Federal Trade Commission v. AMG Services, Inc. et al

Filing 1042

ORDER that 1029 Motion to Modify the Court's Asset Freeze Order is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/31/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. 6 AMG SERVICES, INC., et al., 7 Defendants. 8 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF ORDER 9 Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider, (ECF No. 1029), filed by 10 11 Defendants Park 269, LLC and Kim C. Tucker (the “Relief Defendants”) and Defendants AMG 12 Capital Management, LLC (“AMG”); Level 5 Motorsports, LLC; Black Creek Capital 13 Corporation; Broadmoor Capital Partners; Scott A. Tucker; (the “Tucker Defendants”) 14 (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a Response, 15 (ECF No. 1037). Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated Briefing Schedule, (ECF No. 1035), 16 Defendants did not file a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the 17 Motion. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On March 31, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting FTC’s Motion for Preliminary 20 Injunction against Defendants in the form of an asset freeze and accounting (the “Asset Freeze 21 Order”). (ECF No. 960). The instant Motion asks the Court to modify its Asset Freeze Order 22 “to permit a continuation of the $8,000/month living allowance and payment of particular tax 23 and dues payments.” (Mot. 2:5–6, ECF No. 1029). 24 25 Page 1 of 3 1 2 II. DISCUSSION Whether to freeze a party’s assets is a matter for the Court’s discretion. See Reebok Int’l, 3 Ltd. v. Marnatech Enters., Inc., 970 F.2d 552, 562–63 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court had 4 discretion to impose asset freeze). Likewise, whether to an asset freeze is also subject to the 5 Court’s discretion. See F.T.C. v. Trek All., Inc., 81 Fed. Appx. 118, 119 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he 6 district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that modification of the [asset freeze] order 7 was not warranted in the circumstances”). Here, Defendants seek modification of the Court’s 8 Asset Freeze Order “to pay for necessities such as food, clothing, utilities, medical treatment, 9 medicine, and gasoline.” (Mot. 3:25–4:1). 10 The FTC points out that “Scott Tucker and Kim Tucker have benefitted from a generous 11 $99,000 living allowance over five months.” (Resp. 2:2–3, ECF No. 1037). Further, the FTC 12 has submitted evidence demonstrating that since the Court entered its asset freeze Order, 13 Defendants have “continued their profligate lifestyle including spa, steakhouse, country club, 14 and liquor purchases.” (Id. 2:4–5). In addition, “[d]uring this time period [Defendants] also 15 spent $10,000 on private school tuition for their 15-year old daughter” and, shortly before the 16 Asset Freeze Order took effect, “prepaid four years of college tuition for [their] other 17 daughter.” (Id. 4:3–5). Defendants have also withdrawn more than $27,000 in cash without 18 providing any evidence that the money was used for reasonable living expenses. (Id. 4:6–18). 19 The Court agrees with the FTC that “Scott Tucker and Kim Tucker have not submitted 20 to the Court adequate rationale or documentation supporting the continuation of an $8,000 21 monthly allowance,” particularly in light of the fact that Defendants own their homes and cars 22 outright. (Id. 8:12–21). Accordingly, the Court finds that modification is not appropriate 23 because Defendants have not established that they lack income or assets necessary to pay their 24 living expenses. Unless Defendants correct these deficiencies, the Court refuses to modify the 25 Asset Freeze Order as Defendants request. Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 III. CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Modify the Court’s Asset Freeze Order, (ECF No. 1029), is DENIED. 4 5 31 DATED this _____ day of August, 2016. 6 7 8 ________________________________ 9 Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 of 3

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?