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

 Without leave of the Court and without prior notice to Plaintiff,

Defendants Usman Vakil and Farooq Vakil (“Vakils”) filed a Supplemental Brief

in Support of Motion to Dismiss yesterday. Docket. No. 79. The FTC objects to

the Supplemental Brief as the Vakils had ample opportunity to argue these issues

in either or both of their briefs submitted in support of their Motion to Dismiss. 

WILLARD K. TOM

General Counsel

KIMBERLY L. NELSON (VA Bar No. 47224)

knelson@ftc.gov

GREGORY J. MADDEN

gmadden@ftc.gov

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. M-8102B

Washington, DC 20580

(202) 326-3304 (tel.) (Nelson)

(202) 326-2426 (tel.) (Madden)

(202) 326-2558 (fax)

STACY PROCTER, Bar No. 221078

sprocter@ftc.gov

Federal Trade Commission

10877 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700

Los Angeles, CA 90024

(310) 824-4366 (tel.)

(310) 824-4380 (fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIGHTS OF AMERICA, INC., ET

AL., 

Defendants.

Case No. SACV10-01333 JVS 

 (MLGx)

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEF

Hearing Date: March 28, 2011

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Judge: Hon. James V. Selna

Defendants’ Supplemental Brief1

 provides neither new law nor any reason

for the Court to alter its Tentative Order re Motion to Dismiss Individual

Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 80 Filed 03/30/11 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:891
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 Vakils’ Supplemental Brief addresses only the portion of the Motion

to Dismiss related to the FTC’s claim for monetary relief against the Vakils. It

ignores the Court’s finding that the “FTC has stated a claim against the Vakils” for

injunctive relief. Tentative Decision, at 4-5.

2

Defendants (“Tentative Decision”). First, the Court correctly identified the

applicable legal standard to measure the sufficiency of the allegations in the

FTC’s Amended Complaint. Second, the Court applied that standard, and

appropriately concluded that the allegations in the FTC’s Amended Complaint,

taken as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the FTC’s favor, plausibly

state a claim for equitable monetary relief against the Vakils.2

 In fact, the FTC

has done far more than affix the label “general allegation” to its claims related to

the Vakils’ knowledge, and thus, has stated a plausible claim for equitable

monetary relief against the Vakils.

First, the Court correctly identified the applicable legal standard in the

Tentative Decision: “[a]llegations of the individuals’ knowledge are subject to the

general pleading standard of Rule 8(a) rather than the heightened pleading

standard of Rule 9(b).” Tentative Decision, at 5. In the Supplemental Brief, the

Vakils do not propose a new or different standard than that announced by this

Court. 

Second, the Court reviewed the Amended Complaint under this standard

and concluded that “the FTC’s allegations of the Vakils’ knowledge are sufficient

to plead entitlement to restitutionary relief.” Id. In support of this holding, the

Court cites to multiple factual allegations in the Amended Complaint which

support the FTC’s claims that the Vakils had the requisite knowledge of the

misrepresentations made about their light-emitting diode lamps (“LED lamps”). 

For example, the Court cited to the FTC’s allegations indicating the Vakils’ active

involvement in LOA’s business and the Vakils’ awareness of the unsubstantiated

Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 80 Filed 03/30/11 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:892
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

 Although not cited by the Court in its Tentative Decision, multiple

additional factual allegations support the FTC’s allegations. See Amend. Compl. ¶¶

55, 61, 64, 70, 73, 75-76, 82.

3

representations made regarding their LED lamps. Tentative Decision, at 5-6,

citing to Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 25-26, 56-57, 59, 71-72, 74, 79, 81; see also

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, at 11-13.3

 Thus, in the Tentative

Decision, the Court correctly concludes that:

At the pleading stage, these allegations are sufficient to raise the inference

that the Vakils knew of the misrepresentations or, at least, were recklessly

indifferent to the truth or falsity of the representations made. Thus, the AC

adequately pleads entitlement to restitution.

Tentative Decision, at 6. 

The Vakils’ Supplemental Brief offers no basis for this Court to alter its

findings in the Tentative Decision. Rather, in the Supplemental Brief, the Vakils

once again attempt to convert their Motion to Dismiss into something it is not by

arguing the FTC has not alleged facts that support a “determination that the

Vakil’s [sic.] knew of any wrongdoing by the company.” Supplemental Brief, at 2

(emphasis added). Viewing the FTC’s allegations under the correct legal standard

identified by the Court in the Tentative Decision, the FTC has alleged ample facts

in support of its claims for relief against the Vakils which, taken as true and with

all reasonable inferences drawn in the FTC’s favor, plausibly state a claim for

equitable monetary relief against the Vakils.

Accordingly, the Court should deny the Vakils’ Motion to Dismiss and

enter its Tentative Decision as its ruling on this matter.

Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 80 Filed 03/30/11 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:893
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

4

Respectfully submitted,

Date: March 30, 2011 /s/ Kimberly L. Nelson 

KIMBERLY L. NELSON

GREGORY J. MADDEN

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Room M-8102B

Washington, DC 20580

(202) 326-3304 (tel.) (Nelson)

(202) 326-2426 (tel.) (Madden)

(202) 326-2558 (fax)

knelson@ftc.gov, gmadden@ftc.gov

STACY PROCTER (Local Counsel)

Federal Trade Commission

10877 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700

Los Angeles, CA 90024

(310) 824-4343 (tel.)

(310) 824-4380 (fax)

sprocter@ftc.gov

Case 8:10-cv-01333-JVS -MLG Document 80 Filed 03/30/11 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:894