Federal Trade Commission v. Pacific First Benefit, LLC

472 F. Supp. 2d 981, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8832
District Court, N.D. Illinois·Decided February 5, 2007·No. Civil Action 02 C 8678·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT ALEX OR-PHANOU AND ORDER FOR MONETARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS PACIFIC FIRST BENEFIT, LLC; KEY NATION BENEFIT, LLC; FIRST FEDERAL BENEFIT, LLC; AND FEDERAL CREDIT SERVICES, LIMITED

NORGLE, District Judge.

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “the Commission”), commenced this action by filing its Complaint for in-junctive and other equitable relief (hereinafter “Complaint”) pursuant to Sections 13(b) and 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 57b, the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (“Telemarketing Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101, et seq., charging that the Defendants engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the FTC’s Trade Regulation Rule entitled “Telemarketing Sales Rule,” 16 C.F.R. Part 310. This Court entered an Order for Permanent Injunction and Judgment as to Liability against Defendants Pacific First Benefit, LLC; Key Nation Benefit, LLC; First Federal Benefit, LLC; and Federal Credit Services, Limited (“Corporate Defendants”), on May 5, 2005, and deferred entry of a monetary judgment against the Corporate Defendants until the liability of Defendant Alex Orphanou could be resolved.

The FTC, having filed its motion for summary judgment against Defendant Alex Orphanou on all counts of the FTC’s Complaint and its motion for entry of monetary judgment against Defendants Pacific First Benefit, LLC; Key Nation Benefit, LLC; First Federal Benefit, LLC; and Federal Credit Services, Limited, and this Court having considered the submissions of the parties, and having granted the FTC’s motions on January 11, 2007, it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:

FINDINGS

1. This is an action by the Commission instituted under Sections 13(b) and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 57b, the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101, et seq., and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 310. Pursuant to these statutes and regulations, the Commission has the authority to seek the relief contained herein.

2. The Commission’s Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted under Sections 5, 13(b), and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 53(b) and 57b, the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101, et seq., and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 310.

3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and all parties hereto.

4. Venue in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is proper under 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c), and (d).

5. The activities of the Defendants are in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44.

6. This Court entered an Order for Permanent Injunction and Judgment as to Liability against Defendants Pacific First Benefit, LLC; Key Nation Benefit, LLC; First Federal Benefit, LLC; and Federal Credit Services, Limited, on May 5, 2005, *983 which shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby supplemented by this Order.

7. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact concerning the liability of Defendant Alex Orphanou for the false and deceptive acts and practices charged in the Complaint, or the amount of consumer losses caused by the Defendants’ deceptive acts and practices.

8. Defendants, directly or through their telemarketers, have made false or misleading statements in connection with the telemarketing of advance fee credit cards, that include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. that after paying Defendants a fee, consumers will, or are highly likely to, receive an unsecured major credit card, such as a Visa or MasterCard credit card; and
b. that Defendants can guarantee or have a high likelihood of success in obtaining or arranging for the acquisition of an unsecured credit card, such as a Visa or MasterCard credit card, for consumers.

9. Defendants or their employees or agents have requested and received payment of a fee in advance of consumers obtaining a credit card when Defendants have guaranteed or represented a high likelihood of success in obtaining or arranging for the acquisition of an unsecured credit card, such as a Visa or MasterCard credit card, for such consumers.

10. In addition to owning the Corporate Defendants, Defendant Alex Orpha-nou owned and controlled at least seven other Ontario corporations, incorporated as 1458288 Ontario Ltd., 1347352 Ontario Ltd., 1282811 Ontario Ltd., 1365161 Ontario Ltd., 1458285 Ontario Ltd., 1381681 Ontario Ltd., and 1381682 Ontario Ltd., that were actively and integrally involved in selling the Corporate Defendants’ credit cards, by providing telemarketing and customer service functions for the Corporate Defendants.

11. Defendant Alex Orphanou is liable for the acts and practices of the Corporate Defendants, and Defendant Alex Orphanou and the Corporate Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the false and deceptive acts and practices charged in the Complaint.

12. Uncontroverted and uncontested evidence establishes that the Defendants violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 310..

13.

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

Federal Trade Commission v. Pacific First Benefit, LLC, 472 F. Supp. 2d 981, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8832 (N.D. Ill. 2007).

472 F. Supp. 2d 981 (Federal Trade Commission v. Pacific First Benefit, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fanning v. Federal Trade Commission
821 F.3d 164 (First Circuit, 2016)