In Re Search of Specialty Fulfillment Center, 3 17th Ave S, Nampa, ID

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Petitioner Nordic Clinical, Inc.'s Motion for Return of Property 1 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

In the Matter of the Search of:

Case No. 1:17-mc-09979-CWD

Specialty Fulfillment Center
(dba AC Fillers)
3 17th Ave. S., Nampa, ID

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

INTRODUCTION
Nordic Clinical, Inc. filed a motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) for return of
property seized by the Government at the premises of Specialty Fulfillment Center,
located at 3 17th Avenue South, Nampa, Idaho, on September 26, 2017, pursuant to a
search warrant. Nordic contends some of the property seized was not within the scope of
the search warrant, and is not contraband. Nordic alleges it will incur irreparable business
losses if the property is not returned for distribution to its customers.
The Court conducted a hearing on the motion on December 11, 2017, at which the
parties appeared and provided oral argument. During the hearing, the Court requested

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

supplementation of the record, and the parties filed their respective declarations and
responses pursuant to the Court’s order. The matter is now ripe for consideration. After
carefully reviewing the parties’ submissions and the record before the Court, 1 the Court
will deny the motion as explained below.
FACTS
The Government applied for a search warrant on September 25, 2017, in
connection with an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted for violations of 18
U.S.C. § 371—conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the United States; 21 U.S.C.
§ 331(a), (c), and (d)—introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce
of any adulterated or misbranded drug or device; and other violations of the Food, Drug
and Cosmetics Act. The search warrant was executed at the premises of Specialty
Fulfillment Center where several items containing products and packaging materials were
seized.

1

All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to enter final
orders in this matter. See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017) (requiring consent of all named
parties); U.S. v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 513 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2008), (opinion revised and
superseded by U.S. v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. 621 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010) (magistrate judge
issued report and recommendation regarding Rule 41 motion absent consent of the parties).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

On or about October 4, 2016, affiant EF, 2 a special agent with the United States
FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigation, began an investigation of the Specialty
Fulfillment Center in Nampa. EF received information from a medical professional that
Specialty Fulfillment was distributing products to customers that included injectable
botulinum toxin and dermal fillers, as well as dietary supplements labeled as intended to
mitigate or relieve the symptoms of arthritis and bone and joint pain, to block collagen
breakdown in cartilage and connective tissues, and suppress inflammation that underlines
pain. EF testified the pain products were unapproved new drugs under the FDCA,
because of their labeling. Additionally, EF discovered topical creams were being
marketed as products intended to relieve arthritis and joint pain, with a “unique
transdermal delivery” via a “cetylated fatty acid complex,” which made the product an
unapproved new drug under the FDCA.
EF provided detailed information about the pain relief products Specialty
Fulfillment Center was shipping from its Nampa, Idaho warehouse on behalf of Nordic.
EF indicated that, on September 8, 2017, he was made aware of an FDA investigation
concerning the sale and distribution of Nordic’s products, labeled as dietary supplements
and/or topical creams. Two such products were identified by name as Neurocet and

2

The search warrant and the supporting affidavit remain under seal in Case No. 1:17-mj-09885CWD, as the investigation remains ongoing. See L. Crim. R. 49.1. Nordic did not move to unseal the
affidavit filed in support of the search warrant. See In re Search of S & S Custom Cycle Shop, 372 F.
Supp. 2d 1048, 1051 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (“Absent the existence of a criminal action, an individual simply
has no basis for bringing a motion to unseal an affidavit under the Criminal Rules.”); In Re Matter of
EyeCare Physicians of Am., 100 F.3d 514, 517 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding magistrate judge’s denial of a
motion to unseal the warrant affidavits in the context of a Rule 41(g) motion, noting one reason would be
to protect the identity of informants or others involved in the investigation).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

