Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01578/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01578-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:0053 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 

WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Federal Trade Commission,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Vemma Nutrition Company, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-01578-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Motion to Clarify or 

Reconsider Preliminary Injunction as to Defendant Tom Alkazin (Doc. 135), to which 

Defendants filed no Response. 

 In its Motion, the FTC points out that, in the Preliminary Injunction Order 

(Doc. 118), the Court found that the FTC is likely to succeed on the merits in showing 

that Mr. Alkazin made false and misleading income claims and omissions. As a result, 

the FTC argues that the Court should clarify the Preliminary Injunction Order and subject 

Mr. Alkazin to the same injunction prohibiting material misrepresentations and 

omissions, including deceptive income claims, as the Court imposed on the Corporate 

Defendants in Sections I.B through I.E of the Order. Mr. Alkazin did not oppose the 

FTC’s request, which prompts its summary disposition, see LRCiv 7.2(i), and in any 

event the Court agrees with the FTC’s analysis. As a result, the Court will grant the 

FTC’s Motion in this respect. 

 The FTC also argues that Mr. Alkazin should be subject to Section I.A of the 

Preliminary Injunction Order prohibiting the operation of an illegal pyramid scheme 

Case 2:15-cv-01578-JJT Document 237 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

based on the Court’s finding that Mr. Alkazin helped create the Two & Go program, 

which has indicia of a pyramid scheme. In support, the FTC cites a number of cases 

holding that liability for violation of the FTC Act may arise when an individual directly 

participated in unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as an alternative to the liability 

arising from authority to control unfair or deceptive acts or practices. See FTC v. Publ’g 

Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 1997); FTC v. J.K. Publ’ns, 99 F. 

Supp. 2d 1176, 1203 (C.D. Cal. 2000). The FTC contends that, because the Court found 

that Mr. Alkazin participated in acts or practices that the FTC is likely to succeed on the 

merits in demonstrating were pyramidal and thus unfair or deceptive under the Act, the 

Court should subject Mr. Alkazin to the same injunction prohibiting pyramidal activity as 

the Court imposed on the Corporate Defendants in Section I.A of the Order. Mr. Alkazin 

again did not oppose the FTC’s request, see LRCiv 7.2(i), and the Court again agrees 

with the FTC’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court will grant the FTC’s Motion, and 

Mr. Alkazin will be subject to the injunctive provisions contained in Sections I.A through 

I.E of the Preliminary Injunction Order. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s 

Motion to Clarify or Reconsider Preliminary Injunction as to Defendant Tom Alkazin 

(Doc. 135). The Preliminary Injunction Order (Doc. 118) is hereby amended such that 

Mr. Alkazin is subject to the prohibitions of Sections I.A through I.E of the Order. 

 Dated this 30th day of June, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-01578-JJT Document 237 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 2