Federal Trade Commission v. Consumer Defense LLC et al

Filing 112

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 24 defendant Horton's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or transfer venue be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that 40 the Utah entities and th e Hanleys' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that 45 the corporate defendants and the Hanleys' motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/7/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:18-CV-30 JCM (PAL)
ORDER

v.
CONSUMER DEFENSE, LLC, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is defendant Benjamin Horton’s (“Horton”) motion to dismiss

14

for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer venue. (ECF No. 24). The FTC

15

filed a response (ECF No. 31), to which Horton replied (ECF No. 54).

16

Also before the court is defendants Consumer Defense, LLC (Utah); Preferred Law, PLLC;

17

American Home Loan Counselors; Consumer Defense Group, LLC; American Home Loans, LLC;

18

AM Property Management, LLC; FMG Partners, LLC; Brown Legal, Inc.; Zinly, LLC

19

(collectively “the Utah entities”); Jonathan P. Hanley and Sandra X. Hanley’s (collectively “the

20

Hanleys”) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (ECF No. 40). The FTC filed a

21

response (ECF No. 63), to which the Utah entities and the Hanleys replied (ECF No. 68).

22

Also before the court is defendants Consumer Defense, LLC (Nevada); Consumer Link,

23

Inc.; Consumer Defense, LLC (Utah); Preferred Law, PLLC; American Home Loan Counselors;

24

Consumer Defense Group, LLC; American Home Loans, LLC; AM Property Management, LLC;

25

FMG Partners, LLC; Brown Legal, Inc.; Zinly, LLC (collectively “the corporate defendants”); and

26

the Hanleys’ motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens. (ECF No. 45). The FTC filed

27

a response (ECF No. 64), to which the corporate defendants and the Hanleys replied (ECF No.

28

70).

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

I.

Facts

2

The instant case arises from an alleged mortgage assistance relief services (“MARS”)

3

scheme perpetrated by the corporate defendants, the Hanleys, and Horton (collectively “the

4

defendants”) starting in 2011. (ECF No. 1). The FTC alleges that the defendants swindled

5

consumers out of more than $11 million. Id. Promising to obtain mortgage loan modifications that

6

would stop or prevent foreclosure, the defendants required consumers to pay advance fees. Id.

7

Further, the defendants instructed consumers not to pay their mortgages and to not contact or

8

respond to their lenders. Id. The FTC contends that the defendants typically failed to obtain

9

mortgage loan modifications. Id. As a result, consumers found themselves with months of interest

10

and missed payments added to their mortgages and have faced foreclosure and bankruptcy in some

11

cases. Id.

12

The FTC maintains that the defendants operated their MARS scheme as a common

13

enterprise of eleven interrelated entities, i.e. the corporate defendants, controlled by three

14

principals, i.e. the Hanleys and Horton. (ECF No. 6). Acting as a common enterprise since 2011,

15

the corporate defendants have played various roles in the alleged MARS scheme. Id. Many of the

16

corporate defendants—Consumer Defense, LLC (Nevada and Utah); Consumer Link, Inc.;

17

Preferred Law, PLLC; American Home Loan Counselors; Consumer Defense Group, LLC, f/k/a

18

Modification Review Board, LLC—interacted with consumers to provide MARS service

19

contracts. Id. The remaining corporate defendants allegedly functioned as payment collectors and

20

financial conduits that, inter alia, paid for required services, such as websites and offices spaces,

21

for the consumer-facing operations. Id.

22

The corporate defendants shared employees and commingled funds. Id. Moreover, when

23

interacting with consumers, the corporate defendants “blurred corporate distinctions” by

24

intermingling contacts, forms, and consumer payments. Id. The FTC therefore contends that the

25

corporate defendants, a “maze of interrelated companies,” “jointly participated in a ‘common

26

venture’ in which they benefitted from a shared business scheme . . . .” Id. at 29 (citations omitted).

27

The defendants entered into MARS service contracts with 74 Nevada residents. (ECF No.

28

63). While defendants marketed their products nationally, in their promotion of the “Hardest Hit

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

Fund Program,” the defendants’ websites targeted several states specifically, including Nevada.1

2

Id. These websites prompted consumers to provide personal information in order to determine

3

whether or not they would be eligible for the mortgage services offered. Id.

4

The FTC contends that growing numbers of negative consumer reviews regarding the Utah

5

entities led the individual defendants to form two Nevada entities, Consumer Defense, LLC, and

6

Consumer Link, Inc., (“the Nevada entities”). Id. In so doing, the defendants established mailing

7

addresses in Las Vegas and Reno. Id. The defendants represented to consumers that they were

8

located at these addresses, despite the fact that these locations were “virtual offices” where no

9

employees worked. (ECF Nos. 63, 40). While the Nevada entities were not formed until 2016,

10

these entities represent approximately 30% of the MARS service contracts entered into since 2011.

