Mount Rainier Dollar and Food Mart Inc. d/b/a Alife Dollar FoodMart, DAB TB10849 (2026)

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

On August 7, 2025, the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) served an administrative complaint (complaint) on Respondent, Mount Rainier Dollar and Food Mart Inc. d/b/a Alife Dollar Food Mart, at 3847 34th Street, Mount Rainier, Maryland 20712.  A copy of the complaint was also filed with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Division of Dockets Management.  In its complaint, CTP seeks to impose a No-Tobacco-Sale Order against Respondent for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days, alleging that Respondent committed five repeated violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., and its implementing regulations within a 36-month period that included February 6, 2024 to February 10, 2025.

Respondent timely filed an answer to the complaint.  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 

Page 2

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 Motion to Impose Sanctions, which requests that I impose sanctions against Respondent for its repeated noncompliance.  As a sanction for Respondent’s conduct, CTP asks me to 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 No-Tobacco-Sale Order for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days against Respondent.

I. Relevant Procedural History

On August 7, 2025, CTP served a 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.  Respondent’s answer to the complaint was due by September 8, 2025.  See 21 C.F.R. § 17.9.  On August 20, 2025, CTP forwarded Respondent’s timely answer to the Civil Remedies Division via email.1 See CRD Dkt. Entry Nos. 3 (Answer), 3a.

On September 24, 2025, I issued an Acknowledgment and Pre-Hearing Order (APHO). CRD Dkt. Entry No. 4.  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.  See id.  With regard to discovery, the APHO stated that a party is required to produce any requested documents no later than thirty 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. 4 ¶ 21.

On October 24, 2025, CTP filed a status report indicating that the parties had been unable to reach a settlement in this case.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 5 at 1.

Page 3

On December 1, 2025, CTP filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, stating that it served document requests on Respondent on October 27, 2025, at Respondent’s establishment located at 3847 34th Street, Mount Rainier, Maryland 20712, but Respondent failed to respond.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 6 at 1-2.  On that same date, CTP also filed a motion requesting a 30-day extension of all pre-hearing deadlines.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 7 at 2.

On December 10, 2025, I issued an Order advising Respondent that it had until December 26, 2025 to file a response to CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8 at 2; see also CRD Dkt. Entry No. 4 ¶¶ 20-21; 21 C.F.R. § 17.32(c).  I also granted CTP’s Motion to Extend the pre-hearing deadlines.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 8 at 2.

Respondent did not respond to CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery.  Accordingly, on January 13, 2026, 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 January 23, 2026 or to submit a written response to CTP stating that Respondent does not have any documents to produce by January 23, 2026.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 10.  I also extended the parties’ pre-hearing exchange deadlines.  Id. at 3.  In the Order, I specifically warned Respondent:

• Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions, including the issuance of an Initial Decision and Default Judgment .  .  .  .

Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).

On January 27, 2026, CTP filed the present Motion to Impose Sanctions.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 11.  In the motion, CTP states Respondent failed to comply with my January 13, 2026 Order granting CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery and has not produced any responsive documents.  Id. at 2.  CTP asks that I sanction Respondent by striking its Answer and issuing an Initial Decision and Default Judgment imposing a No-Tobacco-Sale Order for a 30 consecutive day period against Respondent.  Id.  CTP also filed a separate motion asking me to stay all deadlines pending resolution of its Motion to Impose Sanctions.  CRD Dkt. Entry No. 12.

On February 4, 2026, I issued an Order advising Respondent that it had until February 19, 2026 to file a response to CTP’s Motion to Impose Sanctions.  See CRD Dkt. Entry No. 13 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 Order granting CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery.

Page 4

II. Motion to Impose Sanctions

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, and continues to fail, to comply with multiple orders and rules, including:

• The requirements in 21 C.F.R. § 17.23(a) and paragraph 4 of the APHO, by failing to respond to CTP’s Request for Production of Documents within 30 days; and
• My January 13, 2026, Order granting CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery, by failing to produce documents responsive to CTP’s discovery requests by January 23, 2026.

