Fed. Trade Comm'n v. IVY Capital, Inc.

• Decision Date: 09 March 2022
• Docket Number: 2:11-CV-283 JCM (GWF)
• Parties: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff(s), v. IVY CAPITAL, INC., et al., Defendant(s).
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff(s),
v.
IVY CAPITAL, INC., et al., Defendant(s).

No. 2:11-CV-283 JCM (GWF)

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 9, 2022

ORDER

Presently before the court is defendants Benjamin Hoskins, Dream Financial, and relief defendants Leanne Hoskins, Oxford Financial LLC, and Mowab, Inc.'s (collectively “movants”) motion for relief and/or modification of judgment and order for permanent injunction and monetary relief. (ECF No. 449). The Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) filed a response (ECF No. 454), to which movants replied (ECF No. 457).

Also before the court is the FTC's motion to submit supplemental authority, (ECF No. 458), to which movants filed a response (ECF No. 459).^[1]

I. Background

This long-closed matter arises from the recent decision in AMG Capital Mgmt., LLC v. FTC, 141 S.Ct. 1341, 1345 (2021), where the Supreme Court held that section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §53(b), does not authorize the FTC to seek, and a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.

In 2011, the FTC initiated this action against movants for their roles in a telemarketing scheme that defrauded consumers out of $130, 375, 057.52 in violation of section 5(a) of the FTC

1

Act and several provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. (ECF No. 1). In March 2013, this court granted summary judgment to the FTC, finding that movants “engaged in a complex scheme designed to cheat consumers out of millions of dollars through a bogus business coaching program and a variety of useless goods and services as add-ons to the program . . . .” (ECF No. 392 at 3).

This court held that defendants Benjamin Hoskins and Dream Financial were liable for full restitution-$130, 375, 057.52-by virtue of Benjamin's knowledge of the scheme and his ownership in Dream Financial. (ECF No. 392). This court further held that relief defendants Leanne Hoskins, Oxford Financial LLC, and Mowab, Inc. were independently liable for $1, 128, 795.78, $1, 529, 292.25, and $203, 118.40 respectively in disgorgement. (Id.).

Specifically, the court held that “Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), authorizes a court to issue a permanent injunction whenever a defendant violates any of the laws enforced by the FTC and is likely to continue to violate such laws. . . . [and] Where, as here, consumers suffer economic injury resulting from the defendants' violations of the FTC Act, equity requires monetary relief in the full amount lost by consumers.” (ECF No. 392 at 23, 25 (first citing FTC v. H. N. Singer, Inc., 668 F.2d 1107...