11

(ECF No. 63). Moreover, the Nevada entities account for approximately 66% of the MARS service

12

contracts entered into after their formation. Id. All of these consumer contracts contain a forum

13

selection clause requiring customers to litigate their disputes in Clark County, Nevada. Id.

14

Jonathan Hanley controlled and operated the majority of these corporate defendants. Id. He

15

is listed on most of the corporate papers and as the contact for many of the corporate defendants’

16

service providers. Id. He is a signatory for many of the corporate bank accounts and has replied to

17

consumer complaints in regard to several of the corporate defendants. Id. He paid for necessary

18

mail services for the Nevada entities. Id.

19

Sandra Hanley managed numerous corporate defendants, handled all of the corporate

20

defendants’ payroll, and responded to chargebacks on the defendants’ merchant accounts. Id. She

21

is a signatory on multiple corporate bank accounts and appears on various consumer contracts as

22

a representative authorized to negotiate mortgage loan modifications. Id. On several occasions,

23

both of the Hanleys paid for the corporate defendants’ expenses with their personal credit cards.

24

(ECF No. 1).

25

Horton, the only attorney who worked with the Hanleys, allegedly “served as a front for

26

[d]efendants’ claim that they [would] provide expert legal assistance to consumers to negotiate

27
The “Hardest Hit Fund Program” purportedly allowed residents of a few states in
particular, including Nevada, to qualify for additional funding in order to make their mortgage
payments and keep their homes.
1

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-

1

mortgage loan modifications.” (ECF No. 6 at 5). In some instances, defendants represented to

2

consumers that the services the consumers were paying for were not related to loan modifications,

3

but were legal services offered by Horton, the corporate defendants’ attorney. Id. As the owner,

4

manager, and attorney for Preferred Law, PLLC, (“Preferred Law”), Horton signed and sent

5

qualified written request letters on its behalf. (ECF Nos. 54, 6).

6

Horton dissolved Preferred Law in November of 2016 due to the suspension of his Utah

7

bar license. (ECF No. 54). The dissolution of Preferred Law occurred after the formation of the

8

Nevada entities in July and September of 2016. (ECF No. 6). Horton aided the Hanleys in forming

9

these entities, drafting their paperwork, and setting up their offices. (ECF No. 54). Moreover, even

10

after his suspension in September 2016, Horton continued to receive notifications regarding

11

outstanding consumer complaints. Id.

12

The FTC filed the underlying complaint on January 8, 2018, alleging six counts of unfair

13

or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act,

14

15 U.S.C. § 45(a) against all defendants.2 (ECF No. 1). The FTC alleges that (1) the corporate

15

defendants constitute a common enterprise and can therefore be held jointly and severally liable,

16

and (2) the individual defendants, as persons who “formulated, directed, controlled, had the

17

authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of [. . .] the common enterprise,” may

18

be held individually liable under the FTC Act for the enterprise’s violations thereof. (ECF Nos. 1

19

at 8, 5 at 29-31).

20

On February 20, 2018, the court granted the FTC’s motion for preliminary injunction,

21

maintaining the asset freeze set in place by the temporary restraining order entered on January 10,

22

2018. (ECF Nos. 12, 55). On February 23, 2018, the parties stipulated to release the Hanleys’

23

personal bank account from the asset freeze. (ECF No. 62). On February 28, 2018, the parties also

24

stipulated to release $25,000 for defendants’ attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 65). On March 21, 2018,

25
2

26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

The causes of action asserted in the complaint are as follows: (1) deceptive
representations regarding substantially more affordable loan payments, substantially lower interest
rates, or foreclosure avoidance; (2) deceptive representations regarding loan modification services;
(3) advance payments for mortgage assistance relief services; (4) prohibited representations; (5)
material misrepresentations; (6) failure to disclose. (ECF No. 1). Counts (3) – (6) assert violations
of the MARS Rule, 12 C.F.R. Part 1015, which constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in
or affecting commerce under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). Id.
-4-

1

the corporate defendants and the Hanleys filed a notice of appeal as to the court’s order granting

2

the FTC’s preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 81). On May 4, 2018, the court granted the Hanleys’

3

motion for release of funds for reasonable living expenses and attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 104).

4

In defendant Horton’s motion, Horton moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction

5

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the

6

District of Utah pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391,

7

1404(a). (ECF No. 24). The Utah entities and the Hanleys’ motion to dismiss requests dismissal

8

for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) (ECF No.

