Federal Trade Commission v. Elite IT Partners

D. Utah

Federal Trade Commission v. Elite IT Partners

DecidedJune 14, 2019

Docket2:19-cv-00125

StatusUnknown

This text of Federal Trade Commission v. Elite IT Partners (Federal Trade Commission v. Elite IT Partners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Federal Trade Commission v. Elite IT Partners, (D. Utah 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER’S Plaintiff, UNOPPOSED MOTION TO APPROVE v. SALE OF VEHICLE

ELITE IT PARTNERS, INC., a Utah 2:19-cv-125-RJS-CMR corporation doing business as ELITE IT HOME, and Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby

JAMES MICHAEL MARTNIOS, Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero individually and as an officer of ELITE IT PARTNERS, INC.,

Defendants.

Before the court is the Receiver’s Unopposed Motion to Approve Sale of Vehicle.1 In the Motion, the Receiver requests the court waive the private sale requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001, 2004. For the following reasons, the court waives the statutory requirements and GRANTS the Receiver’s Motion. A court has the discretion to waive the statutory requirements for the sale of personal property.2 The Receiver’s Motion concerns the sale of a Ford F-150. Because it is not permanently affixed to land, a Ford F-150 is personal property.3 For a few reasons, the court exercises its discretion to waive the statutory requirements. The used car market is established.

1 Dkt. 118. 2 See 28 U.S.C. § 2004 (“Any personalty sold under any order or decree of any court of the United States shall be sold in accordance with section 2001 of this title, unless the court orders otherwise.); SEC v. Wilson, No. 12-CV- 15062, 2013 WL 1283437, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2013). 3 See, e.g., Crystal Car Line v. State Tax Comm’n, 110 Utah 426, 436 (1946); see also Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Copeland, 398 F.2d 364, 366 (4th Cir. 1968) (“Whether property is real or personal is determined by the law of the state where it is situated.”). The sale price is fair. And the costs of meeting the statutory requirements would unproductively erode the receivership estate. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Receiver’s Motion. SO ORDERED this 14th day of June, 2019. BY THE COURT:

ROBERT A Chief United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER’S Plaintiff, UNOPPOSED MOTION TO APPROVE v. SALE OF VEHICLE

ELITE IT PARTNERS, INC., a Utah 2:19-cv-125-RJS-CMR corporation doing business as ELITE IT HOME, and Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby

JAMES MICHAEL MARTNIOS, Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero individually and as an officer of ELITE IT PARTNERS, INC.,

Defendants.

Before the court is the Receiver’s Unopposed Motion to Approve Sale of Vehicle.1 In the Motion, the Receiver requests the court waive the private sale requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001, 2004. For the following reasons, the court waives the statutory requirements and GRANTS the Receiver’s Motion. A court has the discretion to waive the statutory requirements for the sale of personal property.2 The Receiver’s Motion concerns the sale of a Ford F-150. Because it is not permanently affixed to land, a Ford F-150 is personal property.3 For a few reasons, the court exercises its discretion to waive the statutory requirements. The used car market is established.

1 Dkt. 118. 2 See 28 U.S.C. § 2004 (“Any personalty sold under any order or decree of any court of the United States shall be sold in accordance with section 2001 of this title, unless the court orders otherwise.); SEC v. Wilson, No. 12-CV- 15062, 2013 WL 1283437, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2013). 3 See, e.g., Crystal Car Line v. State Tax Comm’n, 110 Utah 426, 436 (1946); see also Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Copeland, 398 F.2d 364, 366 (4th Cir. 1968) (“Whether property is real or personal is determined by the law of the state where it is situated.”). The sale price is fair. And the costs of meeting the statutory requirements would unproductively erode the receivership estate. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Receiver’s Motion. SO ORDERED this 14th day of June, 2019. BY THE COURT:

ROBERT A Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Federal Trade Commission v. Elite IT Partners, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-trade-commission-v-elite-it-partners-utd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack