1

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

LASHAWN M. JOHNSON, D.C. Bar No. 475164 (Lead Counsel)

e-mail: ljohnson@ftc.gov Telephone: (202) 326-3057

MARK L. GLASSMAN, D.C. Bar No. 463831

e-mail: mglassman@ftc.gov Telephone: (202) 326-2826

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., CC-10232

Washington, D.C. 20580

Facsimile: (202) 326-3768

BARBARA CHUN, Cal. Bar No. 186907 (Local Counsel)

e-mail: bchun@ftc.gov FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

10877 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700

Los Angeles, CA 90024

Telephone: (310) 824-4343 

Facsimile: (310) 824-4380

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff,

 

 v.

CD CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, a 

California Limited Liability Company; CD 

CAPITAL, LLC, a California Limited 

Liability Company; GDS INFORMATION

SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation;

CHRISTIAN D. QUEZADA, individually 

and as an officer of CD CAPITAL 

INVESTMENTS, LLC, and CD CAPITAL, 

LLC; TUAN DINH DUONG, a/k/a 

“THOMAS DUONG,” “ANDREW VU,” and 

“KEVIN YOUNG,” individually and as an 

officer of CD CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, 

LLC, CD CAPITAL,

LLC, and GDS INFORMATION 

SERVICES, INC; and GABRIEL DREWS 

STEWART, individually and as an officer of

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case no. SAC-14-1033-JLS 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:599
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

GDS INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) for its Complaint alleges:

1. The FTC brings this action under Sections 13(b) and 19 of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 57b, and the 2009 

Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 111-8, Section 626, 123 Stat. 524, 678 

(Mar. 11, 2009) (“Omnibus Act”), as clarified by the Credit Card Accountability 

Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, Public Law 111-24, Section 511, 123 

Stat. 1734, 1763-64 (May 22, 2009) (“Credit Card Act”), and amended by the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-

203, Section 1097, 124 Stat. 1376, 2102-03 (July 21, 2010) (“Dodd-Frank Act”), 

12 U.S.C. § 5538, to obtain temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive 

relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, 

disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief for Defendants’ acts 

or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), the 

Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule (“MARS Rule”), 16 C.F.R. Part 322, recodified as Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (“Regulation O”), 12 C.F.R. Part 

1015, in connection with the marketing and sale of mortgage assistance relief 

services. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1331, 1337(a), and 1345; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 53(b), and 57b, and Section 626 of 

the Omnibus Act, as clarified by Section 511 of the Credit Card Act, and amended 

by Section 1097 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5538. 

3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (b)(2), 

(b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (d), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:600
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

PLAINTIFF

4. Plaintiff FTC is an independent agency of the United States 

Government created by statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 

5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in or affecting commerce. In addition, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 5538, the 

FTC also enforces the MARS Rule, which requires mortgage assistance relief 

services (“MARS”) providers to make certain disclosures, prohibits certain 

representations, and generally prohibits the collection of an advance fee. 

5. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by 

its own attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act; the MARS Rule; and 

Regulation O; and to secure such equitable relief as may be appropriate in each 

case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of 

monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 

56(a)(2)(A)-(B), and 57b; § 626, 123 Stat. at 678, as clarified by § 511, 123 Stat. at 

1763-64, and amended by § 1097, 124 Stat. at 2102-03, 12 U.S.C. § 5538.

DEFENDANTS

6. Defendant CD Capital Investments, LLC, also doing business as UW 

Solutions, also formerly known as The Processing Department (“Capital 

Investments”), is a California limited liability company with its most recent 

principal place of business (through May 2014) located at a virtual office at 65 

Enterprise, Aliso Viejo, California 92656. Capital Investments also maintains 

virtual office locations at 500 North State College Boulevard, Suite 1100, Orange, 

California 92868, and 17470 North Pacesetter Way, Scottsdale, Arizona 85255. At 

all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or as part of the common 

enterprise described in paragraph 12, Capital Investments has advertised, 

marketed, provided, offered to provide, or arranged for others to provide MARS, 

as defined in 16 C.F.R. § 322.2, recodified as 12 C.F.R. § 1015.2. Capital 

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:601
4

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

Investments transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the 

United States. 