9

40). Lastly, the corporate defendants and the Hanleys’ motion to dismiss requests dismissal based

10

upon forum non conveniens. (ECF No. 45).

11

II.

Legal Standard

12

a. Personal Jurisdiction

13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) allows a defendant to move to dismiss for lack of

14

personal jurisdiction. When a defendant’s motion to dismiss is based upon written materials, as

15

opposed to an evidentiary hearing, the court need only “inquire into whether [the plaintiff’s]

16

pleadings and affidavits make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.” Schwarzenegger v.

17

Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Caruth v. International

18

Psychoanalytical Ass'n, 59 F.3d 126, 128 (9th Cir.1995)) (internal quotations omitted, alteration

19

in original). Undisputed allegations in plaintiff’s complaint must be taken as true and factual

20

disputes should be construed in the plaintiff’s favor. Id.

21

When no federal statute governs personal jurisdiction, the district court applies the law of

22

the forum state. Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Panavision

23

Int’l L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1998). Where a state has a “long-arm” statute

24

providing its court’s jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the due process clause, as

25

Nevada does, a court need only address federal due process standards. See Arbella Mut. Ins. Co.

26

v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 P.3d 710, 712 (Nev. 2006) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.065);

27

see also Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015. Generally, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a

28

defendant only where the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state “such that

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-5-

1

the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

2

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

3

Two categories of personal jurisdiction exist: (1) general jurisdiction; and (2) specific

4

jurisdiction. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 413–15 (1984);

5

see also LSI Indus., Inc. v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc., 232 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

6

General jurisdiction arises where the defendant has continuous and systematic ties with the

7

forum, even if those ties are unrelated to the litigation. See Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,

8

433 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A., 466 U.S.

9

at 414–16). “[T]he plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant has sufficient contacts to constitute

10

the kind of continuous and systematic general business contacts that approximate physical

11

presence.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat’l Gas Litig., 605 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1131 (D. Nev. 2009)

12

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The United States Supreme Court recently

13

clarified that general jurisdiction exists only where the defendant is at “home” in the forum state.

14

See Daimler AG v. Bauman, --- U.S. ----, ----,134 S. Ct. 746, 760–62 (2014).

15

Specific jurisdiction arises where sufficient contacts with the forum state exist such that

16

the assertion of personal jurisdiction “does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and

17

substantial justice.’” Int’l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 316 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463

18

(1940)). The Ninth Circuit has established a three-prong test for analyzing an assertion of specific

19

personal jurisdiction:

20

(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or
consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some
act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities
in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;
(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forumrelated activities; and
(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice,
i.e., it must be reasonable.

21
22
23
24

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs.
25
Id. If a plaintiff meets this burden, a defendant hoping to defeat jurisdiction must show that the
26

court’s exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Id.

27
...
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-6-

1

b. Venue

2

Under the FTC Act, “[a]ny suit may be brought where such person, partnership, or

3

corporation resides or transacts business, or wherever venue is proper under section 1391 of Title

4

28.” 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) allows a defendant to move to

5

dismiss for improper venue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper when:

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the
State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is
situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this
section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action
i.

Forum Non Conveniens

“The central purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure that the trial is
convenient.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 256 (1981). “A forum non conveniens
determination is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Lueck v. Sundstrand
Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1143 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Gemini Capital Group, Inc. v. Yap Fishing
Corp., 150 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.1998)). Forum non conveniens is “an exceptional tool to be
employed sparingly.” Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216, 1224 (9th Cir.
2011) (quoting Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1118 (9th Cir. 2002)).
“To prevail on a motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens, a defendant bears
the burden of demonstrating an adequate alternative forum, and that the balance of private and
public interest factors favors dismissal.” Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1076 (9th Cir. 2015),
cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 915 (2016) (quoting Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d
1216, 1224 (9th Cir.2011)).
However, dismissal under the forum non conveniens doctrine is not appropriate in federal
cases where the alternative forum is another federal district court. Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S.
Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 61 (2013) (“federal courts invoke forum non
conveniens in cases where the alternative forum is abroad, and perhaps in rare instances where a
state or territorial court serves litigational convenience best”) (internal quotations and citations
omitted); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512–13 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Section 1404(a) . . .

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-7-

1

serves as a statutory substitute for forum non conveniens in federal court when the alternative

2

forum is within the territory of the United States.”).
ii.

3

Transfer

4

Even when venue is proper, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest

5

of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it

6

might have been brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A district court's decision on whether to

7

transfer a case requires the court to conduct a case specific “consideration of convenience and

8

fairness.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). A district court has

9

broad discretion when determining whether to transfer venue pursuant to § 1404(a). Id.

