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

Filing 897

ORDER that 894 Motion to Extend Time and 896 Joint Motion for Leave to File are GRANTED; 890 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave is DENIED as moot. Motions due by 1/20/2016. Responses due by 2/26/2016. Replies due by 3/18/2016. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/8/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Case 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF Document 894 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
District of Nevada
BLAINE T. WELSH
Assistant United States Attorney
Nevada Bar. No. 4790
333 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 5000
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
JONATHAN E. NUECHTERLEIN
General Counsel
NIKHIL SINGHVI
JASON D. SCHALL
HELEN P. WONG
IOANA RUSU
LaSHAWN M. JOHNSON
COURTNEY A. ESTEP
THOMAS KANE
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mailstop CC-10232
Washington, D.C. 20580
Phone: [phone] (Singhvi)
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] (Singhvi); [e-mail] (Schall)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

19
20

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

21
22
23

v.
AMG Services, Inc. et al.,

24

Defendants, and

25
26
27
28

Case No. 2:12-cv-536

Park 269 LLC, et al.,
Relief Defendants.

JOINT MOTION FOR MODIFIED
PHASE 2 DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND
LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDA
IN EXCESS OF PAGE
LIMITATIONS

Case 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF Document 894 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 4

1

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), Scott Tucker, Nereyda Tucker, executor of the estate

2

of Blaine Tucker, Black Creek Capital Corporation, Level 5 Motorsports LLC, LeadFlash Consulting LLC,

3

Broadmoor Capital Partners, LLC, and AMG Capital Management, LLC (the "Tucker Defendants"), and

4

Kim Tucker and Park 269, LLC (the “Relief Defendants”) jointly move the Court for an order setting forth

5

a briefing schedule for the parties' Phase 2 dispositive motions briefing, and for leave to file memoranda in

6

excess of the page limitations in the local rules, as follows:

7

1. The parties are currently required to file dispositive motions on or before January 22, 2016.

8

(ECF No. 886 at 3.) The FTC, the Tucker Defendants and the Relief Defendants plan to file

9

dispositive motions. Pursuant to LR 7-2(e), the opposing party would have 21 days after service

10

to respond to the moving party’s motion, and the moving party would have 14 days to reply in

11

support of its motion. Pursuant to LR 7-4, memoranda of points and authorities supporting and

12

opposing those motions would be limited to 30 pages each, and reply memoranda would be

13

limited to 20 pages.

14
15
16

2. The parties jointly request a briefing schedule as follows:
a. Dispositive motions and memoranda of points and authorities to be filed on January 20,
2016.

17

b. Responding points and authorities to be filed on February 26, 2016.

18

c. Reply memoranda to be filed on March 18, 2016.

19

3. The parties jointly request page allowances for their briefing as follows:

20

a. For the FTC’s summary judgment motion, the FTC’s opening memorandum may be up

21

to 90 pages in length, the Tucker Defendants’ and the Relief Defendants’ oppositions

22

may be up to 90 pages, and the FTC’s reply memorandum may be up to 40 pages.

23

b. For the Tucker Defendants’ summary judgment motion, the Tucker Defendants’ opening

24

memoranda may be up to 60 pages in length, the FTC’s opposition may be up to 60

25

pages, and the Tucker Defendants’ reply memorandum may be up to 25 pages.

26
27

The parties respectfully submit that a number of reasons support their request for the foregoing
briefing schedule and page limit allowances:

28
1

Case 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF Document 894 Filed 12/07/15 Page 3 of 4

1

1.

For its summary judgment motion, the FTC contends that its presentation of facts and law

2

will approach 90 pages to adequately address the duration of the unlawful activity, the

3

harm to consumers, the legal and factual issues pertaining to Defendants’ individual

4

liability and common enterprise liability, the legal and factual issues pertaining to the

5

Relief Defendants’ liability, the consequences of certain witnesses’ Fifth Amendment

6

invocations, the Defendants’ affirmative defenses, and the nature of the injunctive relief

7

requested.

8

2.

For their summary judgment motion, the Tucker Defendants contend that their

9

presentation of facts and law will approach 60 pages to adequately address the legal and

10

factual issues pertaining to their defenses to the FTC’s allegations and their affirmative

11

defenses.

12

The parties further submit that their proposed briefing schedule and page allowances will enable

13

omnibus motions and memoranda and reduce the likelihood of piecemeal briefing. In addition, the parties’

14

requested page limits are consistent with those permitted by this Court in recent FTC matters. See, e.g.,

15

FTC v. Ivy Capital, No. 2:11-CV-283 JCM (GWF), 2012 WL 4482796, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2012) (Court

16

first struck but then allowed an FTC motion for summary judgment of 130 pages in length); FTC v. Johnson,

17

No. 2:10-cv-02203-MMG-GWF (D. Nev. 2013) (ECF No. 1234) (order permitting FTC to file 140 pages in

18

total briefing for two summary judgment memoranda); FTC v. Grant Connect, No. 2:09-cv-01349-PMP-NJK

19

(D. Nev. 2010) (ECF No. 275-2) (145-page FTC summary judgment memorandum); see also FTC v. Publishers

20

Business Services, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-00620-APG-GWF (D. Nev. 2009) (ECF Nos. 88, 90) (87 total pages for

21

FTC summary judgment memorandum and separate statement of facts); FTC v. Ideal Financial Solutions, Inc.,

22

No. 2:13-cv-00143-JAD-GWF (D. Nev. 2014) (ECF No. 194) (minute order) (“The Court agrees that it is more

23

efficient to consider all of the FTC’s [summary judgment] arguments in a single filing, providing good cause

24

for relief from the 30-page limit.”).

25
26

If this Stipulation is accepted by the Court, the parties’ previous briefing on the procedures to govern
the forthcoming motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 890, 892 and 893) is rendered moot.

27
28
2

Case 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF Document 894 Filed 12/07/15 Page 4 of 4

1

Dated: December 7, 2015

2

/s Nikhil Singhvi

/s Nick Kurt

3

____________________________________
Nikhil Singhvi
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Mailstop CC-10232
Washington, DC 20580
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

____________________________________
Nick Kurt
Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt LLP
2600 Grand Boulevard,
Suite 1200
Kansas City, MO 64108
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Attorney for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

Attorney for Defendants Scott Tucker, Nereyda
Tucker, the executor of the estate of Blaine Tucker,
Black Creek Capital Corporation, Level 5
Motorsports LLC, LeadFlash Consulting LLC,
Broadmoor Capital Partners, LLC, and AMG Capital
Management, LLC

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

/s Linda McFee
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

____________________________________
Linda McFee
McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan, P.C.
605 W. 47th Street, Suite 350
Kansas City, Missouri 64112
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorney for Kim Tucker and Park 269, LLC
The Parties' Joint Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 894) and Joint Motion for Leave (ECF 896) are
GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave (ECF No. 890) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED:

23
24

________________________________________

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26

December 8, 2015

Dated: ___________________________________

27
28
3