ActaFLEX4. EF mentioned a third product, BloodBoost, was being distributed on behalf
of Nordic as well. On May 17, 2017, an undercover agent received a package containing
BloodBoost, ActaFLEX4 cream, and Neurocet. The flyer accompanying the order listed
an address for Nordic at 3 17th Avenue South, Nampa, Idaho – Specialty Fulfillment
Center’s address (and the same premises the Government sought to search).
Attachment B to the application and to the search warrant indicated the property to
be seized included:
Evidence, instrumentalities and records relating to violations
of 21 U.S.C. § 331 and 18 U.S.C. § 371; involving the
Specialty Fulfillment Center and occurring after November 1,
2016, including:
a.
The following products:
1. Any adulterated and/or Misbranded medical devices
labeled as "Acquafiller" and "Nordic Clinical " dermal fillers,
as well as any other misbranded and/or adulterated medical
devices;
2. All unapproved new drugs, including but not limited to
products labeled as botulinum toxin or similar, intended for
injection into humans;
b.
All records and information….
(Ex. A, Dkt. No. 4-3, p. 6-10) (emphasis added).
During the execution of the warrant, law enforcement officers seized, among
other items, approximately 3500 bottles of various products labeled as “dietary
supplements” and approximately 2800 packages of products labeled as “Actaflex” pain
creams. Id. at p. 4-6. It is these products, the labeling for various products, and two
folders labeled “Nordic” that are the subject of Nordic’s motion. (Dkt. 4-1, p. 2-3.)
The specific items Nordic identified from the Inventory of Evidence for which it
demands return are:
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Item #1 – 36 Actaflex 4x pain relief cream OTC
Item #2 – 6 bottles of Neuroblock Technology, Neurocet, 30 capsules pain relief
Item #3 – 85 bottles of Neuroblock Technology, Neurocet, 30 capsules pain relief
Item #4 – 62 bottles of Neuroblock Technology, Neurocet, 30 capsules pain relief
Item #6 – Neuroblock Technology, Neurocet, 30 capsules labels
Item #9 – Insert Labels KS Nordic VZ
Item #10 – Inserts Labeled “Actaflex – TY”
Item #11 – Neurocet Kitted Inserts
Item #13 – Inserts labeled “Neuro-TY”
Item #14 – Brain NRG Kitted Inserts
Item #15 – GSH-3 Kitted Inserts
Item #16 – Medical Insert labeled “No Blood-P”
Item #17 – Medical Insert labeled “Neuro-P”
Item #28 – Flyers De Se silva – Nurdic
Item #29 – 2 folders Nordic
Item #31 – 1949 Total Bottles of blood boost
Item #32 – 1544 bottles of Neuroblock Technology, Neurocet, 30 capsules labels
Item #34 – 2799 Actaflex Pain Cream 20 oz.
Item #35 – Receiving Invoices for Nordic Clinical

(Dkt. No. 17.)
Per the Court’s request, the Government identified the following items seized
during the execution of the search warrant with expiration dates that were either expiring
imminently, or close to expiring: 3
Item
No.
1

Inventory of Evidence Description

Lot No.

Approx. 2751 Actaflex4x 2oz. tubes, NDC
5723
65643-406 on label
6 bottles Neuroblock Technology, Neurocet, 30
capsules (some of which have labels partially
removed or overlapping labels)
1 box, approx. 85 bottles Neuroblock Technology, 0491F6
Neurocet, 30 capsules (some of which have labels
removed/scraped off or overlapping labels)

2

3

3

Expiration Exhibit
No.
7/15/2018 1
4

07/2018

5

The Government represented that this is not a comprehensive list of items seized or items that
are the subject of Nordic’s motion. (Dkt. No. 19.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

4

Approx. 62 bottles Neuroblock Technology,
0491F6 07/2018
6
Neurocet, 30 capsules (some of which appear to
have overlapping labels)
5 boxes, approx. 1949 bottles Blood Boost, 60
0484D7 05/2019
7
capsules
3 boxes, approx.1544 bottles Neuroblock
0356A7 07/2018
8
Technology, Neurocet, 30 capsules
37 boxes, Actaflex4x Pain Cream:
33 boxes ActaFlex4x 2oz. tubes, NDC 65643-406 5723
7/15/2018 2
on label
4 boxes ActaFlex4x 3.4oz. tubes, no NDC number on label, mixed lot numbers, as
follows:
Approx. 143 ActaFlex4x 3.4oz. tubes
5257
10/2017
3
Approx. 15 ActaFlex4x 3.4oz. tubes
5258
10/2017
3
Approx. 165 ActaFlex4x 3.4oz. tubes
5259
10/2017
3

