Adya LLC v. Cole

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia considers Adya LLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction challenging the DEA’s immediate suspension of its controlled-substance registration. The court concludes that it has jurisdiction to review the interim suspension order and finds that Adya is likely to succeed on its claims that the DEA acted arbitrarily and capriciously and violated due process by failing to provide a prompt hearing. The court grants a narrowly tailored preliminary injunction affecting controlled substances other than the three identified in the suspension order.

Holdings

1. The district court has jurisdiction to review the ISO because 21 U.S.C. § 824(d) authorizes review by a 'court of competent jurisdiction' and the default rule of district court jurisdiction applies absent a specific direct-review statute covering ISOs.
2. The DEA's ISO was likely arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to adequately explain its imminent danger finding, particularly regarding the four-month delay between investigation and ISO, the speculative connection between evidence and conclusion, the anonymous fictitious-patient list, and the failure to consider a narrower suspension.
3. The DEA likely violated SmartCareRx's due process rights by failing to provide a prompt post-deprivation hearing after issuing the ISO.
4. SmartCareRx is entitled to a narrowly tailored preliminary injunction enjoining the ISO except as to oxycodone, hydromorphone, and promethazine with codeine.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the DEA's Immediate Suspension Order was arbitrary and capricious
2. Whether the DEA violated SmartCareRx's Fifth Amendment due process rights by failing to provide a prompt post-deprivation hearing
3. Whether the district court has jurisdiction to review the ISO under 21 U.S.C. § 824(d)
4. Whether SmartCareRx demonstrated entitlement to a preliminary injunction

Disposition

other