10

III.

Discussion

11

a. Personal Jurisdiction

12

As an initial matter, no general jurisdiction exists over the Utah entities, the Hanleys, or

13

Horton, as they are domiciled in Utah for the purposes of jurisdiction and are therefore not “at

14

home” in Nevada. (ECF No. 1). Accordingly, to withstand dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2), plaintiff

15

must demonstrate that its allegations establish a prima facie case for specific jurisdiction. See

16

Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015. The plaintiff therefore must show that the moving defendants have

17

sufficient minimum contacts to justify the imposition of personal jurisdiction and that the exercise

18

of personal jurisdiction is reasonable, i.e. it does not offend traditional notions of fair play and

19

substantial justice. Int’l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 316; Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802.

20

i. Minimum Contacts

21

When a federal statute contains a nationwide service of process provision, federal due

22

process demands that the defendant’s minimum contacts with the United States as a whole, not the

23

forum state in particular, justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction. See Sec. Inv'r Prot. Corp. v.

24

Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1316 (9th Cir. 1985); Go-Video, Inc. v. Akai Elec. Co., 885 F.2d 1406,

25

1414 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, “the inquiry to determine ‘minimum contacts’ is [. . .] “whether the

26

defendant has acted within any district of the United States or sufficiently caused foreseeable

27

consequences in this country. Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atl. Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174,

28

1180 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Vigman, 764 F.2d at 1316).

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-8-

1

In Vigman, the Court examined a nationwide service provision contained in the Securities

2

Exchange Act and concluded that the national contacts analysis applies to foreign defendants as

3

well as residents. Vigman, 764 F.2d at 1316. In Go-Video, the court clarified that the Vigman

4

holding could be extended to the Clayton Act because “the two statutes’ service of process

5

provisions are nearly identical.”3 Go-Video, Inc., 885 F.2d at 1414.

6

In that case, the court rejected defendants’ argument that Supreme Court case law

7

undermined the national contacts test, as well as their contention that the burden placed upon

8

defendants showed that the national contacts test necessarily breeds unconstitutional results. Id. at

9

1415. The court indicated that absent clear Supreme Court precedent to the contrary, it would

10

adhere to Vigman. Id. at 1416. The court upheld Vigman and One-Video in Action Embroidery

11

Corp. v. Atl. Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Vigman, the court

12

held that “[i]n a statute providing for nationwide service of process, the inquiry to determine

13

‘minimum contacts’ is [. . .] ‘whether the defendant has acted within any district of the United

14

States or sufficiently caused foreseeable consequences in this country.’).

15

As the FTC Act national service provision is nearly identical to the national service

16

provision contained in the Security Exchange Act and Clayton Act, a national contacts analysis is

17

appropriate.4 See Fed. Trade Comm'n v. AMG Servs., Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00536-GMN-VCF, 2017

18

WL 374470 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2017), aff'd sub nom. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Americans for Fin.

19

Reform, 720 F. App'x 380 (9th Cir. 2017). In AMG Services, the district court denied a third party’s

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

The Securities Exchange Act provision reads: “Any suit or action [. . .], may be brought
in any such district or in the district wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts
business, and process in such cases may be served in any other district of which the defendant is
an inhabitant or wherever the defendant may be found.” 15 U.S.C. § 78aa. In comparison, under
the Clayton Act, “Any suit, action, or proceeding [. . .] may be brought not only in the judicial
district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or transacts
business; and all process in such cases may be served in the district of which it is an inhabitant, or
wherever it may be found.” 15 U.S.C. § 22.
3

Under the FTC Act, “‘[a]ny suit may be brought where [any] person, partnership, or
corporation [that is violating, or is about to violate, any provision of law enforced by the FTC]
resides or transacts business, or wherever venue is proper under section 1391 of Title 28. [. . .] In
any suit under this section, process may be served on any person, partnership, or corporation
wherever it may be found.” 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).
4

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-9-

1

motion to dissolve an asset freeze order against it due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Id. at 3. The

2

Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order:

6

“[P]ursuant to the FTC Act’s nationwide service of process provision, the district court has
nationwide personal jurisdiction over [the moving defendant], even though [the defendant]
is a non-party to the underlying enforcement action. [. . .] Although [the defendant] argues
that personal jurisdiction in the District of Nevada is improper because it does not have
minimum contacts with the forum state, it is undisputed that [the defendant] does have
minimum contacts with the United States sufficient to satisfy the nationwide service of
process test. . . . .”