31
32
34

According to Nordic, the products seized (Neurocet, Blood Boost, GSH-3, 4 and
ActaFLEX4x) were manufactured by Vitaquest International, LLC (“Vitaquest”), located
in Fairfield, New Jersey. Vitaquest promotes itself as: “a fully compliant GMP
manufacturing and packaging facility. We are duly licensed and are regularly inspected
for Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) by State and Federal health authorities.”
Vitaquest’s Certificates of Analysis for the GSH-3, NO Blood Boost, and Neurocet
indicate that the products were shipped to Nordic Clinical. The ActaFLEX4x product was
ordered by Nordic through TriPharma, LLC, located in Laguna Beach, California. The
product was manufactured by LifeTech Resources, LLC, which is a registered drug
establishment, FDA Establishment No. 3003003565.

4

The Government represented it did not seize any product labeled GSH-3. Rather, it seized kitted
inserts for that product.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

Nordic contends its contract with Specialty Fulfillment Center ensures title to, or
ownership of, the products in Specialty Fulfillment’s warehouse does not pass from
Nordic to Specialty Fulfillment. Decl. of Lustigman, ¶ 17, Ex. I. (Dkt. 18-9). It appears
the Specialty Fulfilment Center handles inventory management, order processing, and
distribution of products on Nordic’s behalf. Id. Customers wishing to purchase Nordic’s
products may order them on-line at Amazon.com, where the products are offered by
Nordic. Decl. of Lustigman, ¶ 18, Ex. J. (Dkt. 18.)
DISCUSSION
1.

Applicable Standard Under Rule 41
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), “[a] person aggrieved by an

unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for
the property’s return.” Rule 41(g) directs the Court to receive evidence on any factual
issue necessary to decide the motion. If the Court grants the motion, the government must
return the property to the movant, but the Court “may impose reasonable conditions to
protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings.”
When there are no criminal proceedings pending against the movant, Rule 41(g)
motions are treated as civil proceedings invoking the court's equitable powers. Ramsden
v. U.S., 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1993) (A Rule 41(g) motion is “treated as [a] civil
equitable proceeding[]”.). 5 The Ramsden court articulated four factors the Court must

5

At the time Ramsden was decided, Rule 41(e) governed return of property seized during a
search warrant. Ramsden, 2 F.3d 322, n. 1.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7

consider in determining whether to entertain a Rule 41(g) motion made prior to initiation
of criminal proceedings:
(1) whether the Government displayed a callous disregard for the
constitutional rights of the movant;
(2) whether the movant has an individual interest in and need for the
property he wants returned;
(3) whether the movant would be irreparably injured by denying return of
the property; and
(4) whether the movant has an adequate remedy at law for the redress of his
grievance.
Id. at 325. No single factor is determinative. “If the ‘balance of equities tilts in favor of
reaching the merits’ of the Rule 41(g) motion, the district court should exercise its
equitable jurisdiction to entertain the motion.” United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236,
1238 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Ramsden, 2 F.3d at 326).
If the Court reaches the merits of “a motion for return of property [that] is made
before an indictment is filed (but a criminal investigation is pending), the movant bears
the burden of proving both that the seizure was illegal and that he or she is entitled to
lawful possession of the property.” United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364, 1369 (9th
Cir. 1987). A return of property should follow only a particularly egregious violation;
“[t]he issue is whether the Government's conduct was sufficiently reprehensible…to
warrant this sanction.” Ramsden, 2 F.3d at 327.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8

2.