7. Defendant CD Capital, LLC, also doing business as UW Solutions,

also formerly known as The Processing Department (“CD Capital,” together with 

Capital Investments, collectively referred to as “UW Solutions”), is a California 

limited liability company with its principal place of business at a virtual office 

located at 500 North State College Boulevard, Suite 1100, Orange, California 

92868. CD Capital also maintained virtual office and/or mailbox services at 65 

Enterprise, Aliso Viejo, California 92656, and 17470 North Pacesetter Way, 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85255. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or 

as part of the common enterprise described in paragraph 12, CD Capital has 

advertised, marketed, provided, offered to provide, or arranged for others to 

provide MARS, as defined in 16 C.F.R. § 322.2, recodified as 12 C.F.R. § 1015.2. 

CD Capital transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the 

United States. 

8. Defendant GDS Information Services, Inc., also doing business as 

2Apply, also formerly known as NPV Report, NPV Test, NPVTest.org, and 

National Mortgage Help Center (“2Apply”), is a California Corporation with its 

principal place of business at a private mailbox located at 360 East 1st Street #825, 

Tustin, California 92780. 2Apply also maintains offices at a private residence in 

Orange, California. In 2011, the Alabama State Banking Department obtained a 

Cease & Desist Order against 2Apply. At all times material to this Complaint, 

acting alone or in concert with others, 2Apply has advertised, marketed, provided, 

offered to provide, or arranged for others to provide MARS, as defined in 16 

C.F.R. § 322.2, recodified as 12 C.F.R. § 1015.2. 2Apply transacts or has 

transacted business in this district and throughout the United States. 

9. Defendant Christian D. Quezada (“Quezada”) holds himself out as 

CEO, managing member, manager, owner, and corporate secretary of Capital 

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:602
5

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

Investments and CD Capital in official corporate filings and bank documents. 

Quezada is the only signatory on the bank accounts for Capital Investments and 

CD Capital. Quezada is also listed as the point of contact on payment receipts that 

consumers receive from payment processors for Capital Investments and CD 

Capital. In addition, Quezada pays the bills and serves as a contact for UW 

Solutions’ internet and telephone services. Quezada previously worked at Noah 

Savings Mortgage, a company that the Oregon Attorney General’s office sued for 

performing illegal foreclosure consulting and loan modification services. At all 

times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Defendant 

Quezada has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or 

participated in the acts and practices of Capital Investments and CD Capital, 

including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Defendant Quezada

resides in this district and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts 

or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States.

10. Defendant Tuan Dihn Duong, also known as “Thomas Duong,” 

“Andrew Vu,” and “Kevin Young,” (“Duong”) acted as, and was, an actual or 

constructive owner of Capital Investments, CD Capital, and 2Apply, which he 

used, along with multiple aliases, to conceal his true identity and involvement in 

the acts and practices herein alleged in violation of Section 5 and Regulation O. 

Duong registered and owned the fictitious business names “NPVTest” and 

“NPVReport,” and set up, paid for, and served as the contact for 2Apply’s website. 

The Corporate Defendants, under Duong’s actual or constructive control, 

eventually assumed the use of these names and this website. At all times material 

to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, he has formulated, 

directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and 

practices of UW Solutions and 2Apply, including the acts and practices set forth in 

this Complaint. Duong crafted marketing materials, managed employees, 

controlled bank accounts, and arranged for office locations with respect to the 

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:603
6

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

Corporate Defendants. In 2010, the Oregon Attorney General’s Office sued Duong 

and Noah Savings Mortgage for performing illegal foreclosure consulting and loan 

modification services. Defendant Duong resides in this district and, in connection 

with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this district 

and throughout the United States.

11. Defendant Gabriel D. Stewart (“Stewart”) is an owner and officer of 

2Apply. Stewart holds himself out as President, CEO, Secretary, CFO, and sole 

director of 2Apply in corporate filings. Stewart is the only signatory on the bank 

accounts for 2Apply. Stewart also pays the bills and serves as a contact for 

2Apply’s internet and telephone services. At all times material to this Complaint, 

acting alone or in concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had 

the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of 2Apply, 

including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Defendant Stewart 

resides in this district and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts 

or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States.

COMMON ENTERPRISE

12. Defendants Capital Investments, CD Capital, and 2Apply 

(collectively, “Corporate Defendants”) have operated as a common enterprise 

while engaging in the deceptive acts and practices and other violations of law 

alleged below. These Corporate Defendants have conducted the business practices 

described below through an interrelated network of companies that have common 

control, managers, employees, business functions, office locations, and the 

commingling of funds. Because these Corporate Defendants have operated as a 

common enterprise, each of them is jointly and severally liable for the acts and 

practices alleged below. Defendants Quezada, Duong, and Stewart have 

formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the 

acts and practices of the Corporate Defendants that constitute the common 

enterprise.

