Federal Trade Commission v. Adept Management, Inc. et al, No. 1:2016cv00720 - Document 737 (D. Or. 2019)
Court Description: Opinion and Order re Motion for Reconsideration 732 . This case comes before the Court on a post-judgment motion for reconsideration 732 filed by defendant Noel Parducci and joined by defendant Shannon Bacon. Additionally, the FTC requests ame ndment to the Court's Order for Permanent Injunction 730 . For the reasons below, defendants' motion 732 is DENIED and the FTC's request is GRANTED. Please access entire text by document number hyperlink. Ordered and Signed on 07/10/2019 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Trade Commission v. Adept Management, Inc. et al Doc. 737 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION Civ. No. 1:16-cv-00720-CL FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. ADEPT MANAGEMENT INC., et al, Defendants. CLARKE, Magistrate Judge. This case comes before the Court on a post-judgment mot\on for reconsideration (#732) filed by defendant Noel Parducci and joined by defendant Shannon Bacon. Additionally, the FTC \ requests amendment to the Court's Order for Permanent Injunction (#730). For the reasons below, defendants' motion (#732) is DENIED and the FTC's request is GRANTED. First, neither defendant conferred with the FTC regarding the filing of the motion, as required by Local Rule 7-l(a). While both defendants are unrepresented and entitled to some leniency, they are required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the Local Rules of the District of Oregon. Page - 1 - ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Second, it is clear to the Court from the papers submitted by the defendants and the FTC that the FTC is willing to work with the defendants to ensure understanding of and compliance with the Court's Order for Injunction, as demonstrated by FTC attorney Krista Bush's letter in response to the specific, detailed inquiry from defendant Lydia Pugsley. See Attachment 1 to FTC Resp. (#736). Third, the Court will amend the Injunction as requested by the FTC in order to clarify the parameters for requesting FTC assistance. The FTC is correct that the FTC cannot provide legal advice to the defendants, nor can the Court. The FTC also cannot amend or provide exemptions to a Court-ordered Injunction. Therefore, any opinions offered by FTC lawyers should be taken as non-binding guidance on the specific circumstances presented by the defendant. ORDER Defendant's motion'is DENIED. The Court's Order for Permanent Injunction (#730) is hereby amended as follows. On page 3, the language in Section 1, paragraph 2 1 is deleted. This language is replaced with the following: If an Individual Defendant believes a prospective job or position may run afoul of Section I, that Defendant may make a written submission, sworn under penalty of perjury, for an FTC staff advisory opinion. Such request must describe, in detail, the proposed relevant circumstances, including by specifically identifying the basis for the Individual Defendant's belief about possible violations of Section I. Any subsequent change in circumstances that an Individual Defendant knows, or should know, may violate Section I must be immediately identified to FTC staff by a second such submission, or the Defendant will have constructive notification of revocation of the opinion. An FTC staff opinion is advisory only, may be rescinded, and does not bind the Commission. 1 Full deleted text: "Defendants may request an exemption or seek advice from the FTC ifhe or she believes a particular job or position may run afoul of this provision. Even if permission is granted, all other terms of this injunction, including compliance reporting and compliance monitoring, must still be followed by that defendant." Page - 2 - ORDER The Court will vacate the Order for Permanent Injunction (#730) and enter an Amended Order for Permanent Injunction to reflect this change. It is so ORDERED and DA,.J..m~ dw ~July, 2019. ///2 ,. ----:: / / Page - 3 - ORDER MARKD. CLARKE United States Magistrate Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