Application of the Ramsden Factors
The Court first will consider the Ramsden factors to determine if they weigh in

favor of invoking equitable jurisdiction. Ramsden, 2 F.3d 322 (factors must be considered
before district court can reach merits of pre-indictment Rule 41(e) (now (g)) motion). 6
A.

Whether the Government Displayed a Callous Disregard for the
Constitutional Rights of The Movant

Nordic argues the property was improperly seized because it did not fall within the
parameters of the warrant, citing paragraph (a)(1) and (2) in Attachment B. See p. 4,
supra. Nordic contends the listing of Nordic as a brand of dermal fillers did not authorize
the seizure of Nordic’s products that were not dermal fillers. Further, the “unapproved
new drugs” were described as including, but not limited to, products labeled as botulinum
toxin or similar. Nordic argues its products are not dermal fillers or botulinum toxin, and
thus not covered by the warrant.
A callous disregard for Nordic’s constitutional rights is a higher threshold than a
mere violation of its constitutional rights. Burum, 2014 WL 12596719, at *4. For
instance, if the Government sought to comply with the search warrant in good faith, such

6

This Court recently had occasion to consider a motion under Rule 41 in United States v. Sperow,
No. 1:06-cr-126-BLW, 2017 WL 1073347 (D. Idaho Mar. 20, 2017). Because the motion was raised postconviction, the standard for review was different. The Court explained that, after a criminal proceeding is
over, there is a presumption in favor of the person from whom the property was seized that he has a right
to its return. 2017 WL 1073347 at *4. The government can rebut the presumption by showing it has a
legitimate reason for retaining the property and that retention of the property is reasonable taking into
consideration all facts and circumstances. Id. In such cases, the legality of the search and seizure is no
longer an issue and, even if the seizure was lawful, the Government must justify its continued possession
of the property by demonstrating that it is contraband or subject to forfeiture. United States v. Martinson,
809 F.2d 1364, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). See also United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d 1048, 1061
(9th Cir. Cir. 1991) (considering post-conviction Rule 41 motion).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9

conduct would not constitute a “callous disregard” for a movant's constitutional rights.
See Cox v. United States, No. CV 07-1200 SMM, 2008 WL 477877, at * 4 (D. Ariz. Feb.
19, 2008) (“[A] callous disregard for Petitioner's constitutional rights would not have
been established unless the agents deliberately disregarded the requirements of Fed. R.
Crim. P. 41 or the plaintiff was prejudiced.”) (citing United States v. Mann, 389 F. 3d
869, 874-76 (9th Cir. 2004)); United States v. Gantt, 194 F. 3d 987, 994-95 (9th Cir.
1999)).
Here, the undersigned Magistrate Judge had two occasions to review the affidavit
submitted in support of the application for the search warrant, both prospectively and
upon consideration of Nordic’s motion. The Affidavit specifically identifies the products
to be seized (Neurocet, ActaFLEX4, and BloodBoost), as well as the labeling and other
records relating to those products. The affiant, EF, explained the basis for his belief that
the products were “unapproved new drugs”. The Affidavit provided the particularized
information necessary for the Magistrate Judge to find probable cause for the issuance of
the warrant and for seizing the property that was in fact seized. Probable cause was found
to seize not only the botulinum products, but also the three analgesic products identified
as being sold via a website operated by Nordic and distributed by Nordic from a physical
address matching the address of Specialty Fulfillment. The Government was therefore
authorized to seize the Nordic products and related records and information, as they fell
within the scope of the search warrant.
Attachment B, when read together with the Affidavit, described “any other
misbranded and/or adulterated medical devices,” as well as “all unapproved new drugs.”
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10

