Aqua Bar & Lounge, Inc. v. United States of America Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service and Joseph B. Saltz

In- dеciding the case. dispute essential under the “ori- is irrelevant or motive

tent origin test. of the claim”

gin Ledger’s protection was the

litigation of “earn- “siphoning” from the

investment Funds.

ings” by the trustees

short, wholly failed to the Government origin a nexus between

demonstrate Repub- acquisition of litigation

(cid:127)the

lican; litiga- show without facts to integral part purchase anwas stock, were litigation of that costs 162. deductible under Section

properly granted. properly

Summary judgment

Affirmed. INC.,

AQUA LOUNGE, BAR &

Appellant, of America DEPART

UNITED STATES OF TREASURY INTERNAL

MENT Joseph B. SERVICE and

REVENUE

Saltz. 75-2125.

No. Appeals, Court of

Third Circuit.

Argued March July

Decided Curran,

Robert E. J. U. Atty., Gary S. Tilles, Atty., Asst. U. S. Scott P. Crampton, Gen., Asst. Atty. Andrews, Gilbert E. Elmer J. Kelsey, Heller, F. Arnold Attys., Tax Div., Justice, Dept, of Washington, C.,D. for appellees. SEITZ,

Before Judge, Chief and RO- GARTH, SENN and Judges. Circuit OPINION OF THE COURT SEITZ, Judge. Chief This appeal raises the issue of whether a taxpayer whose property has been seized and sold by the federal non-payment ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‍of federal taxes thereaft- bring er the United States to quiet title to that same property provided that he refrains contesting from the merits of the underlying tax assessment itself. Plaintiff, Aqua Lounge, Bar & Inc. (“plaintiff”) was the owner of a restaurant liquor license Pennsylvania issued Liquor Control Board. January On 1975,the (“IRS”), Internal Revenue Service pursuing non-judicial remedies available it, issued a notice of seizure of plaintiff’s property rights in this pursuant non-рayment U.S.C. 6331for of federal employment Thereafter, taxes. is- IRS sued a notice of plaintiff’s sealed bid sale of property rights liquor in the license under of 26 U.S.C. 6335. The license was ultimately purchased by the de- Joseph fendant Saltz. brought

