Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00390/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00390-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

 Though oral argument was requested on the Motion, because both the parties

submitted memoranda discussing the law and evidence in support of their positions and oral

argument would not have aided the Court’s decisional process, the Court will not set oral

argument. See e.g., Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998); Lake at Las Vegas

Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific. Dev. Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Business Recovery Services, LLC; Brian

Hessler, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-0390-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Modify Temporary Injunction.

(Doc. 167). The Court now rules on the Motion.1

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant Business Recovery Services is an Arizona limited liability company with

its principal place of business in Maricopa County. Defendant Brian Scott Hessler is the

owner of Business Recovery Services. Defendants sell goods and services, including

“recovery kits,” that they state allow customers to recover funds that consumers have lost in

previous transactions. Some of the customers who purchase Defendants’ recovery kits lost

Case 2:11-cv-00390-JAT Document 182 Filed 07/16/12 Page 1 of 3
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

 The Court notes that the mandate has not issued. However, the slip opinion is

currently controlling law.

- 2 -

money or other items of value in previous telemarketing transactions. Among other claims,

Plaintiff United States of America (the “Government”) alleges that Defendants’ sale of

recovery kits to customers who have lost money in previous telemarketing transactions

violates the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 310. 

The Government filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5) to enjoin

Defendants from violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule. After holding a hearing on April5,

2011, the Court granted the Government’s Motion. The Court enjoined Defendants from

“requesting or receiving payment of any fee or consideration from a person for goods or

services represented to recover or otherwise assist in the return of money or any other item

of value paid by that person in a previous telemarketing transaction, until seven (7) business

days after such money or other item is delivered to that person.” (Doc. 34, p. 8).

Defendants moved to modify that injunction. (Doc. 83). That motion was denied.

(Doc. 118). Defendants appealed that denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc.

128). Defendants now move again to modify the Court’s injunction. (Doc. 167)

II. THE APPEAL

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now ruled on Defendants’ appeal, and

affirmed the denial of modification. United States v. Bus. Recovery Servs., LLC, No. 11-

17677 (9th Cir. June 15, 2012).2

 Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to amend the

preliminary injunction.

III. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS

A court that issues an injunction retains the power to modify or suspend it. Clark v.

Coye, 60 F.3d 600, 606 (9th Cir. 1995). The party seeking dissolution or modification of an

injunction bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in facts or law justifies

dissolution or modification. Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing

Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992)). If the party meets its initial

Case 2:11-cv-00390-JAT Document 182 Filed 07/16/12 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

burden of demonstrating a significant change in facts or law, then the Court considers

whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances. Rufo,

502 U.S. at 383.

Here, Defendants do not raise any significant change in fact or law. Defendants simply

request that the Court pre-approve Defendants’ sale of a book and the operation of ‘a dispute

resolution university.’ Defendants do not meet their burden of establishing changed

circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification. Because Defendants have not

demonstrated a significant change in facts, or the law, the Court will not modify the

injunction.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Modify Temporary Injunction.

(Doc. 167).

DATED this 16th day of July, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00390-JAT Document 182 Filed 07/16/12 Page 3 of 3