FTC files for new Success by Health preliminary injunction

In our last Success by Health update we noted the court had givenSuccess by Health until May 21st to ‘file a motion to dissolve or modify the Preliminary Injunction and receivership’.
To that end Success by Health filed a memorandum detailing what they believed the recent AMG decision had on the FTC’s case.
Three days before that was filed however, the FTC filed a motion requesting a new preliminary injunction be granted.
In their motion the FTC puts forth that the previous preliminary injunction was granted because the court found
(1) “compelling evidence that Defendants are operating a pyramid scheme and that they have otherwise engaged in deceptive practices”;
(2) that “the public equities, combined with the FTC’s likelihood of success, outweigh Defendants’ interest in continuing their business as-is”;
(3) that “if Defendants were given access to the bank accounts and company, assets would be depleted”; and
(4) that it would be “folly” to reinsert Jay Noland into management given “that [he] likely violated” the 2002 Permanent Injunction against him.
Since then, Defendants have violated the Court’s Preliminary Injunction, concealed then destroyed evidence, fabricated evidence, and used misleading and false statements to raise money for their defense and Jay Noland’s $5,000-per-month luxury rental home.
Unable to preserve the granted preliminary injunction under section 13(b) of the FTC Act, the FTC is seeking the same injunction
under Section 19 of the FTC Act and in the Contempt Matter. Additionally, the receivership is necessary to prevent further harm to consumers—especially in light of Defendants’ misconduct since entry of the Preliminary Injunction.
The FTC therefore respectfully requests entry of a new preliminary injunction entering a new asset freeze and receivership.
The procedural history of this litigation provides no basis to deny this Motion.
If granted, the new preliminary injunction would preserve the status quo the first granted preliminary injunction set.
On May 25th the Success By Health defendants requested an extension of time to respond to the FTC’s motion.
The court has given them until June 11th. The FTC has then been given till June 22nd to reply.
I’ve scheduled our next Success by Health case docket check for June 23rd.

In our last Success by Health update we noted the court had given

Success by Health until May 21st to ‘file a motion to dissolve or modify the Preliminary Injunction and receivership’.

To that end Success by Health filed a memorandum detailing what they believed the recent AMG decision had on the FTC’s case.

Three days before that was filed however, the FTC filed a motion requesting a new preliminary injunction be granted.

In their motion the FTC puts forth that the previous preliminary injunction was granted because the court found

(1) “compelling evidence that Defendants are operating a pyramid scheme and that they have otherwise engaged in deceptive practices”;

(2) that “the public equities, combined with the FTC’s likelihood of success, outweigh Defendants’ interest in continuing their business as-is”;

(3) that “if Defendants were given access to the bank accounts and company, assets would be depleted”; and

(4) that it would be “folly” to reinsert Jay Noland into management given “that [he] likely violated” the 2002 Permanent Injunction against him.

Since then, Defendants have violated the Court’s Preliminary Injunction, concealed then destroyed evidence, fabricated evidence, and used misleading and false statements to raise money for their defense and Jay Noland’s $5,000-per-month luxury rental home.

Unable to preserve the granted preliminary injunction under section 13(b) of the FTC Act, the FTC is seeking the same injunction

under Section 19 of the FTC Act and in the Contempt Matter. Additionally, the receivership is necessary to prevent further harm to consumers—especially in light of Defendants’ misconduct since entry of the Preliminary Injunction.

The FTC therefore respectfully requests entry of a new preliminary injunction entering a new asset freeze and receivership.

The procedural history of this litigation provides no basis to deny this Motion.

If granted, the new preliminary injunction would preserve the status quo the first granted preliminary injunction set.

On May 25th the Success By Health defendants requested an extension of time to respond to the FTC’s motion.

The court has given them until June 11th. The FTC has then been given till June 22nd to reply.

I’ve scheduled our next Success by Health case docket check for June 23rd.

Add comment

Most popular