Federal Trade Commission v. Noland, Jr.

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided January 17, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00047·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Federal Trade Commission, No. CV-20-00047-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER 11 v. 12 James D Noland, Jr., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission, has filed a Complaint for Permanent 16 Injunction and Other Equitable Relief pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade 17 Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) and has moved for a temporary 18 restraining order (“TRO”), asset freeze, other equitable relief, and an order to show cause 19 why a preliminary injunction should not issue against individual defendants James D. 20 Noland, Jr. (“Jay Noland”), Lina Noland (“Lina Noland”), Scott A. Harris (“Harris”), and 21 Thomas G. Sacca (“Sacca”)1 (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) and corporate 22 entities Success by Media Holdings Inc. and Success by Media LLC (together, the 23 “Corporate Defendants” or “Success By Media”). (Doc. 3 [complaint]; Doc. 7 [motion for 24 TRO]; Doc. 8 [supporting memorandum].) 25 As explained below, although the Court generally agrees that the FTC has met its 26 1 The Court originally entered an earlier version of this Order against Thomas G. Sacca, Jr. (Doc. 21.) The FTC has since indicated that the proper defendant is Thomas G. 27 Sacca, and that Sacca Jr. has no involvement in this case. (Doc. 36.) To that end, the FTC moved to apply this Order to Sacca and lift it as to Sacca Jr. That motion is granted, and 28 the Court now reissues the Order reflecting that change. The contents remain the same otherwise. 1 burden of establishing an entitlement to a TRO, the Court declines to issue the writ ne exeat 2 republica sought by the FTC as to James Noland. The Court also finds that the FTC has 3 not made a specific showing necessary to justify all of the relief it seeks as to Sacca. The 4 motion is otherwise granted. 5 FINDINGS OF FACT 6 The Court, having considered the Complaint, the ex parte Motion for TRO, 7 declarations, exhibits, and the memorandum filed in support thereof, and being otherwise 8 advised, finds that: 9 A. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, and there is 10 good cause to believe that it will have jurisdiction over all parties hereto and that venue in 11 this district is proper. 12 B. There is good cause to believe that Defendants have operated and promoted 13 a marketing scheme in which they are: 14 1. Operating as an illegal pyramid scheme; 15 2. Falsely representing that members of the Success By Health program 16 (called “Affiliates”) are likely to earn substantial income; 17 3. Providing the means and instrumentalities for the commission of 18 deceptive acts and practices by furnishing Affiliates with promotional 19 materials containing false and misleading representations to be used 20 in recruiting new participants; 21 4. Not providing consumers with required notices about their right to 22 cancel and obtain a refund, or providing consumers with such a refund 23 when requested, for certain sales; and 24 5. For products not shipped within 30 days from purchase, not providing 25 consumers a revised shipping date and the opportunity to cancel and 26 receive a refund, and not providing such refund when requested. 27 C. There is good cause to believe that Defendants have engaged in and are likely 28 to engage in acts or practices that violate Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a);

-2- 1 the Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (“Merchandise Rule”), 16 C.F.R. 2 Part 435; and the Rule Concerning Cooling-Off Period for Sales Made at Homes or at 3 Certain Other Locations (“Cooling-Off Rule”), 16 C.F.R. Part 429, and that Plaintiff is 4 therefore likely to prevail on the merits of this action. As demonstrated by detailed 5 evidence, including statements from consumers and Defendants’ former Affiliates, sales 6 scripts, recruiting scripts and presentations, promotional videos, transcripts of Success By 7 Media events and conference calls, videos and recordings of Defendants, and expert 8 testimony, the FTC has established a likelihood of success in showing that Defendants have 9 operated an illegal pyramid scheme and made false, misleading, and deceptive 10 misrepresentations. 11 D. There is good cause to believe that immediate and irreparable harm will result 12 from Defendants’ ongoing violations of the FTC Act, the Merchandise Rule, and the 13 Cooling-Off Rule unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined by order of this Court. 14 E. There is good cause to believe that immediate and irreparable damage to the 15 Court’s ability to grant effective final relief for consumers – including monetary restitution, 16 rescission, disgorgement, or refunds – will likely occur from the sale, transfer, destruction 17 or other disposition or concealment by Defendants of their assets or records, unless 18 Defendants are immediately restrained and enjoined by order of this Court; and that, in 19 accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), the interests of justice require that this Order be 20 granted without prior notice to Defendants. Thus, there is good cause for relieving Plaintiff 21 of the duty to provide Defendants with prior notice of its Motion for a Temporary 22 Restraining Order.2 23 2 With that said, and as discussed during the hearing on January 9, 2020, the Court has some concern about its authority to grant a TRO in this context without providing 24 notice to the restrained parties. The plain text of 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), under which the FTC brings this action, states that a TRO may issue only “after notice to the defendant.” That 25 said, the Ninth Circuit has read two distinct provisos into the statute. FTC v. Consumer Defense, LLC, 926 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2019). Under the second proviso, which the 26 FTC utilizes here, the Ninth Circuit has stressed that district courts have the authority “to grant any ancillary relief necessary to accomplish complete justice because [§ 53(b)] did 27 not limit that traditional equitable power.” FTC v. H. N. Singer, Inc. 668 F.2d 1107, 1113 (1982). Although Singer and Consumer Defense did not specifically address whether these 28 broad equitable powers include the ability to issue a no-notice TRO at the FTC’s request— and although the second proviso of § 53(b) only mentions permanent injunctions, not

-3- 1 F. Good cause exists for appointing a temporary receiver over the Receivership 2 Entities, freezing Defendants’ assets, permitting the Plaintiff and the Receiver immediate 3 access to the Defendants’ business premises, and permitting the Plaintiff and the 4 Temporary Receiver to take expedited discovery. 5 G. Weighing the equities and considering Plaintiff’s likelihood of ultimate 6 success on the merits, a temporary restraining order with an asset freeze, the appointment 7 of a temporary receiver, immediate access to business premises, expedited discovery, and 8 other equitable relief is in the public interest. That said, the evidence produced by the FTC 9 does not justify the extraordinary relief of a writ ne exeat republica. 10 H.

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

Federal Trade Commission v. Noland, Jr., (D. Ariz. 2020).

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

Related

United States v. Thomas A. Shaheen
445 F.2d 6 (Seventh Circuit, 1971)
Sharon v. Sharon, 11991 (Cal. 7-17-1889)
22 P. 26 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
FTC v. Consumer Defense, LLC
926 F.3d 1208 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)