Plaintiff then this action in the district court the United States and seeking Saltz to have the seizure and subse- quent sale of its license declared null and void on grounds: (1) that the IRS had power 6331; to seize the license under § (2) that the IRS had failed to comply procedures with the for salе set forth in addition, 6335. In requested prelimi- nary injunction restraining peti- Saltz from tioning the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to transfer the license from the Pa., Lapowsky, Philadelphia, ap- plaintiff Abe to himself. plaintiff pellant. did not challenge of the under- personal real or nonpayment property on tax assessment lying and sale of its in the seizure or claims had resulted mortgage Finally, plaintiff or other lien.” the Anti-Injunction maintains that neither motion of the United Upon Declaratory Act nor Judgement motiоn for plaintiff’s denied district operates deprive a to federal court of its injunction and dismissed its preliminary jurisdiction 1340 under and 2410 when government the as both complaint the taxpayer merely challenges involved the The jurisdiction. of for lack and Saltz validity a tax lien for comply of failure to complaint sought, the reasoned that court with statutory requirements and refrains essence, declaratory judgment “with in from contesting underly- the merits of the which the court to Federal taxes” respect ing tаx assessment itself. under the power grant no to Declarato- had - The Act, government In Judgment agrees § U.S.C. that ry is § addition, possible in- jurisdictional the court determined that the basis for this action. Anti-Injunc- However, maintains, the by stant action was barred and the district Act, 7421(a), found, court prohib- which that even assuming tion U.S.C. that this § may suit seeking to restrain “the assess- be treated as an quiet its a suit action to title, any Finally, 2410(a)(1) tax.” or collection of lift the bar of ment Judgment sovereign Declaratory immunity the and in apart from cases where a tax- Acts, payer seized, court Anti-Injunction the held has as been opposed party maintained because to a third an suit could not be who claims the interest property, brings had not waived its sover- in that the United States addition, to the immunity it. This United it contends eign States. that the correctly district court determined followed. appeal Anti-Injunction that both the and Declara- Characterizing its suit as one to tory Judgment prohibit Acts this suit. which the title to on United quiet lien, asserts that the turn first to plaintiff question has We the whether, allegations jurisdiction hear this based on the contained had district in in the complaint, may under 28 combina this suit be treated as action U.S.C. § 2410(a)(1). an quiet with 28 action to title to on which tion Section grants the the Judicial the federal has a lien. We think that 1340 of Code question this “original jurisdiction any courts must be answered in the aff district any of Con the time of the arising proceedings irmative.1 At civil below, plain internal revenue.” title to the license in gress providing for remained tiff’s the records Clearly, Pennsylva a suit which contests name on addition, Liquor falls its nia Board. nei tax and sale within Control a federal lien Coson, physi ther the had v. nor Saltz obtained United States IRS terms. See 1961). gen possession cal of the license document as it (9th Cir. This F.2d 455-56 not, jurisdiction plain safekeeping Liquor in the does remained grant eral in Harrisburg. a waiver sover Control Board’s offices Cer recognizes, tiff constitute tainly, lien the tax asserted immunity by the United States. both eign (E.D. government the sale license to F.Supp. 718 Pa. and Quinn v. Saltz, invalid, if would cast clouds on 1964), aff’d 341 F.2d 920 indeed However, license. Little River argues required title to the plaintiff Farms, States, 2410(a)(1) pro Inc. v. is found in waiver (N.D. Ga.1971). quiet title may named An action to vides that quiet removing is the method of proper action “to title any as a civil litigation. suggested this government since the district this suit contention, quiet title court did not address this we be- not be viewed as an action plaintiff longer possessed appropriate lieve the issue is more because ‘ inception upon remand. at the rеsolution the district court interest title or in the Coson, upset comprehensive on title. United States clouds inter-related system at 457. supra judicial administrative and reme- for collecting dies resolving an regard is not Our this conclusion liability. individual’s tax by the fact that the license is undermined examination, After real we do not personal rather than Al believe that plaintiff’s though quiet traditionally interpretation title have suits is this foreclosed property, particular legislative involved real ac statute’s histо- ry governed by federal rather than as the suggests. quiet And, federal stat provision state law. the relevant title 2410 was added to ute, terms, 2410, contemplates, by very sure, statute in explaining 1942. To be personalty actions to title to on which purpose Congress, amendment’s a lien. Lit States has claims Attorney General, later Mr. Justice Jack- Farms, River su tle Inc. United son, taxpayers did not among include 479; Nash, at v. 354 pra Yannicelli prospective plaintiffs might who he felt uti- (D.N.J.1973). 