Federal Trade Commission v. Ambrosia Web Design LLC, et al.,

Filing 63

ORDER granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff shall lodge with the court an updated proposed form of Preliminary Injunction, consistent both with the TRO and this order by February 15, 2013. The defendant may st ipulate to the form. Otherwise defendant shall have 10 days after the lodging of the proposed form of Preliminary Injunction to file objections to the form. This order constitutes the court's findings and conclusions under Rule 52(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 2/6/13. (LFIG)

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

vs.

12
Ambrosia Web Design LLC et al,
13
Defendant.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 12-02248-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
16
17

We held a show cause hearing on October 31, 2012, on plaintiff’s motion for

18

preliminary injunction, and extended the TRO until further order of the court. (Doc. 29). We

19

gave defendants an opportunity to respond and plaintiff an opportunity to reply.

20

We now have before us defendants’ Response (doc. 37), plaintiff’s Reply (doc. 43),

21

and the Receiver’s Reply (doc. 44). We also had the benefit of the Receiver’s Preliminary

22

Report (doc. 25).

23

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show that (1) he is likely to succeed

24

on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,

25

(3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and, (4) an injunction is in the public interest.

26

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008).

27

The court has already granted the TRO, assets have been frozen and a receiver

28

appointed. The defendants’ Response focuses on asset seizure, but we find the admissions

1

made in the Response and the description of the defendants’ business activities support the

2

granting of injunctive relief. This is telemarketing fraud. The defendants sell nothing of

3

serious value (credit card interest rate reduction) to stressed consumers. They just perpetuate

4

and delay the inevitable through a convoluted scheme.

5

We find that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. The evidence favors plaintiff

6

and much of it is admitted, although defendants attempt to explain it. The members of the

7

public who would be drawn into defendants’ scheme are likely to suffer irreparable harm

8

because they receive nothing of lasting value and are already likely to be distressed

9

consumers. The equities favor the FTC. The defendants’ business, even under defendants’

10

own description, is at the margins of propriety and social utility. Finally, the public interest

11

is served when a public regulator makes an effort to protect those on whose behalf the statute

12

is designed to protect.

13

Accordingly, it is ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

14

injunctive relief. Plaintiff shall lodge with the court an updated proposed form of preliminary

15

injunction, consistent both with the TRO and this order by February 15, 2013. The defendant

16

may stipulate to the form. Otherwise defendant shall have 10 days after the lodging of the

17

proposed form of preliminary injunction to file objections to the form. This order constitutes

18

the court’s findings and conclusions under Rule 52(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.

19

DATED this 6th day of February, 2013.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-