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:604
7

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

COMMERCE

13. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a 

substantial course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in 

Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44.

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS PRACTICES

14. Since at least mid-2011 to present, Corporate Defendants, through 

operation of the common enterprise, and Defendants Quezeda, Duong, and Stewart

have engaged in a course of conduct to advertise, market, sell, provide, offer to 

provide, or arrange for others to provide MARS, including mortgage loan 

forbearance, loan modification, and loan restructuring services. 

15. Defendants market their services primarily via outbound 

telemarketing calls from 2Apply to consumers. Defendants also market their 

services on the Internet, including through the use of websites such as: 

www.2apply.net and www.uw-solutions.com.

16. Many of Defendants’ customers are financially distressed 

homeowners, including elderly consumers. Defendants promise consumers that 

they will lower the consumer’s mortgage interest rate or obtain a loan forbearance, 

a loan modification, or other loan restructuring.

17. In many instances, Defendants charge an initial up-front fee of $395-

$695 to process the consumer’s “application.” 

18. In many instances, Defendants also charge consumers monthly “postapplication monitoring fees” of $299-$499. 

19. Defendants, in many instances, promise consumers that they will 

receive the promised MARS within two to four months.

20. In numerous instances, Defendants have failed to obtain any relief for 

their customers. 

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:605
8

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

The Sales Pitch

21. Defendants initiate contact with consumers via outbound 

telemarketing calls. Defendants also market their services to consumers via the 

Internet, including through the use of websites such as: www.uw-solutions.com

and www.2apply.net. 

22. In numerous instances, Defendants have told consumers expressly or 

by implication that if they pay an initial, up-front fee, consumers are likely to 

obtain loan modifications or other concessions from their lenders and that the 

process will be complete within as little as two to four months. 

23. In numerous instances, Defendants have told consumers that they

have already been “pre-qualified” for a loan modification with their lender or 

servicer. 

24. In some instances, Defendants represent to consumers that they are 

affiliated with the “Making Home Affordable Program,” sponsored by “President 

Obama” or “the government.” 

25. In some instances, Defendants represent to consumers that they are 

affiliated with the consumer’s lender or servicer. 

26. Defendants further represent to consumers that their lender or servicer 

will not foreclose on their home if they are in the process of obtaining a loan 

modification. 

27. In numerous instances, Defendants have told consumers that, in order 

to obtain the promised MARS, consumers should cease making mortgage 

payments to their lenders. 

28. In numerous instances, Defendants also have told consumers that they 

should cease communications with their lenders. In some instances, Defendants 

have told consumers that communicating with their lenders could negatively 

impact Defendants’ ability to obtain MARS for them.

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:606
9

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

Payment Structure and Enrollment

29. Defendants request payment information and authorization from 

consumers before providing any services. Defendants have collected payments 

from consumers in numerous ways, including but not limited to: personal checks, 

cashier’s check or money order, automatic bank withdrawal or ACH payment, 

direct wire transfer, and in-person deposits by consumers into Defendants’ bank 

accounts. 

30. Defendants’ fee structure is comprised of several advance fees, each 

of which is collected prior to the execution of a written agreement between the 

consumer and the loan holder or servicer that incorporates an offer obtained by 

Defendants. Defendants first collect from consumers, on average, an up-front 

payment of $495 for “processing” consumer applications. Next, Defendants 

collect from consumers, on average, $399 per month for “post-application 

monitoring” services.

31. Once consumers agree to pay, Defendants send the consumers a 

packet of documents to sign and return. The packet that Defendants send to 

consumers typically includes: (1) an invoice authorizing UW Solutions to charge 

the consumer’s account; (2) a recurring payment authorization form allowing UW 

Solutions to automatically withdraw recurring payments from the consumer’s bank 

account; (3) a borrower signature authorization form allowing UW Solutions to 

“discuss my request for payments assistance and/or a loan modification” with the 

consumer’s lender or mortgage servicing company; (4) a checklist of documents 

the consumer must send to UW Solutions; (5) sample hardship letters or a hardship 

letter guide; and (5) a Uniform Residential Loan Application, Making Home 

Affordable Application, or other loan modification application. The invoice and 

recurring payment authorization form both contain a statement saying, “I (we) 

agree not to chargeback the processed [sic] by the Party for services rendered 

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:607
10

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

under the Agreement and I (we) understand that these charges are NONRefundable.”

