Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00047/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00047-6/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Federal Trade Commission,

Plaintiff,

v. 

James D Noland, Jr., et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-00047-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

On January 13, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s 

(“FTC”) motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in this case. (Doc. 21.) The 

order granted broad equitable relief, freezing the Defendants’ assets and transferring 

control of the Corporate Defendants, Success by Media LLC and Success by Media 

Holdings Inc., to a court-appointed receiver. (Id.) 

The next day, the Corporate Defendants moved to modify the TRO pursuant to Rule 

65(b)(4). (Doc. 22.) The Corporate Defendants are concerned about payroll and existing 

debt obligations and ask the Court to lift the asset freeze so they can meet those obligations. 

(Id.) After the Court ordered an expedited response from the FTC (Doc. 23), the FTC 

opposed the Corporate Defendants’ motion, arguing that the court-appointed receiver could 

authorize payments to meet the Corporate Defendants’ obligations (Doc. 24). The Court 

then invited a reply from the Corporate Defendants. (Doc. 25.) In their reply, the Corporate 

Defendants reiterate their request for modification and state their “intent to go forward on 

parallel tracks in their efforts to preserve the human and material assets of SBM. One track 

Case 2:20-cv-00047-DWL Document 33 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

is to obtain emergency relief from the Court, and the other track is to cooperate with the

temporary receiver.” (Doc. 32.) 

Now that the Court has received a full set of expedited briefing, it is prepared to 

decide this matter without a hearing. Cf. SEC v. Path America, LLC, 2015 WL 5675811 

*1 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (stating that “justice does not require that it hear” a motion under 

Rule 65(b)(4)). 

The motion will be denied because the Court doesn’t need to modify the TRO to 

facilitate payment of the Corporate Defendants’ debt and payroll obligations. Under the 

terms of the TRO, the temporary receiver assumed full control of the Corporate 

Defendants. (Doc. 21 at 16.) Included in that power is the authority to “[m]ake payments 

and disbursements from the receivership estate that are necessary or advisable for carrying 

out the . . . the authority granted by[] this Order.” (Id. at 17-18.) To that end, the temporary 

receiver may “apply to the Court for prior approval of any payment of any debt or 

obligation incurred by the [Corporate Defendants].” (Id., emphasis added.) 

The TRO, then, contemplates a process through which the Corporate Defendants 

can meet their debt and payroll obligations. Debts of the Corporate Defendants were 

explicitly contemplated, and the Court sees no reason why payroll would be excluded.

Under the terms of the TRO, there is no prohibition on the Corporate Defendants meeting 

their prior obligations. The only difference is that the receiver will be authorizing these 

payments. If Corporate Defendants want these payments made, they need only comply 

with the TRO and provide the receiver with all required information. Only one “track” is 

necessary. 

...

...

...

...

...

...

Case 2:20-cv-00047-DWL Document 33 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Corporate Defendants’ motion to modify 

(Doc. 22) is denied. The Court also notes that the FTC, in its response, raised several 

allegations of noncompliance with the TRO. (Doc. 26 at 2-4.) Because of the expedited 

briefing schedule, the Court will not address those issues here. The FTC remains free to 

raise those concerns through a separate motion.

Dated this 16th day of January, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00047-DWL Document 33 Filed 01/16/20 Page 3 of 3