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)

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