143 lize the provision. H.Rep.No.1191, 77th Sess., 2; Cong., p. 1st S.Reр.No.1646, 77th Having determined that this suit Sess., Cong., 2d p. However, 2. we do not may properly be viewed as an action to read his brief to remarks exhaust all the title, the we turn to crucial issue of possibilities under the statute’s rather broad taxpayer whether a whose property is sub language. Moreover, we note that the leg- jected to a lien bring federal tax suit islative history surrounding ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‍the most recent against under 2410, revision of contained § in the Federal 2410(a)(1). Plaintiff that concedes an ac § 1966, Tax Lien ofAct makes no mention of collaterally tion which assails the merits any such limitation to parties third al- underlying the tax assessment will not lie though history the provi- of certain other under the supra. statute. v. sions of that specifically limit their However, it maintains that this statute applicability parties to other than the tax- sovereign immunity regard waives without payer involved. 1966 Cong. U.S.Code & the plaintiff’s to status the when Admin.News, p. seq. 3722 et Under these validity the tax only contests of a lien and circumstances, we think it to best look to comply statutory sale for failure to specific the language Congress chose to en- requirements. regard, points In this it out act rather than the draftsman’s illustra- language the that 2410 does not limit § See, g., Schwegmann tions. e. Bros. v. Cal- availability parties other than the vert, 384, 395, U.S. S.Ct. taxpayer is involved. (1951) (Jackson, J., L.Ed. 1035 addition, concurring). it contends that any construction And that language preclude a tax- prohibits taxpayer which a from payer from availing himself of 2410. bringing deprive suit thereunder would him any remedy against govеrnment the for Nor do weight we find that the of the illegal seizure of his law supports case in this area govern- position. ment’s government, hand, vig- Nearly every The on the case other cited orously legislative maintains that both involved a taxpayer’s at- history tempt of 2410 utilize weight of the case 2410 to challenge construing law it demonstrate that it merits of the tax assessment underlying the sovereign intended to waive lien.2 immunity only E.g., States, Falik v. United 343 F.2d brought (2d in suits parties claiming 1965); Quinn third Cir. Hook, supra. v. To ownership sure, or an interest these cases have uniformly held belonging taxpayer. Moreover, that a taxpayer may not mount a collateral argues interpretation that would attack on the merits of the tax assessment exception, States, States, 2. The sole Fidler v. United tion of Falik 343 F.2d 38 (N.D.N.Y.1972), A.F.T.R.2d is based on interpreta- we believe to an what erroneous of the tax put believe assessment is not we under § issue, from the we fail to distinguishable per are see how a decision decisions those and in mitting taxpayer facts bring bоth on their suit under case instant they were these on which circumstances will undermine the policies es terms judicial tablished administrative and frame premised. resolving an work for individual’s tax liabil govern- by the leading case relied on ity. Three four courts which have States, illustrative. ment, Falik v. United recently confronted the same issue now be against suit taxpayer brought There a recognized have fore us these distinctions on her a tax lien to remove permitted bring taxpayer suit contended taxpayеr home. Eberlien, Popp under unpaid because the invalid lien was denied, 1969), cert. 396 U.S. wrongfully it was based had been on which 222, 24 (1969); 90 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 185 that no finding her. assessed Farms, River Little Inc. v. United challenge could be maintained Nash, Yancelli v. supra; supra. 