Although Exhibit B included botulinum toxin, the reference was not limited to such
products. Probable cause was found to search the premises of Specialty Fulfillment
Center and to seize the products referenced in the Affidavit that fell within the scope of
Exhibit B, including “other” misbranded medical devices and “all unapproved new
drugs,” as stated in Exhibit B. The Affidavit specifically identified the association of
Nordic with these products, and they appear to be among the products seized.
The Government followed proper procedure, obtained a warrant, and executed the
warrant approved by the Magistrate Judge. In contrast, the court in Ramsden found
against the government because no warrant was obtained. 2 F.3d at 325. Clearly, the
conduct of the Government here does not rise to the level of callous disregard for
Nordic’s Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, the Court needs not reach the argument
raised by the Government that the products seized are contraband and therefore should
not be returned. Such goes to the merits of the matter or would be the subject of a postconviction Rule 41 motion. It will be up to the Government to prove the products’
illegality in the event criminal charges are filed. Here, upon review of the search warrant
affidavit, the Court need only have found probable cause for the search and seizure of
items at Specialty Fulfillment Center that may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or
property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crime. See Fed.
Crim. Rule 41(c).
Under these circumstances, the Court cannot find that the Government acted with
“callous disregard” for Nordic’s rights. Accordingly, the first factor of the Ramsden

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 11

analysis weighs against the Court’s exercise of equitable jurisdiction over the Rule 41(g)
motion.
B.

Whether The Movant Has an Individual Interest In And Need For
The Property He Wants Returned

Nordic indicates it has an individual interest in and need for the property because
the dietary supplements and topical creams are essential to its business. Nordic wants the
saleable products back so it can sell them. The Government argues the products are
contraband and non-merchantable, and therefore, Nordic has no right to sell them. The
Government introduced affidavits from the FDA medical advisor and a pharmacist
working with the Drug Registration and Listing System at the FDA Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Office of Compliance, indicating that Neurocet, BloodBoost,
and ActaFLEX4X are unapproved new drugs and misbranded drugs, which are not
saleable. Nordic’s response to these affidavits was an affidavit of its own, claiming the
product ingredients are approved for sale. Nordic introduced also supplemental materials
demonstrating an ownership interest in the products and their legal manufacture by
others.
Although the parties argued about whether marketing and sale of the products is
lawful, the Court finds it inappropriate to answer that question within the context of this
pre-indictment motion. United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 621 F.3d
1162, 1173 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Under Ramsden, the district court is required to balance four
discretionary factors to determine whether to allow the government to retain the property,
order it returned or (as happened in Ramsden) craft a compromise solution…”); see also

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 12

note 6, supra. Instead, the Court must confine its analysis to Nordic’s individual interest
in and the professed need for the property it wants returned.
In cases where a court found that the return of property prior to an indictment was
appropriate, the property involved documents or computer hardware necessary for the
movant to run his or her business. For example, in Ramsden, the court found the property
seized included documents necessary for the movant to run his business. 2 F.3d at 325. 7
The court allowed the government to retain the originals, and provide copies to the
claimant. Id. Similarly, in In re Singh, 892 F.Supp.1 (U.S. D.C. 1995), the government
seized tax return documents and other business documents from a tax preparer. In
considering a pre-indictment Rule 41 motion, the court found the movant was entitled to
the return of copies of the documents, such that the movant could continue to run his
business. In re Singh, 892 F.Supp. at 2. The government was permitted to retain the
original documents. Id. In Drug Testing, the interest was the baseball players’ privacy
interests in their drug test results and the specimens seized. 621 F.3d at 1173 (removal of
the urine samples and documents constituted a breach of the Major League Baseball
Players Association’s negotiated agreement for confidentiality, violated its members’
privacy interests, and interfered with the operation of its business).
Here, no similar interest is implicated other than Nordic’s economic interest in
selling the seized products it claims were lawfully manufactured by others and owned

7

However, it does not appear the documents seized in Ramsden were seized for anything other
than the information contained within the documents, and the court gave scant analysis of this factor. The
more troubling factor was that the search and seizure was effected without a warrant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 13

and marketed by Nordic. But, because the investigation is ongoing, the lawfulness of the
products themselves, or their continued merchantability, is not for the Court to decide.
While the Government has not filed formal charges, the Government indicated the
products are being retained as part of its ongoing criminal investigation. Many of the
ActaFLEX products seized have an expiration date that either has already passed, or will
pass soon, preventing their sale in any event. The Government should be permitted a
reasonable amount of time to pursue its investigation and determine whether to bring
formal charges. This factor therefore weighs against exercising equitable jurisdiction.
C.

