Federal Trade Commission v. Vemma Nutrition Company et al
ORDER granting 135 Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission's Motion to Clarify or Reconsider Preliminary Injunction as to Defendant Tom Alkazin. The Preliminary Injunction Order (Doc. 118 ) is hereby amended such that Mr. Alkazin is subject to the prohibitions of Sections I.A through I.E of the Order. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 6/30/16.(LSP)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Federal Trade Commission,
Vemma Nutrition Company, et al.,
At issue is Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Motion to Clarify or
Reconsider Preliminary Injunction as to Defendant Tom Alkazin (Doc. 135), to which
Defendants filed no Response.
In its Motion, the FTC points out that, in the Preliminary Injunction Order
(Doc. 118), the Court found that the FTC is likely to succeed on the merits in showing
that Mr. Alkazin made false and misleading income claims and omissions. As a result,
the FTC argues that the Court should clarify the Preliminary Injunction Order and subject
Mr. Alkazin to the same injunction prohibiting material misrepresentations and
omissions, including deceptive income claims, as the Court imposed on the Corporate
Defendants in Sections I.B through I.E of the Order. Mr. Alkazin did not oppose the
FTC’s request, which prompts its summary disposition, see LRCiv 7.2(i), and in any
event the Court agrees with the FTC’s analysis. As a result, the Court will grant the
FTC’s Motion in this respect.
The FTC also argues that Mr. Alkazin should be subject to Section I.A of the
Preliminary Injunction Order prohibiting the operation of an illegal pyramid scheme
based on the Court’s finding that Mr. Alkazin helped create the Two & Go program,
which has indicia of a pyramid scheme. In support, the FTC cites a number of cases
holding that liability for violation of the FTC Act may arise when an individual directly
participated in unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as an alternative to the liability
arising from authority to control unfair or deceptive acts or practices. See FTC v. Publ’g
Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1997); FTC v. J.K. Publ’ns, 99 F.
Supp. 2d 1176, 1203 (C.D. Cal. 2000). The FTC contends that, because the Court found
that Mr. Alkazin participated in acts or practices that the FTC is likely to succeed on the
merits in demonstrating were pyramidal and thus unfair or deceptive under the Act, the
Court should subject Mr. Alkazin to the same injunction prohibiting pyramidal activity as
the Court imposed on the Corporate Defendants in Section I.A of the Order. Mr. Alkazin
again did not oppose the FTC’s request, see LRCiv 7.2(i), and the Court again agrees
with the FTC’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court will grant the FTC’s Motion, and
Mr. Alkazin will be subject to the injunctive provisions contained in Sections I.A through
I.E of the Preliminary Injunction Order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s
Motion to Clarify or Reconsider Preliminary Injunction as to Defendant Tom Alkazin
(Doc. 135). The Preliminary Injunction Order (Doc. 118) is hereby amended such that
Mr. Alkazin is subject to the prohibitions of Sections I.A through I.E of the Order.
Dated this 30th day of June, 2016.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?