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

Filing 321

ORDER Granting 320 Unopposed Motion Regarding Filing of Answer. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/24/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5

Patrick J. Reilly, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 6103
Leslie M. Nino, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 11672
Holland & Hart LLP
9555 Hillwood Drive, Second Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Linda C. McFee, Esq.
(admitted pro hac vice)
R. Pete Smith, Esq.
(admitted pro hac vice)
McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan
605 West 47th Street, Suite 350
Kansas City, MO 64112
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Relief Defendants
Kim C. Tucker and Park 269 LLC

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

16

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

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

Plaintiff,

17
18

vs.

19

AMG SERVICES, INC., an Oklahoma Tribal
Entity; RED CEDAR SERVICES, INC., an
Oklahoma Tribal Entity, also dba 500
FastCash; SFS, INC., a Nebraska Tribal
Entity, also dba OneClickCash; TRIBAL
FINANCIAL SERVICES, an Oklahoma
Tribal
Entity,
also
dba
Ameriloan,
UnitedCashLoans, USFastCash, and Miami
Nation
Enterprises;
AMG
CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Nevada Limited
Liability
Company;
LEVEL
5
MOTORSPORTS, LLC, a Nevada Limited
Liability
Company;
LEADFLASH
CONSULTING, LLC, a Nevada Limited
Liability company; PARTNER WEEKLY,
LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company;
BLACK
CREEK
CAPITAL
CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation;
BROADMOOR CAPITAL PARTNERS,

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

UNOPPOSED MOTION BY RELIEF
DEFENDANTS REGARDING FILING OF
ANSWER AND ORDER THEREON
[PROPOSED] ORDER
THEREON

Page 1 of 7
5968999_2

1
2
3
4
5
6

LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company;
THE MUIR LAW FIRM, LLC, a Kansas
Limited Liability Company; SCOTT A.
TUCKER, in his individual and corporate
capacity; BLAINE A. TUCKER, in his
individual and corporate capacity; TIMOTHY
J. MUIR, in his individual and corporate
capacity; DON E. BRADY, in his individual
and corporate capacity; and TROY L.
LITTLEAXE, in his individual and corporate
capacity,
Defendants, and

7
8
9

PARK 269 LLC, a Kansas Limited Liability
Company; and KIM C. TUCKER, in her
individual and corporate capacity,
Relief Defendants.

10
11
12

Relief Defendants Kim C. Tucker and Park 269, LLC (“Relief Defendants”) hereby move

13

this Court for an order extending their deadline to file an answer in this case until fourteen (14)

14

days after a finding of liability against any defendant, if any, in Phase I of this lawsuit. The

15

instant motion is unopposed by Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). This Motion is

16

based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the papers and pleadings on file in

17

this action, and any oral argument this Court may allow.

18

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2013.

19
____/s/ Patrick J. Reilly___________________
Patrick J. Reilly, Esq.
Leslie M. Nino, Esq.
Holland & Hart LLP
9555 Hillwood Drive, Second Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134

20
21
22
23

Linda C. McFee, Esq.
R. Pete Smith, Esq.
McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan
605 West 47th Street, Suite 350
Kansas City, MO 64112

24
25
26

Attorneys for Relief Defendants Kim C. Tucker and
Park 269 LLC

27
28

Page 2 of 7
5968999_2

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
UNOPPOSED MOTION BY RELIEF DEFENDANTS
REGARDING FILING OF ANSWER

1
2
3

The FTC commenced this action on April 2, 2012, asserting various violations of federal

4

law against numerous defendants. Mrs. Tucker and Park 269, LLC are Relief Defendants—by

5

their very nature, they have done nothing wrong—they are nominal defendants in a case where it

6

is alleged that others have engaged in wrongdoing. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v.

7

Kimberlyn Creek Ranch, Inc., 276 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2002).

8

After filing of the Complaint, various motions to dismiss were filed by various

9

defendants, including the Relief Defendants. Said motions have been fully briefed, heard, and

10

adjudicated, and the Relief Defendants’ Answer is presently due.
On December 27, 2011, this Court issued an Order Entering Stipulated Preliminary

11
12

Injunction and Bifurcation (the “Bifurcation Order”) (Doc. #296).

The Bifurcation Order

13

separated this action into two phases. Phase I is a liability phase involving the FTC and the

14

Defendants. Phase II involves inter alia relief to be sought against Relief Defendants, if any,

15

depending on the outcome of Phase I.

16

Because Phase I does not involve any claims against Relief Defendants, Relief

17

Defendants hereby request that they be relieved of the obligation to file an answer until fourteen

18

(14) days after a finding of liability against any defendant, if any, in Phase I of this lawsuit.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
Page 3 of 7
5968999_2

1
2
3

The FTC does not oppose this Motion. This is the first request for extension of time
requested by Relief Defendants as to the filing of their Answer.
DATED this 23rd day of January, 2013.

4
____/s/ Patrick J. Reilly___________________
Patrick J. Reilly, Esq.
Leslie M. Nino, Esq.
Holland & Hart LLP
9555 Hillwood Drive, Second Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89134

5
6
7
8

Linda C. McFee, Esq.
R. Pete Smith, Esq.
McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan
605 West 47th Street, Suite 350
Kansas City, MO 64112

9
10
11

Attorneys for Relief Defendants Kim C. Tucker and
Park 269 LLC

12
13

ORDER

14

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24thIT IS of January, 2013.
day SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

18

DATED: __________________________________
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 4 of 7
5968999_2