I find that a civil money penalty of $7,115 is warranted and so order one imposed.