United States Postal Service v. Oriental Nurseries, Inc.

491 F. Supp. 1265, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13623
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedJune 17, 1980
DocketNo. 80-966-Civ-JLK
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 491 F. Supp. 1265 (United States Postal Service v. Oriental Nurseries, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States Postal Service v. Oriental Nurseries, Inc., 491 F. Supp. 1265, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13623 (S.D. Fla. 1980).

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge.

This is an action by the United States Postal Service against Oriental Nurseries seeking the temporary detention of the defendant’s mail pursuant to 39 U.S.C.A. § 3007. The Postal Service seeks to detain the defendant’s mail until the conclusion of administrative proceedings now in progress under 39 U.S.C.A. § 3005. The basis for the detention is that there is probable cause to believe that Oriental is engaged in a scheme or device designed to obtain money or property through the mail by means of false representation in violation of § 3005. The Postal Service claims that an advertisement placed in magazines by Oriental for the mail order purchase of Paulownia tomentosa trees, was false and misleading.

A probable cause hearing was held on May 2,1980 at which Dr. Frederick Knight, a research horticulturist with the United States Department of Agriculture, testified. The final hearing was held on June 2, 1980. Jack L. Levy, President of Oriental Nurseries, and Donald Graves, a forester and extension professor at the University of Kentucky, testified at the final hearing. The transcript of the Postal Service administrative proceedings was admitted into evidence during this final hearing. Donald Graves, Michael Dirr, Associate Professor of Horticulture at the University of Georgia, and William S. Romeka, a self-employed developer of Paulownia, testified at the administrative hearing.

FACTS

In the spring of 1980, advertisements appeared in various magazines for the mail order sale of “Chinese Empress” trees, more properly known as Paulownia tomentosa.1 The Postal Service contends that these advertisements contain false representations with respect to the Paulownia’s growth rate, cold hardiness, leaf size, blossoms and ability to thrive in any climate or soil. A summary of the advertisement’s alleged false representations and the evidence on each statement and Paulownia characteristic is considered separately below.

1. Growth Rate. The advertisement states that “THE FLOWERING ‘CHINESE EMPRESS’ GROWS UP TO A FULL 14 FEET IN ONLY 1 SEASON AND SOARS UP TO 23 FEET . . . IN ONLY 2 YEARS!!” and “YES, THE ‘CHINESE EMPRESS’ ACTUALLY GROWS UP TO 14 FEET IN THE VERY FIRST SEASON!”

The Postal Service claims that these statements constitute a false representation of the Paulownia growth rate. The testi[1267]*1267mony of each expert witness on the expected growth rate of a Paulownia under normal conditions, varied only slightly. Dr. Knight testified that the rate would be six and a half to 10 feet in the first year (5/2/80). Dirr concurred with a prediction of six to eight feet and possibly 10 feet (Tr. 32) while Graves states eight to 10 feet (Tr. 149); Romeka estimated seven or eight feet (Tr. 201).2

There was testimony of exceptional growth of Paulownia. Graves testified that he had personally observed a Paulownia which had grown 16 feet in one year and predicted that a vigorous stump sprout could grow up to 20 feet. Romeka also testified that he had observed Paulownias which had grown 12 feet in one year. However, this growth rate occurred in 6 Paulownias out of a 15,000 tree plantation. The remaining trees grew approximately seven or eight feet. (Tr. 201).3 Despite these isolated reports of exceptional growth, Knight, Dirr, and Graves testified that, in all probability, an ordinary gardener could not expect this type of growth from the seedlings shipped by the defendant in response to mail orders.

2. Cold Hardiness. The advertisement states that “The amazing ‘CHINESE EMPRESS’ even thrives in shaded or sheltered area ... in climates where temperatures can drop as low as 25 degrees below zero . . The testimony indicates that the Paulownia does not thrive at those temperatures, but that the tree may, in fact, be frozen to the ground or damaged. Although the roots may survive such extreme temperatures (Knight, 5/2/80), the advertisement indicates that the tree portion will also remain hardy. Dirr testified in the administrative proceedings that in the vicinity and temperature zone of Chicago, Illinois, the roots of the Paulownia are cold hardy enough to withstand the extreme winter cold, but that the tree never reaches flowering size because it is continuously damaged by the cold. (Tr. 40-41). Graves testified that under sustained cold of -25° F., the tree portion would probably die back to the ground.

3. Leaf Size. “ITS LEAVES MEASURE UP TO 2% FEET ACROSS . . . shading your lawn with lush, dense, velvety foliage” is the advertisement’s representation of the Paulownia leaf. The evidence gathered at both the administrative hearing and the hearing before this court reveals that the leaf size stated in the advertisement does occur, but only on shoots from established stumps, not from seedlings. (Knight, 5/2/80; Dirr, Tr. 43, 44; Graves 6/2/80; Romeka, Tr. 202.) The leaves of mature trees range in size from five to 12 inches. (Knight, 5/2/80; Dirr, Tr. 43.) Although neither Graves nor Romeka stated an estimate of mature leaf size, they both indicated that each had never observed leaves on mature trees the size of those on shoots.

[1268]*12684. Blossoms. With respect to the Paulownia flower, the advertisement states: “The ‘CHINESE EMPRESS’ tree not only drapes its branches with lush green foliage from EASTER TO LABOR DAY . . . but it smothers itself with brilliant BOUQUETS OF DELICATE FLOWERS in Spring and Summer.” The Postal Service contends that this statement is misleading because it fails to state certain facts about the blossoms and falsely represents the time and length of blooming. The advertisement fails to state that it is physically impossible for the Paulownia to bloom before three years of growth (Graves, 6/2/80) and that blooms cannot be expected until three to six years of growth from seed (Dirr, Tr. 42). ■ Generally, the Paulownia does not bloom sooner than five years. (Graves, Tr. 150). In addition, the Paulownia does not generate flowers and leaves at the same time as the advertisement indicates. The flowers precede the leaves. (Dirr, Tr. 27). The advertisement also indicates that the Paulownia blooms twice a year, once in the spring and once in the summer or throughout both seasons. The evidence indicates that the tree blooms only once a year for three to four weeks. (Knight, 5/2/80; Graves, 6/2/80; Dirr, Tr. 42; Romeka, Tr. 198). Moreover, Paulownia blooms only in areas in which the tree is climatically adapted. (Knight, 5/2/80).

5. Ability to Thrive in Any Climate or Soil. The statement that the Paulownia “GROWS IN PRACTICALLY ANY CLIMATE OR SOIL . •. is not supported by the evidence. Dr. Knight (5/2/80) testified that the Paulownia is adapted to the middle latitudes, and Dr. Graves specified ' the temperate zone (6/2/80). Dirr testified that the Paulownia grows reasonably well south of New York. (Tr. 30). The tree does not grow well in tropic or subtropic zones. (Graves, 6/2/80). The advertisement does not point out these facts.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C.A. § 3007, the Postal Service seeks detention of the defendant’s mail during the pendency of the § 3005 proceedings now in progress before the United States Postal Service.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States Postal Service v. Stimpson
515 F. Supp. 1149 (N.D. Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
491 F. Supp. 1265, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-postal-service-v-oriental-nurseries-inc-flsd-1980.