2410, Judge reasoned Con- Friendly to extend to not have intended gress could are only unpersuaded Not we by the they remedy a new taxpayers arguments government’s prohibiting through this liability their contest tax could taxpayer from bringing properly limited Rather, he to the Judicial Code. addition United States under § remedies taxpayer’s exclusive held strong policy we also find reasons per deficiency in the either contest the were to mitting such an inviolability action. The of there- pay assessment Tax Court private ownership long has been a funda court for a bring suit in the district after principle jurispru mental of our nation’s supra. also v. refund. Powell, Thatcher 6 Wheat. dence. See that a However, at no time determined he 119, 125, 221 (1821). recognition 5 L.Ed. 2410 under could not utilize taxpayer § Cоngress principle, imposed of this pre reading of Indeed, close a circumstances. on the cise strictures seizure and sale of an could suggests taxpayer a opinion that his individual’s to satisfy the IRS 2410 if he limits an action under § maintain legitimate tax provi deficiencies. These regularity of challenge procedural to the his sions, plaintiff which the contends were not F.2d lien. 343 at 42. case, with in the complied instant are for protection taxpayer the obvious similar cases rationale Falik and faced with the loss of his Reece here, where, application as thus has no Scoggins, F.2d legality taxpayer questions only Yet, 1975). if is construed to lift the § lien and used to enforce a tax procedures sovereign only immunity barrier to ac validity of the tax assessment itself. not the brought by parties tions than the limited, challenge the tax- his is so When stake, taxpayer is at attempt makes no to circumvent payer taxpayer would have no available means of that, except long stаnding “the principle enforcing compliance procedures with as provided § [26 U.S.C.] enacted for his the absence of a benefit. to review of determinations Congressional contrary, directive to the we income, tax gift and estate deficiencies place narrowing to refuse a construc Court, person whose sole by the Tax deprive taxpayer tion on 2410 and thus § that a tax assessment claim is federal any remedy against arbitrary adminis law grounded well in fact and was not ” trative action. later.’ Fa- ‘pay litigate first and must lik, 343 F.2d at 42. We therefore 2410 con hold § Indeed, sovereign immunity in Fa waiver of the remedies found exclusive stitutes a aggrieved brought by taxpayer against no recourse at all to the a suit lik offer here, who, plaintiff challenges validity admits taxpayer Moreover, long since lien of a federal tax and sale so as the the assessed are due. GARTH, contesting the mer- Judge refrains from Circuit taxpayer (concurring): itself. underlying its of the tax assessment I agree that the judgment of the district jurisdiction thus had The district court court must be vacated and the case remand- provision hear this action ed for further proceedings. However, I with 28 U.S.C. combination believe majority’s upon reliance U.S.C. as a waiver sovereign Finally, in our view neither the De immunity is at odds with both the explicit the Anti-In claratory Judgment Act nor provisions of the statute as well as legis- deprive the district junction operates Act history. lative Consequently, I would hold jurisdiction it would court of the otherwise that the elaborаte and detailed seizure and Admittedly, have to resolve this matter. of the Internal Revenue any challenge to the aof federal Code, 6331, 6335, 26 U.S.C. of necessity tax lien and sale indirectly interferes with provide implied an waiver of immunity process the tax collection which those stat alleged where it is that the Internal Reve- designed protect utes are from undue nue (IRS) Service has failed to comply with litigation outside the Tax Court. these Congressional mandated directives. taxpayer contesting when a refrains from This Circuit has long recognized in the of the underlying the merits tax assess context of suits commenced under 28 U.S.C. ment, his attack on a federal tax lien and 1340,1that without a waiver sovereign any great sale under 2410 does not cause is, immunity, course, clear and un- “[i]t proc er interference with the tax collection disputed that [a] brought by ess than a similar suit a third is not maintainable . .” party Quite under that statute. obviously, Emlenton, First Nat’l Bank of Pa. v. United Judgment Declaratory poses barrier to a suit a third to clear his Although the United States has consented aof federal tax lien since the to be sued under 28 2410(a)(1), specifically title action mandated statute in my opinion, apply 2410 is in substance a suit for a declarato presented facts here. 2410(a)(1), Under § ry judgment. Likewise, Anti-Injunc the interpreted tion Act has the been so as not to United States prohibit named a party party any such third suits. in civil action or suit Coson, court, any district supra any States v. at 458-59. We or in see State court having policy logic jurisdictiоn no reason in ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‍or subject to treat an mat- ter— brought aby taxpayer in a different Nash, manner. Yancelli v. supra. We (1) to, quiet title . real or therefore conclude that both the Declarato personal property on which the United ry Judgment Anti-Injunction Acts States has or claims a mortgage or other inapplicable are in the circumstances of this (Emphasis added.) lien.

