Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00022/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00022-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:0045 Federal Trade Commission Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INC21.COM CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-00022 WHA

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

FOR HEARING RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

The Court, having considered the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC” or

“Commissions”) ex parte motion to shorten time otherwise required for hearing the FTC’s motion

for temporary restraining order (“TRO motion”), finds as follows: 

1. Good cause exists for shortening time period in Civil L.R. 7-2 because a temporary

restraining order may be necessary to stop defendants’ recurring monthly billing of consumers

and small businesses. 

2. The FTC today filed a civil law enforcement complaint and TRO motion, alleging

that INC21.com (“Inc21”) and the other defendants have deceptively and unfairly billed

consumers without their authorization in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission

Act, and committed deceptive and abusive telemarketing practices in violation of three provisions

of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. 

3. Inc21 and its various d/b/a’s place charges on consumers’ telephone bills on a

monthly basis. 

Case 3:10-cv-00022-WHA Document 10 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

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

2

4. In the TRO motion, the Commission seeks to halt defendants’ current monthly

billing practice prior to the lapse of another billing month, and has requested that the TRO motion

be heard well prior to the 35 days ordinarily required in Civil L.R. 7-2(a). In fact, the FTC

requested that the TRO motion be set for hearing on January 14, 2010. 

5. The Commission has not requested an ex parte TRO pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65

because: (a) counsel for Inc21 apparently is aware that the Commission has been investigating

Inc21’s business practices; (b) in the case captioned United States v. Approximately

$2,822,224.75, et al., Case No. C09-03119 WHA, the United States Department of Justice has

seized substantial assets of Inc21 and the other defendants named in this case; and (c) it appears

that Inc21 is not currently telemarketing its services but is, instead, continuing to bill those who

were previously solicited through telemarketing. 

6. If granted, this motion would have no effect on the schedule because this is a

newly filed case. 

WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The defendants are to file with the Clerk’s office any opposition and supporting

declarations or affidavits to the TRO motion by NOON ON JANUARY 11, 2010; 

2. The hearing on the TRO motion will be held at 8:00 A.M. ON JANUARY 14, 2010,

in Courtroom 9, federal courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. 

Testimony for the hearing will be in the form of declarations and affidavits electronically filed

with the Court. The parties are ORDERED to file any objections to the opponents’ supporting

declarations or affidavits by NOON ON JANUARY 12. 

3. The complaint and all motion papers must be served on defendants no later than

5:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 6, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00022-WHA Document 10 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 2