In addition, I find that Respondent has failed to defend this action.  Specifically, Respondent has not filed a response to CTP’s Motion to Compel Discovery or CTP’s Motion to Impose Sanctions, nor has it taken any action in this matter since mailing its Answer to CTP on August 15, 2025.  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 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); Carolina Cigar of 

Page 5

Delray, LLC d/b/a Carolina Cigar, DAB No. 3134, at 11 (2024).  While I recognize that this is a harsh 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.  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, CTP alleges the following facts in its complaint:

• On October 31, 2017, CTP initiated the first civil money penalty action, CRD Docket Number T-18-245, FDA Docket Number FDA-2017-H-6299, against Respondent for violations of 21 C.F.R. Part 1140 on January 4, 2017 and October 23, 2017.2 CTP alleged those violations to have occurred at Respondent’s business establishment, 3847 34th Street, Mount Rainier, Maryland 20712;
• The first previous action concluded when an Initial Decision and Default Judgment was entered by an Administrative Law Judge, finding that all of the violations alleged in the first complaint occurred;
• On May 9, 2018, CTP initiated the second civil money penalty action, CRD Docket Number T-18-2158, FDA Docket Number FDA-2018-H-1786, against Respondent for violations of 21 C.F.R. Part 1140 on April 10, 2018.3 CTP alleged those violations to have occurred at Respondent’s business establishment, 3847 34th Street, Mount Rainier, Maryland 20712;
• The second previous action concluded when an Initial Decision and Default Judgment was entered by an Administrative Law Judge, finding that all of the violations alleged in the second complaint occurred;

Page 6

• On September 20, 2019, CTP initiated the third civil money penalty action, CRD Docket Number T-19-4637, FDA Docket Number FDA-2019-H-4354, against Respondent for violations of 21 C.F.R. Part 1140 on June 5, 2019.4 CTP alleged those violations to have occurred at Respondent’s business establishment, 3847 34th Street, Mount Rainier, Maryland 20712;
• The third previous action concluded when an Initial Decision and Default Judgment was entered by an Administrative Law Judge, finding that all of the violations alleged in the third complaint occurred;
• On August 21, 2024, CTP initiated the fourth civil money penalty action, CRD Docket Number T-24-4181, FDA Docket Number FDA-2024-H-3951, against Respondent for three violations of the Act within a 24-month period. CTP alleged those violations to have occurred at Respondent’s business establishment, 3847 34th Street, Mount Rainier, Maryland 20712, on February 6, 2024 and June 5, 2024;
• The fourth previous action concluded when an Initial Decision and Default Judgment was entered by an Administrative Law Judge, finding that all of the violations alleged in the fourth complaint occurred;
• At approximately 4:53 PM on February 10, 2025, at Respondent’s business establishment, 3847 34th Street, Mount Rainier, Maryland 20712, an FDA commissioned inspector conducted an inspection. During this inspection, a person younger than 21 years of age was able to purchase a JUUL Menthol e-liquid product.  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.

These facts establish that Respondent 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. 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); 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, 

Page 7

that no regulated tobacco product purchasers are younger than 21 years of age.  Act § 906(d)(5); 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(b)(2)(i).

Under 21 U.S.C. § 333(f)(8), a No-Tobacco-Sale Order is permissible for five repeated violations of the regulations found at 21 C.F.R. Part 1140.  Although the Act does not specify the duration of a No-Tobacco-Sale Order CTP guidance documents establish that the maximum period of time for the first No-Tobacco-Sale Order received by a retailer is 30 consecutive calendar days.  Determination of the Period Covered by a No-Tobacco-Sale Order and Compliance with Order at 3-4, available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/UCM460155.pdf (last updated March 2023).  CTP has requested a No-Tobacco-Sale Order against Respondent for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days.

ORDER

For these reasons, I enter a default judgment against Respondent, Mount Rainier Dollar and Food Mart Inc. d/b/a Alife Dollar Food Mart, in the form of a No-Tobacco-Sale Order, for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days.  See 21 C.F.R. § 17.11(a)(1) and (2). During this period of time, Respondent shall stop selling cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and covered tobacco products regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.  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.