case. Aqua Bar Lounge, Bar) & Inc. (Aqua has judgment of the district court will sought a declaration that the seizure and vacated and this case remandеd for further liquor of its license the defendant proceedings opin- not inconsistent with this United States was unlawful under 26 U.S.C. 6331, ion. 6335.2 The uncontested allegations provides pertinent part: 1. 28 sale of such is to be conducted. pertinent part requires: § 6335 original juris- The district courts shall have any any arising (a) diction of civil action practicable . . . As soon as after Congress providing Act of property, for internal reve- writing seizure of notice in shall be given by Secretary nue . the .... Such no- specify tice shall the sum dеmanded and provides levy 2. Section 6331 for a and distraint contain, personal shall proper- in the case of to effect the collection of taxes. Section ty, an account seized describes the manner in which the seizure and reports, permit House and Senate “is to at the time indicate that complaint to be made a the United States the IRS sale commenced this suit involving foreclosure defendant in cases already had been to defendant Saltz mortgages persоnal proper- or liens on Thus, clear to me quite it is consummated. provide a method to clear real ty and to has seized the United States that where or valueless questionable estate titles of license there liquor plaintiff’s sold the then passage Its was rec- Government liens.” which the United property “on can be by Attorney ommended General Jackson mortgage or other has or claims good purchasers faith protect in order to added.) 28 U.S.C. (Emphasis lien.” foreclosing mortgagees. of real estate and 2410(a)(1). (Footnotes omitted.) Moreover, history of legislative Coson, also United 286 F.2d inapplicable it is 2410(a)(1) indicates 453, (9th 1961). Quinn involved an Quinn here. presented to the situation assessment, the merits of a tax upon attack (E.D.Pa.1964), upon any not the seizure and sale of 1965), District aff’d However, the property. discussion Freedman, examining legis- after Judge legislative history in conflicts with 2410, explained: history of lative the conclusion reached the majority the Government By provision this Nothing here.3 in the words of the statute any “in civil action to be sued consented legislative history or the indicates that court, any district or any or suit in 2410(a)(1), which only purpose serves of the sub- having jurisdiction State quiet a vehicle to title of providing prop- matter, title to or for the ject erty where the United States has or claims mortgage or other lien of a foreclosure mortgage, applicable a lien or where an personal property on which upon real or upon attаck has been made the seizure and has or claims a mort- the United States sale of not until 1942 lien.” It was gage Nor are remedy quieting title the cases cited majority convincing availability which theretofore as to the to the statute added presented of a in the circumstances only with the foreclosure had dealt v, Eberlain, Popp on on here. 409 F.2d 309 or other lien mortgage denied, Cir.), cert. had or claimed a U.S. S.Ct. the United States (1969), purpose 24 L.Ed.2d 185 involved other lien. mortgage or amendment, clеarly stated in the certain individuals and Secretary (b) price, prop- . . . shall . The the amount of the minimum practicable after the seizure of erty as soon as purchased shall be declared to be at owner, property give . notice States; price such for . published cause a notification to and shall Secretary (2) . . shall published generally newspaper or in some by regulations prescribe the manner and oth- county wherein such within the circulated by property er conditions of the sale of seized made, post or . such no- seizure is levy. regulations pro- . . . Such shall place post office nearest where tice at the vide: made, and in not less than two the seizure is (A) That the sale shall not be conducted in speci- public places. Such notice shall any manner other than— sold, time, fy property and the to be by auction, (i) public manner, place, of the sale and conditions by (ii) public sale under sealed bids. thereof. the time of less than for person (d) (e) (1) which the (b). Manner . ^[*] offers for . 10 shall determine giving public notice ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‍under subsec- days . Before the . The time ^[*] . and conditions of sale.— . nor more ^[*] shall ^[*] of sale shall not be sale the a minimum than 40 sold, ^[*] at the sale days Secretary and if no ^[*] price from 3. This the district court’s reasons so well stated his Pa.1964).” quired opinion reported at 231 (D) Court, Whether at the time of in a payment per judgment curiam by Judge acceptance in full shall F.Supp. in opinion, Freedman of a bid affirmed “for the be re- (E.D. in law, invalid, various tax sales of real to set aside or his act is is a principle The district court found a waiver which has been repeatedly reсognized in immunity as to the United States in 28 this court. 2410, theory the ac- “on U.S.C. § Powell, (6 Thatcher v. Wheat.) 54, U.S. the nature of an action to tion was in 56, (1821), quoted L.Ed. 221 in Reece v. F.2d at 312. The Cir- title.” 409 Seventh Scoggins, doubt,” cuit, “[although beset serious Congress has proce- mandated elaborate properly the district court had agreed that dures to be followed in levy, IRS immunity had been determined distraint, and sale of property to satisfy a it did not set forth waived. tax lien. requirements These serve to safe- support its conclusion. anаlysis basis or guard the value seized and “are Thereafter, Farms, in Little River Id. Inc. designed protect taxpayer by giving F.Supp. (N.D.Ga. opportunity him an present to be at the tax 1971), relying upon Popp, the district court sale and bid on the property.” Reece v. supra, found that the of a tax sale Scoggins, supra at 971. challenged under 26 6335 could be U.S.C. § Since no sections of the Internal Revenue 2410. The court ex- under U.S.C. § Code explicitly waive sovereign immunity plained its decision as follows: alleged where it is thаt the IRS has violated situation, As the Court views the the seizure and provisions, taxpayer right has a 6335 but no States contends Aqua Bar’s suit must remedy enforcing except be dismissed. It would appear axiomatic Thus, Popp at 479. neither nor Congress whenever directs in an unam- any reasoning Little River Farms offers biguous, prescribed, detailed manner protec- support the conclusion reached. procedures tive to be taken by govern- a sympathize majority’s While I with the agency, ment but provide fails to еither remedy efforts to fashion would sanctions or a method of enforcement in the result, outrageous I, correct an otherwise event ignored, its mandate is a waiver of join majority cannot nevertheless, sovereign immunity necessarily must be in- Bending straining the unam- artificially and ferred in order to enforce the legislative biguous legislative history wprds otherwise, will. If it were Congressional so as to allow suits mandates such as the of §§ United States for seizures and sales of 6335 could be treated not as obligatоry but property in violation of the Code. At issue rather as mere recommendations which the rights: here are two fundamental the in- Internal Revenue Service could violate neg- violability private ownership of prop- ligently or intentionally behind a shield of erty government’s entitlement sovereign immunity. logic Neither nor rea- ensure the collection of its taxes. Chief son permit should such a result. In light of Marshall, writing Justice Supreme the explicit provisions and mandatory terms Court stated with 6331, 6335,1 imply would waiver of private property: sale of sovereign immunity where a complaint, the public That individual or officer can allegations of accepted which must be sell, to, convey good title the land true,4 challenges only the validity of the another, unless authorized so to do seizure and sale under those statutes. law, express is one of those self-evident assents, Similarly, I do not believe that to which the mind propositions hesitation; prevents person any declaratory judgment and without power pursue invested with such a must the United States. That sec- precision prescribed by provides: with the course allegations Aqua complaint Education, 4. The of Bar’s must Hochman Civ.P. v. Board of accepted purposes considering (3d be 1976). as true for of F.2d 1094 12(b), a motion to dismiss under Rule Fed.R. injunction such an does not within Code. Since controversy actúal a case itself, respect with seek to attack the tax assessment I except jurisdiction, taxes, hold that this is not a suit “for any court would Federal rights restraining dеclare the assessment or purpose . any interest- merely relations tax” but an action legal any collection of and declaration, wheth- seeking such compliance Congres with to enforce IRS ed is or could relief further Scoggins, supra. or not Reece v. er sional mandates. added.) (Emphasis sought. Margiotta v. District Director of also Revenue, 214 F.2d 518 Internal Reve- the Internal is whether here At issue with the complied nue Service Aqua and sale the seizure the Code though I do so on Consequently, even con- presented question license. No Bar’s majori- in the grounds, I concur different assessment. the tax validity of cerning the the district court’s decision to vacate ty’s this suit is not conclude I would Thus proceedings. remand for further order and taxes” under Federal respect to “with one 2201. 28 U.S.C. injunc- also seeks complaint Bar’s