Post-Enrollment

32. When consumers call to check on the status of their loan modification, 

Defendants tell consumers that they need to submit additional documents for 

Defendants to process their application. In numerous instances, consumers are 

forced to submit the same requested documents to Defendants on several 

occasions. Defendants tell consumers who submit the requested documents, in 

many instances, that that their loan modification is “with the underwriter,” “being 

processed,” “almost ready to close,” or otherwise near completion. 

33. In numerous instances, consumers who have paid advance fees to 

Defendants have been left to negotiate with their own lenders. In some instances, 

consumers who reach out to their lenders learn that Defendants never contacted 

their lenders at all. In other instances, consumers who reach out to their lenders 

learn that Defendants were unsuccessful in obtaining MARS. 

34. Consumers who paid Defendants advance fees for the promised 

MARS, in many instances, have suffered significant economic injury, including: 

paying hundreds or thousands of dollars to Defendants and receiving little or no 

services in return; falling further behind on mortgage payments; going into 

foreclosure; and even losing their homes. 

35. After consumers have agreed to work with Defendants and paid the 

requested advance fees, in numerous instances, Defendants have failed to obtain a 

loan modification, principal reduction, or other relief to stop foreclosure or make 

consumers’ mortgage payments more affordable.

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT

36. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:608
11

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

37. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute 

deceptive acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.

COUNT I

(Deceptive Representations Regarding Substantially More Affordable Loan 

Payments, Substantially Lower Interest Rates, or Foreclosure Avoidance)

38. In numerous instances, in connection with the advertising, marketing, 

promotion, offering for sale, sale, or performance of mortgage assistance relief 

services, Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication, that Defendants typically will obtain mortgage loan modifications for 

consumers that will make their payments substantially more affordable, will 

substantially lower their interest rates, or will help them avoid foreclosure.

39. In truth and in fact, Defendants typically do not obtain mortgage loan 

modifications for consumers that will make their payments substantially more 

affordable, will substantially lower their interest rates, or help them avoid 

foreclosure. 

40. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 38

are false and misleading and constitute a deceptive act or practice in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S. C. § 45(a).

COUNT II

(Deceptive Representations Regarding Loan Modification Services)

41. In numerous instances, in connection with the advertising, marketing, 

promotion, offering for sale or sale or performance of mortgage assistance relief 

services, Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication:

(a) that Defendants typically will deliver the promised result from the 

mortgage assistance relief service within two to four months;

(b) that Defendants are affiliated with, endorsed or approved by, or 

otherwise associated with:

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:609
12

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

(i) The United States government,

(ii) Any governmental homeowner assistance plan,

(iii) Any Federal, State, or local governmental agency, unit, or 

department,

(iv) Any nonprofit housing counselor agency or program, or

(v) The maker, holder, or servicer of the consumer’s dwelling loan; 

and

(c) that the consumer is not obligated to, or should not, make scheduled 

periodic payments or any other payments pursuant to the terms of the 

consumer’s dwelling loan.

42. In truth and in fact:

(a) Defendants typically do not deliver the promised result from mortgage 

assistance relief service within two to four months;

(b) Defendants are not affiliated with, endorsed or approved by, or 

otherwise associated with:

(i) The United States government,

(ii) Any governmental homeowner assistance plan,

(iii) Any Federal, State, or local governmental agency, unit, or 

department,

(iv) Any nonprofit housing counselor agency or program, or

(v) The maker, holder, or servicer of the consumer’s dwelling loan, 

and

(c) the consumer is obligated to make scheduled periodic payments or 

any other payments pursuant to the terms of the consumer’s dwelling 

loan.

43. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in paragraph 41 are 

false and misleading and constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S. C. § 45(a)

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:610
13

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

VIOLATIONS OF THE MARS RULE

44. In 2009, Congress directed the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting 

unfair or deceptive acts or practices with respect to mortgage loans. Omnibus Act, 

§ 626, 123 Stat. at 678, as clarified by Credit Card Act, § 511, 123 Stat. at 1763-

64. Pursuant to that direction, the FTC promulgated the MARS Rule, 16 C.F.R. 

Part 322, all but one of the provisions of which became effective on December 29, 

2010. The remaining provision, Section 322.5, became effective on January 31, 

2011.

45. The MARS Rule and Regulation O define “mortgage assistance relief 

service provider” as “any person that provides, offers to provide, or arranges for 

others to provide, any mortgage assistance relief service” other than the dwelling 

loan holder, the servicer of a dwelling loan, or any agent or contractor of such 

individual or entity. 16 C.F.R. § 322.2, recodified as 12 C.F.R. § 1015.2.