7

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Americans for Fin. Reform, 720 F. App'x 380, 383 (9th Cir. 2017)

3
4
5

8

(citations omitted).5

9

Like the defendants in Go-Video, the Utah entities and the Hanleys claim that a “sea

10

change” in Supreme Court personal jurisdiction case law precludes a national contacts analysis.

11

(ECF No. 40). Additionally, according to these defendants, a national contacts test “plainly

12

conflict[s]” with the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore violates the Fifth Amendment as well.

13

Id. at 11. However, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that the exercise of personal jurisdiction

14

under a federal statute with a nationwide service provision is constitutional, so long as the

15

defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the United States. See Action Embroidery Corp.

16

v. Atl. Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court has never held

17

otherwise. (ECF No. 63 at 4).

18

As indicated by the Utah entities and the Hanleys, “[i]t is undisputed that [d]efendants have

19

contacts with the United States as a whole.” (ECF No. 40). This assertion holds true for Horton, a

20

Utah resident who allegedly played a principal role in the MARS scheme at issue, which operated

21

in the United States. The moving defendants’ therefore have sufficient minimum contacts to justify

22

personal jurisdiction.
ii. Reasonableness

23
24

When minimum contacts have been established, the defendant “must present a compelling

25

case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.”

26

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985) (emphasis added). The exercise of

27
5

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

The court recognizes that, as pointed out by the Utah entities and the Hanleys, this case
is not binding. (ECF No. 40 at n. 4). Nonetheless, the court finds the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning
persuasive and adopts that reasoning here.
- 10 -

1

specific personal jurisdiction is reasonable unless it offends traditional notions of fair play and

2

substantial justice. Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1021. The court

3

will balance seven factors in making this determination:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the extent of the [defendant’s] purposeful injection into the forum state’s affairs;
the burden on the defendant of defending in the forum;
the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendant’s state;
the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute;
the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy;
the importance of the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief;
and
(7) the existence of an alternative forum.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Id.
“A defendant's burden in litigating in the forum is a factor in the assessment of
reasonableness, but unless the inconvenience is so great as to constitute a deprivation of due
process, it will not overcome clear justifications for the exercise of jurisdiction.” Panavision Int'l,
L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1323 (9th Cir. 1998), holding modified by Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue
Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) (clarifying that “the ‘brunt’
of the harm need not be suffered in the forum state”). Thus, “when minimum contacts have been
established, often the interests of the plaintiff and the forum in the exercise of jurisdiction will
justify even the most serious burdens placed on the alien defendant.” Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v.
Superior Court of California, Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 114 (1987).
States have a “manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for [their]
residents.” McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223 (1957). Further, “[a] choice of law
provision may reinforce a defendant’s ‘deliberate affiliation with the forum State and the
foreseeability of possible litigation there.’” Parasoft Corp. v. Parasoft S.A., no. cv 14-9166-DMG
(PLAx), 2015 WL 12645754, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2015) (quoting Elec. For Imaging, Inc. v.
Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
“[The most efficient judicial resolution] factor focuses on the location of the evidence and
witnesses.” Panavision, 141 F.3d at 1323 (citing Caruth v. Int’l Psychoanalytical Ass’n, 59 F.3d
126, 129 (9th Cir. 1995), holding modified by Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et
L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006). “It is no longer weighed heavily given the modern
advances in communication and transportation.” Id.

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

- 11 -

1

Horton contends that he does not have sufficient minimum contacts with Nevada to justify

2

this court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction because (1) he has never lived in Nevada; (2) Preferred

3

Law was based in Utah and never entered into any MARS service contracts with Nevada residents;

4

and (3) he “has not operated, represented, managed, or owned any business associated with home

5

loan modifications or any other type of business located in Nevada.” (ECF No. 24). Horton further

6

argues that “too much of a burden has been placed on [d]efendant[,]” because (1) this court granted

7

the FTC’s motion for a preliminary injunction to freeze defendants’ assets and terminate their

8

income, and (2) “key witnesses” are located in Utah. (ECF Nos. 24, 54). Horton maintains that

9

these burdens make an exercise of personal jurisdiction in Nevada “manifestly unfair” and

10

unreasonable.

11

Similarly, the Utah entities and the Hanleys maintain that this court’s exercise of personal

12

jurisdiction would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because (1) the moving

13

defendants do not have sufficient minimum contacts with Nevada; (2) these defendants and many

14

of their witnesses are located in Utah; (3) they would experience financial hardship if required to

15

litigate in Nevada; (4) the Hanleys have personal responsibilities in Utah; (5) these defendants

16

“had no reason to expect or foresee litigation in Nevada;” and (6) the interests of the FTC, the

17

federal judicial system, and the forum state all favor the District of Utah’s adjudication of this case.

