Federal Trade Commission v. Immigration Center et al

Filing 118

ORDER granting 117 Receiver's Ninth Application for Fees. The Receiver shall remit funds remaining after fees are withdrawn to FTC. Receiver is discharged of her duties and the Receivership is terminated. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 4/21/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 *** 8 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 IMMIGRATION CENTER, et al., 12 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 3:11-CV-00055!LRH!VPC ORDER 13 14 15 16 Before the Court is Defendants’ Receiver’s Application Final Report and Fee Application. Doc. #117.1 No objections have been filed. This is an action by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) for injunctive and other 17 equitable relief for alleged violations of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), in connection with the 18 advertising, marketing, and sale of immigration and naturalization services. On January 6, 2011, 19 this Court entered a temporary restraining order which, inter alia, appointed Aviva Y. Gordon as 20 temporary receiver. Doc. #18 at 14. On February 2, 2011, the Court extended the temporary 21 restraining order and receivership pursuant to stipulation of the Defendants. Doc. ##27-29. On 22 March 3, 2011, the Court entered a stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Preliminary Injunction 23 (“Final Order”). Doc. #54. 24 25 This Court previously granted Receiver’s first and second applications for $41,860.91 in fees and expenses over the objections of Defendants Charles Doucette and Deborah Stilson (Doc. 26 1 Refers to the Court’s docket entry number. 1 #75), Receiver’s unopposed third application for an additional $3,430.00 (Doc. #80), Receiver’s 2 unopposed fourth application in the reduced amount of $9,692.50 (Doc. #94), Receiver’s 3 unopposed fifth application for an additional $5,622.50 (Doc. #100), Receiver’s unopposed sixth 4 application for an additional $5,632.50 (Doc. #102), Receiver’s unopposed seventh application for 5 an additional $1,320.00 (Doc. #106), and Receiver’s unopposed eighth application for an additional 6 $3,167.50 (Doc. #112). This ninth and final application requests payment of an additional 7 $25,887.30 from the assets of the estate, reflecting fees and expenses incurred from February 1, 8 2012, through November 14, 2014. Doc. #117 at 3-4. 9 Section VI of the Final Order provides: 10 11 12 13 The Receiver shall complete the liquidation of the assets of the receivership estate and return of customer documents. Upon liquidation of the assets of the receivership estate and the return of customer documents pursuant to this Section, the Receiver shall submit her final report and application for fees and expenses, and upon approval of them by the Court, shall pay any remaining funds to the FTC. Upon the Court’s approval of the Receiver’s final report, and the payment of any remaining funds to the FTC under this Section, the Receivership shall be terminated. 14 Doc. #54 at 9-10. The Receiver represents that “all assets that could have been liquidated by the 15 Receiver were so liquidated” and stated that there was $28,903.58 remaining in the Receivership 16 account when the application was filed on November 14, 2014. Doc. #117 at 3. 17 No objections having been filed and good cause appearing, 18 IT IS ORDERED that Receiver’s Ninth Application for Fees (Doc. #117) is GRANTED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Receiver shall remit the funds remaining in the 20 21 22 Receivership after the Receiver’s fees are withdrawn to the FTC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Receiver is hereby discharged of her duties and the Receivership is hereby terminated. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 DATED this 21st day of April, 2015. 25 26 __________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?