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

Filing 1290

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 1280 the Monitor's Motion to Enforce Settlement, is GRANTED. The Court terminates the Interim Enforcement Orders, 1216 , 1217 , and enforces the Settlement Agreement as a judgment, calculated as follows: See Ord er for Details. The Court accordingly enters judgment in favor of the Monitor and against the Feingold Parties, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,416,666.36. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/16/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF Document 1290 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
4

Plaintiff,

5
6

vs.
AMG SERVICES, INC., et al.,

7

Defendants.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Enforce Settlement, (ECF No. 1280), filed by

9
10

Court-Appointed Monitor Thomas W. McNamara (“Monitor”). No party filed a response or

11

opposition to the Motion. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Monitor’s

12

Motion to Enforce Settlement.

13

I.

BACKGROUND

14

On April 23, 2018, the Court approved an agreement settling and releasing claims

15

between the Monitor and the following parties (“Settlement Agreement”): David Feingold, an

16

individual (“Feingold”), Dylan, Jagger Investment Co., Inc., a Missouri corporation (“DJIC”),

17

Homeowners Realty, LLC, a Kansas limited liability company (“Homeowners Realty”), UMR

18

Building LLC, a Kansas limited liability company (“UMR Building”), and United Material

19

Recovery, LLC, a Kansas limited liability company (“United Material Recovery”) (collectively,

20

“Feingold Parties”). (See Order, ECF No. 1191); (Joint Mot. to Approve Settlement, ECF No.

21

1188). The Feingold Parties thereafter failed to comply with the Settlement Agreement’s

22

terms. Accordingly, the Monitor requested that the Court enter Orders enjoining the Feingold

23

Parties and issuing a prejudgment writ of attachment, which the Court granted (“Interim

24

Enforcement Orders”). (Interim Enforcement Orders, ECF Nos. 1216, 1217). Because the

25

Feingold Parties have continued to violate the Settlement Agreement’s terms, the Monitor now

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF Document 1290 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 3

1

moves to enforce the Settlement Agreement and reduce it to a money judgment against the

2

Feingold Parties. (Mot. Enforce Settlement, ECF No. 1280).

3

II.

4

DISCUSSION
The Monitor declares that, since the Court’s Interim Enforcement Orders, it has not

5

received any money from the Feingold Parties as required by the Settlement Agreement. (Mot.

6

Enforce Settlement 3:17–18); (Decl. Monitor ¶ 7, Ex. A to Mot. Enforce Settlement, ECF No.

7

1280-1). However, the Monitor has secured funds as part of the Settlement Agreement through

8

a foreclosure on the UMR Plant, amounting to $104,659.34, and through another settlement

9

agreement concerning funds obtained by Jerry Gottlieb. (Id. ¶ 9). The amount now due under

10

the Settlement Agreement, according to the Monitor, is $2,416,666.36.

11

To convert the outstanding amount owed under the Settlement Agreement into a

12

judgment, the Court must have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction exists here based on prior Orders and

13

because this matter is still pending. Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987). In fact,

14

the Settlement Agreement expressly requested the Court’s continued jurisdiction to enforce the

15

terms if a breach occurred, which the Court approved. Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430,

16

1433 (9th Cir. 1995); (Settlement Agreement ¶ 10, Ex. 1 to Joint Mot., ECF No. 1188-1).

17

The next issue is whether the Monitor has sufficiently demonstrated a breach of the

18

Settlement Agreement now requiring court enforcement through a judgment, and whether the

19

purported breach is disputed. See Above the Ceiling, LLC v. W. Architectural Servs., No. 2:15-

20

cv-01766-JAD-GWF, 2019 WL 3210598, at *2 (D. Nev. June 28, 2019). The Monitor’s

21

Declaration satisfies its obligation to show a continuing breach of the Settlement Agreement by

22

the Feingold Parties. It states, for example, “the Monitorship Estate has not received any

23

money (e.g. regular payments due under the Settlement Agreement) directly from the Feingold

24

parties since the date of [the Monitor’s] last declaration regarding enforcement of the Feingold

25

Parties’ Settlement Agreement . . . [ECF No. 1213 at Exhibit A.” (Decl. Monitor ¶ 7). The

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF Document 1290 Filed 04/16/20 Page 3 of 3

1

Monitor’s asserted facts are currently not in dispute because no party filed a response or

2

opposition. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Monitor has sufficiently shown why

3

enforcement of the Settlement Agreement through a judgment is appropriate.

4

III.

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Monitor’s Motion to Enforce Settlement, (ECF

5
6

No. 1280), is GRANTED. The Court terminates the Interim Enforcement Orders, (ECF Nos.

7

1216, 1217), and enforces the Settlement Agreement as a judgment, calculated as follows:

8

A. The Feingold Parties committed to pay the Monitorship Estate $2,600,000 in addition

9

to the immediate transfers and assignments made under the Settlement Agreement;

10

B. Against that sum, the Monitorship Estate received $10,000 from Feingold, and

11

recovered $104,659.39 via a foreclosure and $104,535.72 via a third-party

12

settlement, while incurring costs of $47,891.42;1
C. Upon the Monitor agreeing to waive “all other attorneys fees and costs incurred

13
14

despite the right to recover them under the Settlement Agreement,” the Feingold

15

Parties currently owe the Monitorship Estate $2,416,666.36 under the terms of the

16

Settlement Agreement.

17

The Court accordingly enters judgment in favor of the Monitor and against the Feingold

18

Parties, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,416,666.36.

19

16
DATED this _____ day of April, 2020.

20

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

21
22
23
24
25

The Settlement Agreement expressly declares “in the event that any action or other proceeding is taken to
enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover, in addition to other
damages or remedies, its reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, and other costs and expenses reasonably
incurred in connection therewith . . . .” (Settlement Agreement ¶ 11, Ex. 1 to Joint Mot., ECF No. 1188-1).
1

Page 3 of 3