State of California v. Phillip Del Rosa, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 State of California, No. 2:23-cv-00743-KJM-SCR 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv.

14 Phillip Del Rosa, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 In anticipation of the hearing on California’s Notices of Violation, ECF Nos 164 & 179, | set for September 25, 2025, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom Three, the court notifies the parties they | should be prepared to address the following questions, with citations to authority if available: 20 1. Does California contend that under the preliminary injunction, there are no 21 plausible cigarette sales the Azuma Corporation (Azuma) or its employees can 22 legally make while Azuma is on the PACT Act non-compliant list?

23 2. Does California concede the sale of cigarettes as described by defendants 24 occurring at the Azuma Corporation factory are being made face-to-face as defined 25 by 15 U.S.C. § 375(5)(A)?

26 3. California argues the term “delivery” in 15 U.S.C. § 376a(e)(2)(A) is not limited 27 by the Act’s definition of “delivery sale” in § 375(5), but is instead broader.

28 Considering that § 376a is titled “Delivery Sales” and § 375(5) expressly defines 1 that term, how should the court interpret “delivery” in § 376a(e)(2)(A) — as 2 coextensive with “delivery sale” or as a separate, broader prohibition?

3 4. What authority addresses whether “delivery” as used in § 376a(e)(2)(A) includes 4 transfers where the buyer’s agent or employee, but not the buyer personally, 5 retrieves the product?

6 5. Does the plain language of the PACT Act and its prohibitions reach cigarette sales 7 between Indians of the same tribe on tribal land?

8 6. Can the parties clarify their positions regarding the applicability of the PACT Act 9 to the facts of this case, given Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Coleville 10 Indian Resrv., 447 U.S. 143, 161 (1980), which this court previously has cited?

11 7. If the court determines the existing sanctions order remains applicable at this time, 12 do the parties agree the court may order an additional monetary sanction of 13 $68,000 based on each notice of violation ($136,000 total) under the sanctions 14 schedule in that order?

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 DATED: September 23, 2025.