Federal Trade Commission v. AMG Services, Inc. et al
Filing
1239
ORDER that 1211 and 1236 McNamara's Fourth and Fifth Interim Applications for an Order Approving Fees and Expenses are GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/1/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
4
5
6
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMG SERVICES, INC., et al.,
7
Defendants.
8
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF
ORDER
9
10
Pending before the Court are the Fourth and Fifth Interim Applications for an Order
11
Approving Fees and Expenses, (ECF Nos. 1211, 1236), filed by court-appointed Monitor
12
Thomas W. McNamara (“McNamara”).
13
This instant Applications arise from McNamara’s exercise of authority as court-appointed
14
monitor over the judgment debtor’s assets. In this case, the Court granted the Federal Trade
15
Commission (“FTC”) summary judgment against Defendant Scott Tucker (“Tucker”) and his
16
businesses for a payday lending scheme in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15
17
U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). The Court enjoined Tucker from assisting “any consumer in receiving or
18
applying for any loan or other extension of Consumer Credit,” and ordered that Tucker pay
19
approximately $1.27 billion in equitable monetary relief to the FTC. (See Order 27:17–30:14,
20
ECF No. 1057).
21
In a subsequent order (the “Appointment Order”), the Court appointed McNamara as
22
monitor, granting him authority to preserve or recover assets on behalf of the Monitorship
23
Estate. (See Appointment Order, ECF No. 1099). The Appointment Order provides that
24
McNamara may engage attorneys and other professionals and that McNamara and his retained
25
personnel are “entitled to reasonable compensation for the performance of duties pursuant to
Page 1 of 2
1
this Order, and for the cost of actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred by them, from the Assets
2
now held by or in the possession or control of, or which may be received by, the Defendants or
3
Monitorship Entities,” based on periodic requests to the court. (Id. §§ VIII(L)–(M), XV).
4
The Court has reviewed the McNamara’s Declarations and supporting documents with
5
respect to the Applications, and approves the payment of the following requested amounts for
6
fees and expenses with respect to the Fourth Interim Application: $56,200.50 fees and $283.59
7
expenses of the Monitor and staff to be paid to Thomas W. McNamara dba Regulatory
8
Resolutions; $126,242.00 fees and $8,544.42 expenses of the Monitor’s counsel, McNamara
9
Smith LLP; $6,173.53 fees and $352.40 expenses of local counsel in Nevada, Ballard Spahr
10
LLP and $11,985.30 fees of Lynch Law Practice, PLLC; and $9,195.00 fees and $382.14
11
expenses of counsel in Overland Park, Kansas, Geiger Prell, LLC.
12
The Court is likewise satisfied that McNamara’s Fifth Interim Application for Fees and
13
Expenses shall be approved as follows: $106,123.00 fees and $2,558.98 expenses of the
14
Monitor and staff to be paid to Thomas W. McNamara dba Regulatory Resolutions;
15
$272,202.00 fees and $7,187.77 expenses of the Monitor’s counsel, McNamara Smith LLP;
16
$27,484.30 fees and $1,481.18 expenses of the Monitor’s local counsel in Nevada, Ballard
17
Spahr LLP; $3,549.60 fees and $112.20 expenses of Lynch Law Practice, PLLC; $20,070.00
18
fees and $675.95 expenses of the Monitor’s counsel in Overland Park, Kansas, Geiger Prell,
19
LLC; and $15,563.70 fees and $506.80 expenses of the Monitor’s counsel, Allen Matkins Leck
20
Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP.
21
22
23
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that McNamara’s Fourth and Fifth Interim Applications
for an Order Approving Fees and Expenses, (ECF Nos. 1211, 1236), are GRANTED.
1
DATED this _____ day of April, 2019.
24
25
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Page 2 of 2
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?