Federal Trade Commission v. Noland, Jr.

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided January 13, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00047·Unknown

Opinion

WO

Federal Trade Commission, No. CV-20-00047-PHX-DWL

Plaintiff, AMENDED SEALED ORDER

v.

James D Noland, Jr., et al.,

Defendants. Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission, has filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) and has moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), asset freeze, other equitable relief, and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue against individual defendants James D. Noland, Jr. (“Jay Noland”), Lina Noland (“Lina Noland”), Scott A. Harris (“Harris”), and Thomas G. Sacca, Jr. (“Sacca”) (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) and corporate entities Success by Media Holdings Inc. and Success by Media LLC (together, the “Corporate Defendants” or “Success By Media”). (Doc. 3 [complaint]; Doc. 7 [motion for TRO]; Doc. 8 [supporting memorandum].) As explained below, although the Court generally agrees that the FTC has met its burden of establishing an entitlement to a TRO, the Court declines to issue the writ ne exeat republica sought by the FTC as to James Noland. The Court also finds that the FTC has not made a specific showing necessary to justify all of the relief it seeks as Sacca. The motion is otherwise granted. The Court, having considered the Complaint, the ex parte Motion for TRO, declarations, exhibits, and the memorandum filed in support thereof, and being otherwise advised, finds that: A. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, and there is good cause to believe that it will have jurisdiction over all parties hereto and that venue in this district is proper. B. There is good cause to believe that Defendants have operated and promoted a marketing scheme in which they are: 1. Operating as an illegal pyramid scheme; 2. Falsely representing that members of the Success By Health program (called “Affiliates”) are likely to earn substantial income; 3. Providing the means and instrumentalities for the commission of deceptive acts and practices by furnishing Affiliates with promotional materials containing false and misleading representations to be used in recruiting new participants; 4. Not providing consumers with required notices about their right to cancel and obtain a refund, or providing consumers with such a refund when requested, for certain sales; and 5. For products not shipped within 30 days from purchase, not providing consumers a revised shipping date and the opportunity to cancel and receive a refund, and not providing such refund when requested. C. There is good cause to believe that Defendants have engaged in and are likely to engage in acts or practices that violate Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); the Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (“Merchandise Rule”), 16 C.F.R. Part 435; and the Rule Concerning Cooling-Off Period for Sales Made at Homes or at Certain Other Locations (“Cooling-Off Rule”), 16 C.F.R. Part 429, and that Plaintiff is therefore likely to prevail on the merits of this action. As demonstrated by detailed evidence, including statements from consumers and Defendants’ former Affiliates, sales scripts, recruiting scripts and presentations, promotional videos, transcripts of Success By Media events and conference calls, videos and recordings of Defendants, and expert testimony, the FTC has established a likelihood of success in showing that Defendants have operated an illegal pyramid scheme and made false, misleading, and deceptive misrepresentations. D. There is good cause to believe that immediate and irreparable harm will result from Defendants’ ongoing violations of the FTC Act, the Merchandise Rule, and the Cooling-Off Rule unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined by order of this Court. E. There is good cause to believe that immediate and irreparable damage to the Court’s ability to grant effective final relief for consumers – including monetary restitution, rescission, disgorgement, or refunds – will likely occur from the sale, transfer, destruction or other disposition or concealment by Defendants of their assets or records, unless Defendants are immediately restrained and enjoined by order of this Court; and that, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), the interests of justice require that this Order be granted without prior notice to Defendants. Thus, there is good cause for relieving Plaintiff of the duty to provide Defendants with prior notice of its Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.1 F. Good cause exists for appointing a temporary receiver over the Receivership Entities, freezing Defendants’ assets, permitting the Plaintiff and the Receiver immediate

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)
FTC v. Consumer Defense, LLC
926 F.3d 1208 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)