Whether The Movant Would Be Irreparably Injured by Denying
Return of The Property

Nordic contends it would be irreparably injured by denying return of its property
because the products have a limited shelf life of two years, and their value is similarly
limited. If Nordic cannot obtain return of the items, Nordic claims it will suffer
approximately $259,000 in lost sales. Nordic does not substantiate this dollar figure.
The Government argues that, because the property at issue cannot be lawfully sold
and is therefore not merchantable, there is no irreparable injury. Nordic, it contends, can
still function as a going concern, as its computers, buildings, and the like were not seized.
See Ramsden, 2 F.3d at 325 (rejecting movant’s contention that without the return of the
original documents (as opposed to copies), he would be unable to run his business); see
also In re 6455 South Yosemite, 897 F.2d 1549, 1557 (10th Cir. 1990) (noting that “if
appellant ... is to establish irreparable injury, it must be because of an ongoing business
need to recover original copies of the documents seized....”).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 14

Nordic essentially contends it will lose profits based upon its inability to sell the
products seized. However, Nordic can still function as a going concern. Put another way,
there is no showing that the alleged harm—the inability to sell the products—is
irreparable to Nordic’s business as a whole. 8 This factor weighs against exercising
equitable jurisdiction.
D.

Whether the Movant Has an Adequate Remedy at Law for the
Redress of its Grievance

Nordic contends it has no adequate remedy at law, as it has not been indicted, and
has no other opportunity to challenge the seizure due to the limited shelf life of the
products. The Government counters that the motion is premature, because the
Government has an evidentiary need to retain the property, its criminal investigation is
ongoing, and no criminal charges have been filed yet. The Government asserts Nordic
can challenge the seizure of the products and documents if an indictment is returned, and
request return of the products at a later date. The Government argues the limited shelf life
of the products is not a consideration here, as that pertains only to Nordic’s immediate
economic concerns.
Here, it is unknown whether the Government will prosecute any person or entity
involved in its investigation, including Nordic. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether

8

This matter is no different than any other matter where products or goods that can allegedly be
lawfully sold are seized during an investigation. Here, simply because the nature of the products as
dietary supplements or unapproved new drugs is unsettled should make no difference. The products were
seized during a criminal investigation into alleged unlawful activity pursuant to the Food, Drug and
Cosmetics Act. The balance of equities does not tip in favor of the purported owner of the seized products
to continue their marketing and sale simply because the owner disputes the ultimate issue of their
illegality.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 15

or when Nordic, or anyone else who may be implicated, will have an opportunity to
challenge the seizure of the items at issue. What is clear is that there remains an ongoing
criminal investigation involving Specialty Fulfillment Center, Nordic, and potentially
others, and charges may still be forthcoming. If an indictment or other criminal
proceedings ensue, Nordic (or Specialty Fulfillment) may challenge the seizure of the
products and documents in those criminal proceedings.
Because Nordic may have an opportunity to challenge the seizure in future
criminal proceedings, Nordic has not sufficiently shown an inadequate remedy at law.
See Zubkis v. Lange, 966 F. Supp. 985, 987 (S.D. Cal. 1997), aff'd sub nom. Zubkis v.
United States, 133 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding that because an indictment may still
issue, plaintiff could challenge the seizure in the criminal proceedings and therefore had
an adequate remedy at law).
CONCLUSION
The Court finds Nordic has not sufficiently demonstrated the prerequisites for the
Court’s exercise of equitable jurisdiction. The Court therefore declines to exercise
equitable jurisdiction, and accordingly will neither reach the merits of the request to
return the property, or consider conditions to impose to protect the Government’s access
to the property upon its return.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 16

ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1)

Petitioner Nordic Clinical, Inc.’s Motion for Return of Property (Dkt. 1) is
DENIED.

DATED: February 8, 2018

_________________________
Honorable Candy W. Dale
United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 17