## Facts

- NutraSweet manufactured the artificial sweetener Equal and sold multiple containers to Vit-Mar Enterprises and The Shiba Group for overseas distribution in Russia and Ukraine, with documentation restricting resale to those markets.
- Several containers were allegedly re-imported into the United States as gray-market goods, and NutraSweet claimed the shipment was acquired by fraud.
- When NutraSweet learned that U.S. Customs was prepared to release a shipment into the U.S. market, it sued in federal district court to prevent domestic distribution.
- The district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of replevin authorizing U.S. Marshals to seize the goods and deliver them to NutraSweet, conditioned on NutraSweet posting a bond.
- U.S. Marshals seized the shipment; Tekstilschik intervened, asserting ownership based on a barter transaction and sought return of the goods.
- In a prior appeal, the Third Circuit required the district court to vacate the TRO for inadequate findings supporting what functioned as preliminary injunctive relief.
- On remand, the district court vacated the TRO, entered a preliminary injunction against Tek barring possession or distribution of the product, and modified (but did not vacate) the writ of replevin to keep the goods with NutraSweet while requiring NutraSweet to double its bond.
- Tek appealed both the preliminary injunction and the modified writ of replevin.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals had interlocutory jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to review the modified writ of replevin as an order equivalent to an injunction.
2. Whether the preliminary injunction barring Tek from possessing or distributing the goods remained a live controversy, given NutraSweet’s continuing possession under the modified writ of replevin.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the appeal from the writ of replevin for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
- The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the preliminary injunction but concluded the injunction issue was moot.
- The court reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction.

## Legal Principles

- Interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) is limited to orders that grant, deny, modify, or dissolve injunctions; a provisional remedy is not appealable merely because it affects the parties’ positions.
- A writ of replevin directed to U.S. Marshals to seize and hold property, and not enforceable by contempt against a party, is not treated as an appealable injunction for § 1292(a)(1) purposes.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires a showing of irreparable harm and is improper when other available remedies already provide adequate interim protection.
- An appeal from a preliminary injunction becomes moot when intervening relief eliminates any practical need for the injunction; the proper disposition is vacatur of the injunction.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held it lacked § 1292(a)(1) jurisdiction to review the district court’s writ of replevin because it functioned as a non-appealable provisional seizure remedy, and it ordered vacatur of the preliminary injunction as moot because the modified writ and bond already secured NutraSweet’s interim interests.


NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters., Inc., 176 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 1999)