18

(ECF No. 40).

19

The moving parties’ argument that they could not have reasonably expected to be haled

20

into a Nevada district court is not relevant given the FTC Act’s national service of process

21

provision.6 All of the moving defendants “acted within [a] district of the United States [and]

22

sufficiently caused foreseeable consequences in this country.” Action Embroidery, 368 F.3d at

23

1180. The defendants therefore could have reasonably expected to be haled into a district court in

24

the United States.

25
26
Even if this were the correct inquiry, the defendants’ use of a “Hardest Hit Fund Program”
hook, entering into MARS service contracts with Nevada residents, forming two Nevada entities,
and utilizing a Nevada forum selection clause show that defendants’ did purposefully interject
themselves into the forum state’s affairs and thus could have reasonably expected to be haled into
a Nevada district court. See Panavision, 141 F.3d at 1322.
6

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

- 12 -

1

Further, the financial, evidentiary, and witness-related burdens raised by Horton, the Utah

2

defendants, and the Hanleys do not rise to the level of a due process violation. See Panavision, 141

3

F.3d at 1323. In Panavision, the court concluded that even though the burden to an Illinois

4

defendant to litigate in California was significant, it did not constitute a due process violation. Id.

5

There, the court noted that “in this era of fax machines and discount air travel requiring [the

6

defendant] to litigate in California is not constitutionally unreasonable.” Id. Less than five hundred

7

miles separate Las Vegas and Salt Lake City, rendering the burden on the defendants in this case

8

significantly less than the burden upon the Panavision defendant. This is also true in light of

9

continued technological advances in communication and transportation, which lessen the financial

10

burden upon defendant and make the location of evidence and witnesses a fairly insignificant

11

factor.

12

Additionally, while the defendants highlight their current lack of financial resources, this

13

court’s decision to freeze their assets and enjoin defendants from continuing the alleged MARS

14

scheme results from the defendants’ own illegal activities. The fact that the defendants cannot

15

utilize their ill-gotten monies to pay for travel expenses and litigation costs without court approval

16

does not constitute a burden. Although the court is more receptive to the Hanley’s personal

17

responsibilities, these circumstances are simply not sufficient to make out a ‘compelling case’ that

18

the exercise of personal jurisdiction is unreasonable.

19

Similarly, the interest factors asserted by the Utah entities and the Hanleys are insufficient

20

to shift the balance in their favor. The moving defendants claim that “this case bears no unique

21

relationship to the State of Nevada,” but once again, this is not the correct inquiry in light of the

22

nationwide service of process provision. (ECF No. 40 at 19). This case clearly bears a relationship

23

to the United States, and the federal government therefore has an interest in its adjudication. As

24

the events and harm underlying this case touch multiple states, including both Utah and Nevada,

25

this federal interest does not conflict with “the sovereignty of the defendant’s state.” As indicated

26

by the Utah entities and the Hanleys, “the choice of forum should be largely immaterial.” (ECF

27

No. 40 at 18). The final factors—the importance of the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in

28

convenient and effective relief and the existence of an alternative forum—are therefore neutral.

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

- 13 -

1

The moving defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with the United States to justify

2

personal jurisdiction and have not presented a ‘compelling case’ that the exercise of personal

3

jurisdiction would be unreasonable. The moving defendants are therefore amenable to personal

4

jurisdiction under the FTC Act in Nevada.

5
6

b. Venue
i. Forum Non Conveniens

7

Because dismissal based on forum non conveniens is inappropriate in federal cases when

8

the alternative forum is another federal district court, the corporate defendants and the Hanleys’

9

motion for dismissal based on forum non conveniens is improper. See Ravelo Monegro, 211 F.3d

10

at 512–13 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas,

11

571 U.S. 49, 55 (2013) (“Section 1406(a) and Rule 12(b)(3) allow dismissal only when venue is

12

‘wrong’ or ‘improper.’”). However, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the court will consider

13

the motion as a de facto motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

14
15
16
17

ii. Transfer
In considering a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the court may weigh
a number of factors, including:

22

(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed;
(2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law;
(3) the plaintiff's choice of forum;
(4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum;
(5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum;
(6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums;
(7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling nonparty witnesses;
(8) the ease of access to sources of proof;
(9) the presence of a forum selection clause; and
(10) the relevant public policy of the forum state.

23

Jones, 211 F.3d at 498–99. When considering these factors, courts employ a balancing approach,

24

and no single factor is dispositive. See Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 CONTACTS, Inc., 2:11-cv-0091-

25

GMN-RJJ, 2012 WL 1155470, at *6 (D. Nev. Apr. 4, 2012).

