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

Filing 1279

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 1276 the Joint Motion to Approve Proposed Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 1251 the Motion for Clarification Regarding Monitors Authority is DISMISSED as moot. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/26/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

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 9 Case No.: 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF ORDER Pending before the Court is the Joint Motion to Approve Proposed Settlement 10 11 Agreement with Jerry Gottlieb and Related Parties (“Joint Motion”), (ECF No. 1276), filed by 12 court-appointed Monitor Thomas W. McNamara (“Monitor”). According to the Joint Motion, 13 Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission indicated it does not oppose the request; and, to date, no 14 party filed an opposition to the Joint Motion.1 The Court has reviewed the information presented in the Joint Motion, and the Court is 15 16 satisfied with the Proposed Settlement Agreement. Thus, the Proposed Agreement is approved. 17 Additionally, in line with the Monitor’s request, the Court will retain jurisdiction to interpret 18 and enforce the Agreement.2 Also pending before the Court is the Monitor’s Renewed Motion for Clarification of 19 20 Authority, (ECF No. 1251), requesting clarification on the scope of the Monitor’s authority to 21 bring claims aimed at the recovery of assets fraudulently transferred to various parties. The 22 23 Also pending before the Court is the Monitor’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, (ECF No. 1278). The Court will address that Motion in a separate written order. 1 24 25 The Joint Motion states that a Proposed Order is attached to it for the Court’s review, (Joint Mot. 4:5–6), but the only attachment is the Proposed Settlement listed as Exhibit 1. If the parties require further action by the Court, the Monitor may resubmit the Proposed Order for review by the Court. 2 Page 1 of 2 1 Monitor explains that the Renewed Motion is necessary to resolve differing decisions in other 2 cases before the undersigned where the assigned magistrate judges “reached contradictory 3 conclusions . . . regarding the Monitor’s authority to bring [certain] claims.” (Renewed Motion 4 for Clarification 3:19–24, ECF No. 1251). 5 The appropriate setting for the Court to address the Monitor’s authority is the cases 6 where that issue is directly raised. The Monitor previously stated it has no objection to the 7 Court taking this approach. (Reply 2:14–15, ECF No. 1252) (“The Monitor has no objection 8 should the Court prefer to address the issue in the context of the motions to dismiss.”). 9 10 11 12 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Approve Proposed Settlement Agreement, (ECF No. 1276), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Clarification Regarding Monitor’s Authority, (ECF No. 1251), is DISMISSED as moot. 14 15 DATED this _____ day of December, 2019. 26 16 17 18 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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?