Aqua Saltz, pur- defendant relief

tive court held The district license. of its

chaser Statute, 26 U.S.C. Anti-Injunction that the enjoin power it of 7421(a), divested transfer for a application Saltz’s majori- name. Like to his liquor LESLIE CO. that conclusion. with agree not ty I do except in certain 7421(a) provides, Section OF INTERNAL COMMISSIONER are not relevant circumstances special REVENUE, Appellant. here, that of re- purpose suit for the . no No. 75-2305. or collection

straining the assessment Appeals, Court of any tax shall be maintained Third Circuit. per- or not person, whether by any such tax against whom person son is Argued ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‍3,May was assessed. Decided July has stated Supreme Court Anti-Injunction Statute: 7421(a) is to purpose manifest to assess permit be due without alleged to

collect intervention, require

judicial disputed sums legal right In this a suit for refund.

determined is assured the United States

manner revenue. of its lawful collection

prompt omitted.)

(Footnote Co., Packing 370 U.S.

Enochs v. Williams (1962). 1125, 1129, 8 L.Ed.2d 82 S.Ct. dispute the Aqua Bar Rather, Bar seeks to Aqua

tax assessment. liquor license

enjoin the transfer seized and improperly allegedly Revenue Internal

sold in violation

Case Details

Case Name: Aqua Bar & Lounge, Inc. v. United States of America Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service and Joseph B. Saltz

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Jul 7, 1976

Citation: 539 F.2d 935

Docket Number: 75-2125

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.