Federal Trade Commission v. Automators LLC

District Court, S.D. California·Decided September 8, 2023·No. 3:23-cv-01444·Unknown

Opinion

1 2

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Case No. 23-cv-1444-BAS-LSC

11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 v. (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION 13 AUTOMATORS LLC, et al., TO ENTER STIPULATED 14 Defendants, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 47); and 15

16 PEREGRINE WORLDWIDE, LLC, (2) VACATING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING 17 Relief Defendant.

18 19

21 On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), filed its 22 Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Relief, and Other Relief under Sections 23 13(b) and 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 57b, 24 the FTC’s Trade Regulation Rule entitled “Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions 25 Concerning Business Opportunities” (“Business Opportunity Rule”), 16 C.F.R. Part 437, 26 as amended, the Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 (“CRFA”), 15 U.S.C. § 45b 27 (Docket No. 1), and moved, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), for a temporary restraining order, 28 asset freeze, other equitable relief, and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction 1 should not issue against Defendants and Relief Defendant. (TRO App., ECF No. 5-1.) The 2 Court issued an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants and Relief 3 Defendant on August 11, 2023, which includes an asset freeze, appointment of a temporary 4 receiver over the Receivership Entities (as defined below), and other equitable relief 5 (Docket No. 8). 6 On September 8, 2023, the FTC moved jointly with Automators LLC, also d/b/a 7 Automators AI and Ecom Skool; Empire Ecommerce LLC; Onyx Distribution LLC; 8 Stryder Holdings LLC; Pelenea Ventures LLC; Roman Cresto; John Cresto; and Andrew 9 Chapman (referred to above, collectively, as “Defendants”); and Peregrine Worldwide, 10 LLC (referred to above as “Relief Defendant”) for the entry of a preliminary injunction 11 (“P.I.”) as to Defendants and Relief Defendant. (ECF No. 47.) 13 A preliminary injunction generally is considered “an extraordinary remedy that may 14 only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter 15 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). To obtain a preliminary injunction, 16 the movant must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of 17 irreparable harm to the movant in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of 18 equities tips in favor of the moving party; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. 19 Winter, 555 U.S. 7 at 20. When the government is a party, the final two factors merge into 20 a single inquiry. Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Howell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014) 21 (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009)). 23 The FTC filed a substantial volume of declarations and exhibits in support of its 24 TRO Application, in addition to detailed allegations in its Complaint. (See ECF Nos. 5-2 25 to 5-24.) The Court reviewed those materials in connection with the FTC’s TRO 26 Application, and granted the FTC’s request on that basis. (ECF No. 8.) The P.I. that the 27 parties seek by their Joint Motion also is premised largely upon those materials. (See ECF 28 1 No. 47.) Based on those materials, and the Joint Motion itself, the Court makes the ensuing 2 findings for the limited purpose of the instant P.I. only. 3 A. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, and there is 4 good cause to believe that it will have jurisdiction over all parties hereto and that venue in 5 this district is proper. 6 B. Defendants and Relief Defendant consent to the entry of this Stipulated 7 Preliminary Injunction, but reserve all rights to contest or challenge the authority of the 8 FTC to seek and this Court to award any further relief sought by the FTC. 9 C. The FTC alleges that there is good cause to believe that Defendants have 10 engaged in and are likely to engage in acts or practices that violate Section 5(a) of the FTC 11 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), the Business Opportunity Rule, and the CRFA and that the FTC is 12 therefore likely to prevail on the merits of this action. 13 D. The FTC alleges that there is good cause to believe that immediate and 14 irreparable harm will result from Defendants’ ongoing violations of the FTC Act, the 15 Business Opportunity Rule, and the CRFA unless Defendants continue to be restrained and 16 enjoined by order of this Court. 17 E. The FTC alleges that there is good cause to believe that immediate and 18 irreparable damage to the Court’s ability to grant effective final relief for consumers – 19 including monetary restitution, rescission, or refunds – will occur from the sale, transfer, 20 destruction or other disposition or concealment by Defendants or Relief Defendants of their 21 assets or records, unless Defendants and Relief Defendants continue to be restrained and 22 enjoined by order of this Court. 23 F. The FTC alleges that good cause exists for the Court to order: (1) the 24 continued appointment of a Receiver over the Receivership Entities; (2) an asset freeze 25 over all the assets of the Defendants; and (3) the ancillary relief described below. 26 G. This Order is in the public interest. 27 28 1 H. This Court has authority to issue this Order pursuant to Sections 13(b) and 19 2 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 57b; Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; and the All Writs Act, 28 3 U.S.C. § 1651. 4 I. No security is required of any agency of the United States for issuance of a 5 temporary restraining order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). 7 For the purpose of this Order, the following definitions shall apply: 8 A. “Asset” means any legal or equitable interest in, right to, or claim to, any 9 property, wherever located and by whomever held. 10 B. “Assisting Others” includes the following: 11 1. performing customer service functions, including receiving or responding to 12 consumer complaints; 13 2. formulating or providing, or arranging for the formulation or provision of, any 14 advertising or marketing material, including any telephone sales script, direct 15 mail solicitation, or the design, text, or use of images of any Internet website, 16 email, or other electronic communication; 17 3. formulating or providing, or arranging for the formulation or provision of, any 18 marketing support material or service, including web or Internet Protocol 19 addresses or domain name registration for any Internet websites, affiliate 20 marketing services, or media placement services; 21 4. providing names of, or assisting in the generation of, potential customers; 22 5.

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

Federal Trade Commission v. Automators LLC, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Federal Trade Commission v. Automators LLC (Federal Trade Commission v. Automators LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nken v. Holder
556 U.S. 418 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Drakes Bay Oyster Company v. Sally Jewell
747 F.3d 1073 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)