FTC v. Netforce Seminars, et al

Filing 134

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the FTC's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 131 ) is denied [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 3/30/22. (MAW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Federal Trade Commission,
Plaintiff,

10
11

Netforce Seminars, et al.,

13

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-00-02260-PHX-DWL

Defendants.

14
15

On March 22, 2022, the Court issued an order denying, without prejudice, the FTC’s

16

motion for civil contempt sanctions against Jay Noland, Scott Harris, and Thomas Sacca

17

(together, “the Contempt Defendants”). (Doc. 130.) Now pending before the Court is the

18

FTC’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 131.) For the following reasons, the motion for

19

reconsideration is denied.

20

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

21

In the underlying motion for civil contempt sanctions, the FTC asked the Court to

22

impose a compensatory contempt award against the Contempt Defendants without the need

23

for an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 106.)

24

Defendants had violated multiple provisions of the permanent injunction issued in this

25

action (“the First Action”) in 2002 and that the aggregate harm to consumers arising from

26

those violations totaled $7,012,913.25. (Id.)

The FTC’s theory was that the Contempt

27

In the order denying the FTC’s motion, the Court agreed that the FTC’s evidence—

28

which largely mirrored the evidence the FTC had submitted in support of a summary

1

judgment motion it filed in a related case (“the Second Action”)—was sufficient to

2

establish that the Contempt Defendants had committed many of the alleged violations of

3

the permanent injunction but concluded that “the FTC has not clearly and convincingly

4

established, at this stage of the proceedings, that the Contempt Defendants violated

5

Sections I, II, and III of the permanent injunction through their operation of SBH. The

6

FTC will need to seek to establish those violations at an evidentiary hearing.” (Doc. 130

7

at 7-9.) Given this determination, the Court concluded that the FTC’s damage calculations

8

were “necessarily overstated” at this stage of the case, because “the FTC added together

9

the net revenues earned from both SBH and VOZ Travel” when calculating its

10

$7,012,913.25 figure. (Id. at 9.) Finally, the Court also noted two other potential problems

11

in the FTC’s approach to calculating financial remedies but “expresse[d] no prejudgment

12

as to” those issues and simply observed that they would benefit from further briefing in

13

advance of the evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 9-11.)

14
15

DISCUSSION
I.

Legal Standard

16

“The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a

17

showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have

18

been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”

19

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy” that is available only in “highly unusual

20

circumstances.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)

21

(internal quotation marks omitted).

22

II.

LRCiv 7.2(g)(1).

Analysis

23

In its reconsideration motion, the FTC argues that the Court should have deemed its

24

evidence sufficient to establish the SBH-related violations of Section I of the permanent

25

injunction because, regardless of whether SBH qualifies as a “pyramid scheme” under

26

Ninth Circuit law (which was the issue addressed in the summary judgment order in the

27

Second Action), SBH necessarily qualifies as a “prohibited marketing scheme” as that term

28

is defined by the permanent injunction.” (Doc. 131 at 1-3.) The FTC notes that it raised

-2-

1

this distinction in its motion papers and argues that the Court overlooked the distinction in

2

the challenged order. (Id.) The FTC further contends that “[c]orrecting this oversight from

3

a highly unusual circumstance will narrow the scope of the upcoming consolidated trial.”

4

(Id. at 3.)

5

The Court acknowledges, in retrospect, that the order resolving the FTC’s motion

6

for contempt sanctions fails to address the FTC’s arguments concerning the difference

7

between how the term “pyramid scheme” is defined under Ninth Circuit law and how the

8

term “prohibited marketing scheme” is defined in the permanent injunction. Nevertheless,

9

the Court is not persuaded that the best and most efficient solution is to revisit the issue

10

now via another written order issued in advance of an evidentiary hearing.

11

This case has been pending for over two years, discovery is closed, and a

12

consolidated evidentiary hearing in the First and Second Actions will need to take place

13

regardless of how the reconsideration motion is resolved. The Court has also come to

14

conclude that, regardless of how the reconsideration motion is resolved, one of the issues

15

that will need to be addressed during the consolidated hearing is whether SBH qualifies as

16

a pyramid scheme as that term is defined by Ninth Circuit law.1 If, during the consolidated

17

hearing, the FTC is able to establish that SBH so qualifies, such a finding will also establish

18

that the Contempt Defendants violated Section I of the permanent injunction via their

19

operation of SBH. Such an outcome would, in turn, obviate the need to resolve whether

20

the permanent injunction’s definition of “prohibited marketing scheme” differs materially

21

from the Ninth Circuit’s definition of “pyramid scheme,” and, if so, whether SBH qualifies

22

as the former even if it does not qualify as the latter.
Furthermore, there are unresolved issues regarding the FTC’s request for financial

23
24
1

25
26
27
28

Although the Court previously suggested that its summary judgment ruling in the
FTC’s favor in the Second Action with respect to VOZ Travel eliminated the need for “a
trial on whether SBH also operated as a pyramid scheme” (Second Action, Doc. 407), the
FTC subsequently clarified that the Court may need to resolve the SBH pyramid-scheme
issue before deciding the scope of permissible injunctive relief in the Second Action
(Second Action, Doc. 413). Having now more fully considered that issue as the case has
progressed, the Court agrees that the SBH pyramid-scheme issue needs to be resolved,
irrespective of how other contested issues in the First and Second Actions play out.

-3-

1

remedies. Depending on how those issues are resolved, they too may obviate the need to

2

address, in the First Action, whether SBH qualifies as a “prohibited marketing scheme”

3

even if it does not qualify as a “pyramid scheme.”

4
5
6
7
8

Given this backdrop, this is not one of those unusual circumstances where
reconsideration of an interlocutory order is warranted.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the FTC’s motion for reconsideration (Doc.
131) is denied.
Dated this 30th day of March, 2022.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-