Federal Trade Commission v. Infusion Media, Inc. et al

Filing 176

ORDER Denying without prejudice 159 Motion to Hold Tony D. Norton, Philip J. Danielson, Philip Danielson, LLC, Foundation Business Solutions, LLC, Strata G. Solutions, LLC, and Direct Results Solutions, LLC in Contempt. Denying as moot 175 Motion to Extend Response Deadline. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/13/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INFUSION MEDIA, INC.; et al.,

8

Defendants.

9

)
) Case No.: 2:09-cv-1112-GMN-VCF
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)

Pending before the Court is the Federal Trade Commission’s Motion to Hold Tony D.

10
11

Norton; Philip J. Danielson; Philip Danielson, LLC; Foundation Business Solutions, LLC;

12

Strata G. Solutions, LLC; and Direct Results Solutions, LLC in Contempt. (ECF No. 159). On

13

December 29, 2014, the Court entered a Minute Order requiring that the parties named in the

14

FTC’s Motion file a Response on or before by January 14, 2015. (ECF No. 174). On January 8,

15

2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Extend Response Deadline, which stated that a

16

settlement has been reached that completely resolves the issues set forth in the FTC’s Contempt

17

Motion. (ECF No. 175). This settlement is currently pending final approval by the FTC. (Id. at

18

2).
Due to the pending settlement, the parties request that the Court extend the response

19
20

deadline to March 3, 2015. However, in light of the parties’ representations that the pending

21

settlement resolves all of the issues set forth in the FTC’s Contempt Motion, and in order to

22

maximize judicial economy, the Court finds it appropriate to deny the Contempt Motion

23

without prejudice.1 The Court will grant leave for the FTC to re-file this Motion, upon request,

24
25

It is well established the Court has “the inherent authority to control its own docket and calendar” in order to
promote the efficient administration of justice. See, e.g., Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000)
(citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936)).
1

Page 1 of 2

1

if the settlement is not finalized as anticipated.

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Federal Trade Commission’s Motion to Hold

4

Tony D. Norton; Philip J. Danielson; Philip Danielson, LLC; Foundation Business Solutions,

5

LLC; Strata G. Solutions, LLC; and Direct Results Solutions, LLC in Contempt. (ECF No.

6

159), is DENIED without prejudice.

7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Extend Response Deadline
(ECF No. 175), is DENIED as moot.
DATED this 13th day of January, 2015.

10
11
12
13

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2