Federal Trade Commission v. MOBE Ltd.

District Court, M.D. Florida·Decided April 13, 2020·No. 6:18-cv-00862·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:18-cv-862-Orl-37DCI

MOBE LTD.; MOBEPROCESSING.COM, INC.; TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT USA, INC.; MOBETRAINING.COM, INC.; 9336-0311 QUEBEC INC.; MOBE PRO LIMITED; MOBE INC.; MOBE ONLINE LTD.; MATT LLOYD PUBLISHING.COM PTY LTD.; MATTHEW LLOYD MCPHEE; and SUSAN ZANGHI,

Defendants.

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC” or “Commission”) Renewed Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Entry of Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction Against the MOBE Corporate Defendants. (Doc. 257 (“Motion”).) The FTC filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief for violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”) against twelve defendants, including corporate Defendants MOBE Ltd., MOBEProcessing.com, Inc., Transaction Management USA, Inc., MOBETraining.com, Inc., 9336-0311 Quebec Inc., MOBE Pro Limited, MOBE Inc., MOBE Online Ltd., MattLloydPublishing.com Pty -1- Ltd. (collectively “MOBE Corporate Defendants” or “Defaulting Defendants”), alleging they engaged in a scheme to defraud consumers. (Doc. 1 (“Complaint”).)

Despite being properly served and having notice of this action, the MOBE Corporate Defendants failed to timely answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. (Doc. 71.) So pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), the Clerk of Court entered defaults against the MOBE Corporate Defendants. (Docs. 150–158.) The FTC now moves this Court for entry of a default judgment on all counts of the Complaint against the Defaulting Defendants, seeking injunctive, ancillary, and equitable monetary relief. (Doc.

257, pp. 9–17.) On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick recommends the Court grant the Motion, finding default judgment appropriate and the relief requested in the Motion is consistent with the relief pled in the Complaint. (Doc. 259 (“R&R”).) The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time for doing so has now passed. As such, the Court has examined the R&R only for clear error. See Wiand v. Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A., No. 8:12-cv-557-T-27EAJ, 2016 WL 355490, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016); see also Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding none, the R&R is due to be adopted in its entirety. It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 1. U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.

259) is ADOPTED, CONFRIMED, and made a part of this Order. 2. Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s Renewed Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Entry of Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction

-2- Against the MOBE Corporate Defendants (Doc. 257) is GRANTED. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file.

4. A permanent injunction is ORDERED: I. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this Order, the following definitions apply: 1. “Business Coaching Program” means any program, plan, or product, including those related to work-at-home opportunities, that is represented, expressly or by implication, to train or teach a participant or purchaser how

to establish a business or earn money or other consideration through a business or other activity. 2. “Corporate Defendant(s)” means MOBE Ltd., MOBEProcessing.com, Inc., Transaction Management USA, Inc., MOBETraining.com, Inc., 9336-0311 Quebec Inc., MOBE Pro Limited, MOBE Inc., MOBE Online Ltd., Matt

Lloyd Publishing.com Pty Ltd., and each of their subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and assigns. 3. “Defaulting Defendants” means all of the Corporate Defendants, individually, collectively or in any combination. 4. “Defendant(s)” means all of the Corporate Defendants and Individual

Defendants, individually, collectively, or in any combination. 5. “Individual Defendant(s)” means Matthew Lloyd McPhee, Susan Zanghi, and Russell W. Whitney, Jr., individually, collectively, or in any

-3- combination. 6. “Investment Opportunity” means anything, tangible or intangible, that is

offered, offered for sale, sold, or traded based wholly or in part on representations, either express or implied, about past, present, or future income, profit, or appreciation. 7. “Receiver” means the permanent receiver appointed in this action, Mark J. Bernet, Esq., and any deputy receivers that the receiver names. 8. “Receivership Entities” means Corporate Defendants as well as any other

entity that has conducted any business related to Defendants’ marketing and sale of Business Coaching Programs or Investment Opportunities to consumers, including receipt of Assets derived from any activity that is the subject of the Complaint in this matter, and that the Receiver determines is controlled or owned by any Defendant.

II. PERMANENT BAN ON SALE OR MARKETING OF BUSINESS COACHING PROGRAMS AND INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES It is ORDERED that Defaulting Defendants are permanently restrained and enjoined from: A. Creating, advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling, or

assisting others in creating, advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling any Business Coaching Program or any Investment Opportunity;

-4- B. Holding, directly or through a third-person, any ownership or other financial interest in any business entity that is creating, advertising,

marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling, or that assists others in creating, advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling any Business Coaching Program, any Investment Opportunity, or any product to assist in the creation or development of a Business Coaching Program or an Investment Opportunity. III. PROHIBITION AGAINST MISREPRESENTATIONS

It is ORDERED that Defaulting Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in connection with the advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering for sale of any goods or services, are permanently restrained and enjoined from misrepresenting or assisting others in

misrepresenting, expressly or by implication: A. That consumers who purchase Defaulting Defendants’ goods or services will earn or are likely to earn substantial income; B. That purchases of Defaulting Defendants’ goods or services are refundable without conditions; and

C. Any other fact material to consumers concerning any good or service, such as: the total costs; any refund policy; any material restrictions, limitations, or conditions; or any material aspect of its performance, efficacy, nature, or

-5- central characteristics. IV. MONETARY JUDGMENT It is ORDERED:

A. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the FTC against the Defaulting Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of Three Hundred Eighteen Million, Five Hundred Twelve Thousand, Three Hundred Thirty Six Dollars ($318,512,336), which is the amount of injury suffered by consumers and the amount of unjust enrichment obtained by

Defaulting Defendants in connection with the practices alleged in Counts I and II of the Complaint. This monetary judgment, less any amount previously paid by any other Defendant, shall become immediately due and payable by Defaulting Defendants upon entry of this Final Order. Interest computed at the rate prescribed under 28

U.S.C. § 1961(a), as amended, shall immediately begin to accrue on the unpaid balance; B. All funds paid to the Commission shall be made by wire transfer in accordance with directions provided by the Commission, or as otherwise agreed to by the Commission;

C.

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

Federal Trade Commission v. MOBE Ltd., (M.D. Fla. 2020).

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

Related

Colleen Macort v. Prem, Inc.
208 F. App'x 781 (Eleventh Circuit, 2006)