18
19
20
21

26

In weighing these factors, the court remains mindful of “the plaintiff's venue privilege.”

27

Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568, 581 (2013)

28

(“Because plaintiffs are ordinarily allowed to select whatever forum they consider the most

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

- 14 -

1

advantageous (consistent with jurisdictional and venue limitations), we have termed their selection

2

‘the plaintiff's venue privilege.’”) (citation omitted); see also Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 634 (“There

3

is nothing, however, in the language or policy of § 1404(a) to justify its use by defendants to defeat

4

the advantages accruing to plaintiffs who have chosen a forum which, although it was

5

inconvenient, was a proper venue.”). Thus, while “courts have developed a bewildering variety of

6

. . . formulations to describe the weight to be accorded [to] the plaintiff's initial choice of forum,”

7

“[t]here is normally a strong presumption in favor of honoring [this choice].” See 15 Fed. Prac. &

8

Proc. Juris. § 3848 (4th ed.); Creative Tech., Ltd. v. Aztech Sys. Pte., Ltd., 61 F. 3d 696, 703 (9th

9

Cir. 1995).

10

In order to overcome the presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum, the moving

11

party has the burden of showing that the convenience of parties and the interest of justice heavily

12

favor transfer. See Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir.

13

1986); Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). Because

14

“[t]he plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to significant weight . . ., the defendant must make a

15

strong showing of inconvenience to warrant transfer to another district.” Robinson Corp. v. Auto-

16

Owners Ins. Co., 304 F. Supp. 2d 1232, 1243 (D. Haw. 2003) (quotation marks omitted).

17

Moreover, defendant has the burden of showing that the alternative forum is the more appropriate

18

forum. See Jones, 211 F.3d at 499.

19

While he briefly raises the issue of forum non conveniens, Horton, a pro se defendant,

20

requests that this court transfer the entire action, or sever and transfer the action against him

21

pursuant to § 1404. (ECF No. 24). Horton maintains that transfer is appropriate because (1) he

22

“only lived and did business in Utah,” (2) “[t]he vast majority of the primary businesses, witnesses,

23

property, employees, records, and defendants are all located within Utah,” (3) Preferred Law’s

24

MARS service contracts contained a Utah forum selection clause and were negotiated in Utah, and

25

(4) the costs of litigating in Nevada would be unfair. Id.

26

Conversely, for the first time in their reply in support of their motion to dismiss based on

27

forum non conveniens, the corporate defendants and the Hanleys argue that a transfer to the district

28

of Utah is proper (ECF No. 70). Their reply maintains that transfer is appropriate because (1) the

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

- 15 -

1

defendants retain possession of the relevant contracts; (2) the instant case may require the

2

application of Utah law; (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum is not entitled to deference; (4) “[t]his

3

is a Utah controversy;” (5) the cost of litigating in Nevada “will be precipitously higher” than in

4

Utah because Las Vegas “is several hours drive from [d]efendants’ place of residence;” (6)

5

witnesses who live outside of Nevada will be inconvenienced; and (7) “virtually all of the sources

6

of proof are located in Utah.” (ECF Nos. 45, 70).

7

The plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to deference here because the FTC’s chosen

8

forum does have a connection to all of the parties. Horton argues that he did not transact any

9

business in Nevada and that none of the allegations against him arose from events or omissions in

10

Nevada. (ECF No. 24). As properly asserted by the FTC, “Horton wrongly views himself in

11

isolation from the other [d]efendants.” (ECF No. 31 at 9 n. 2). The FTC asserts that Horton acted

12

as a principal in a common enterprise.7 (ECF No. 1). The fact that Horton was temporarily

13

disbarred for his actions soon after the Nevada entities were formed, dissolved Preferred Law as a

14

result, and could no longer function as “a front for [. . .] expert legal assistance” does not change

15

his principal role in the common enterprise. Id.

16

Further, Horton played an active role in forming the Nevada entities and his involvement

17

in the alleged MARS scheme continued even after the revocation of his Utah bar license. (ECF

18

No. 54). Moreover, the FTC alleges that the formation of the Nevada entities became necessary

19

only as a result of increasingly problematic consumer complaints against the Utah entities. (ECF

20

No. 63). It is reasonable to conclude that Preferred Law had to be dissolved because consumers

21

could easily discover that its record owner and manager had committed ethical violations. See id.

22

Thus, Horton’s arguments that his decision to dissolve Preferred Law somehow distances him from

23

the Nevada entities fails.

24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

While the Utah entities and the Hanleys suggest that “the FTC has not shown any evidence
of the required elements of a common enterprise,” this assertion is itself completely
unsubstantiated and in fact contradicts the record, which provides sufficient evidence at this point
in litigation to support the FTC’s common enterprise claim. (EFC Nos. 68 at 3, 6 at 2-8, 28-31).
7

- 16 -

1

Based on his role in forming the Nevada entities and his involvement with the alleged

2

MARS scheme, Horton transacted business in Nevada. Accordingly, venue is proper under the

3

FTC Act in regard to the claims against Horton.

4

Like Horton’s argument, the contention that the Utah entities are separate from the Nevada

5

entities and therefore have no connection to Nevada fails because the Utah entities incorrectly view

6

themselves in isolation from their Nevada counterparts. The Utah entities are part of a common

7

enterprise. (ECF No. 1). Some of the Utah entities belonging to this common enterprise did

8

business with Nevada residents. Id. Additionally, this common enterprise includes two Nevada

9

entities that represent approximately 30% of the MARS service contracts entered into since 2011.

10

(ECF Nos. 1, 63). Thus, a substantial amount of the events giving rise to the FTC’s claim against

11

the common enterprise, including the Utah entities, occurred in Nevada. As a result, venue is also

12

proper for the claims against the Utah entities under the FTC Act.

13

Finally, the Hanleys clearly transacted business in Nevada, as they owned and operated the

14

Nevada entities. By choosing to form these entities in Nevada, the Hanleys availed themselves to

15

the benefits and protections of Nevada’s laws. The fact that these locations constituted “virtual

16

offices” is irrelevant. The Hanleys cannot rely upon their misrepresentations to consumers to

17

overcome the plaintiff’s venue privilege. The FTC Act clearly allows for proper venue in Nevada

18

for the claims against the Hanleys.

19

Because venue is proper for all of the FTC’s claims, the moving defendants must overcome

20

the plaintiff’s venue privilege in order to justify transfer. However, Nevada is not a significantly

21

inconvenient forum for defendants who reside in Utah, only hours away from Las Vegas.8 (ECF

22

No. 45). Moreover, the location of sources of proof in Utah is insignificant because (1)

23

technological advancements easily allow for the transmission of evidence and transportation of

24

witnesses across neighboring state lines, and (2) the moving defendants have failed to allege or

25
26
The defendants’ utilization of Nevada forum selection clauses when drafting some of
their MARS service contracts seriously undermines their contention that a Nevada forum is so
inconvenient as to warrant transfer. If the defendants were genuinely and substantially
inconvenienced by Nevada as a forum, surely they would not have required consumers to bring
their claims in Clark County, Nevada. (ECF No. 64).
8

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

- 17 -

1

show that any of its “key witnesses” are unwilling to testify.9 Carijano, 643 F.3d at 1231 (“When

2

no witness’ unwillingness has been alleged or shown, a district court should not attach much

3

weight to the compulsory process factor.”) (citation omitted).

4

Nevada does have an interest in protecting its residents and in preventing out-of-state

5

residents from utilizing Nevada entities to defraud consumers on a national scale. The fact that

6

defendants were based in and reside in Utah does not diminish Nevada’s legitimate interest in this

7

controversy. Additionally, this court is fully capable of applying both federal and Utah law as

8

necessary. The moving defendants’ assertion that this court will adjudicate the issue slightly less

9

efficiently than a Utah district court, even if true, does not warrant transfer. A slightly faster

10

resolution does not show that the alternative forum is more appropriate than the plaintiff’s chosen

11

forum, nor does it overcome the plaintiff’s privilege.

12

Because the plaintiff’s chosen venue is entitled to deference and none of the defendants

13

have made an adequate showing of inconvenience, transfer to the alternative forum is

14

inappropriate.

15

IV.

Conclusion

16

Accordingly,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendant Horton’s

18

motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or transfer venue (ECF No. 24) be, and the same

19

hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Utah entities and the Hanleys’ motion to dismiss for

20
21

lack of personal jurisdiction (ECF No. 40) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

22

...

23

...

24

...

25
9

26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

While the Nevada entities and the Hanleys cite specific witnesses in their reply, they
misunderstand the FTC’s point that “[d]efendants have not identified any non-party witnesses for
whom compulsory process would be necessary.” (ECF Nos. 64 at 9, 70 at 8) (emphasis added).
While the moving defendants have identified particular witnesses in their reply, they have still
failed to show that any of these witnesses would not voluntarily provide a deposition. Thus, none
of the defendants, including Horton, have shown that a compulsory process is necessary for a
single non-party witness.
- 18 -

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the corporate defendants and the Hanleys’ motion to

2

dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens (ECF No. 45) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

3

DATED June 7, 2018.

4
5

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

- 19 -