46. Since January 31, 2011, the MARS Rule and Regulation O prohibit 

any mortgage assistance relief service provider from requesting or receiving 

payment of any fee or other consideration until the consumer has executed a 

written agreement between the consumer and the consumer’s loan holder or 

servicer that incorporates the offer that the provider obtained from the loan holder 

or servicer. 16 C.F.R. § 322.5(a), recodified as 12 C.F.R. § 1015.5(a).

47. The MARS Rule and Regulation O prohibit any mortgage assistance 

relief service provider from representing, expressly or by implication, in 

connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, offering for sale, sale, or 

performance of any mortgage assistance relief service, that a consumer cannot or 

should not contact or communicate with his or her lender or servicer, 16 C.F.R. §

322.3(a), recodified as 12 C.F.R. § 1015.3(a).

48. The MARS Rule and Regulation O prohibit any mortgage assistance 

relief service provider from misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, any 

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:611
14

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

material aspect of any mortgage assistance relief service, including but not limited 

to:

(a) the likelihood of negotiating, obtaining, or arranging any represented 

service or result. 16 C.F.R. § 322.3(b)(1), recodified as 12 C.F.R. 

§ 1015.3(b)(1); 

(b) the amount of time it will take the mortgage assistance relief service 

provider to accomplish any represented service or result. 16 C.F.R. § 

322.3(b)(2), recodified as 12 C.F.R. § 1015.3(b)(2);

(c) that a mortgage assistance relief service is affiliated with, endorsed or 

approved by, or otherwise associated with (i) the United States 

government, (ii) any governmental homeowner assistance plan, 

(iii) any Federal, State, or local government agency, unit, or 

department, (iv) any nonprofit housing counselor agency or program, 

(v) the maker, holder, or servicer of the consumer’s dwelling loan, or 

(vi) any other individual, entity, or program. 16 C.F.R. § 

322.3(b)(3)(i)-(vi), recodified as 12 C.F.R. § 1015.3(b)(i)-(vi).

(d) the consumer’s obligation to make scheduled periodic payments or 

any other payments pursuant to the terms of the consumer’s dwelling 

loan. 16 C.F.R. § 322.3(b)(4), recodified as 12 C.F.R. § 1015.3(b)(4).

49. The MARS Rule and Regulation O prohibit any mortgage assistance 

relief service provider from failing to place a statement in every general 

commercial communication disclosing that (i) the provider is not associated with 

the government and its service is not approved by the government or any lender, 

and (ii) in certain cases, a statement disclosing that the lender may not agree to 

modify a loan, even if the consumer uses the provider’s service. 16 C.F.R.

§§ 322.4(a)(1)-(2), recodified as 12 C.F.R. §§ 1015.4(a)(1)-(2).

50. The MARS Rule and Regulation O prohibit any mortgage assistance 

relief service provider from failing to place a statement in every consumer-specific 

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #:612
15

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

commercial communication (i) confirming that the consumer may stop doing 

business with the provider or reject an offer of mortgage assistance without having 

to pay for the services, (ii) disclosing that the provider is not associated with the 

government and its service is not approved by the government or any lender, and 

(iii) in certain cases, a statement disclosing that the lender may not agree to modify 

a loan, even if the consumer uses the provider’s service, and (iv) in certain cases, a 

statement disclosing that if they stop paying their mortgage, consumers may lose 

their home or damage their credit. 16 C.F.R. §§ 322.4(b)(1)-(3) and (c), recodified 

as 12 C.F.R. §§ 1015.4(b)(1)-(3) and (c).

51. Pursuant to the Omnibus Act, § 626, 123 Stat. at 678, as clarified by 

the Credit Card Act, § 511, 123 Stat. at 1763-64 and amended by the Dodd-Frank 

Act, § 1097, 124 Stat. at 2102-03, 12 U.S.C. § 5538, and pursuant to Section 

18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of the MARS Rule or 

Regulation O constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting 

commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).

COUNT III

(Collection of Advance Payments)

52. In numerous instances, in the course of providing, offering to provide, 

or arranging for others to provide mortgage assistance relief services, Defendants 

ask for or receive payment before consumers have executed a written agreement 

between the consumer and the loan holder or servicer that incorporates the offer 

obtained by Defendants, in violation of the MARS Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 322.5(a) and 

Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. § 1015.5(a).

COUNT IV

(Prohibited Representation)

53. In numerous instances, in the course of providing, offering to provide, 

or arranging for others to provide mortgage assistance relief services, Defendants, 

in violation of the MARS Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 322.3(a), and Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. 

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:613
16

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

§ 1015.3(a), have represented, expressly or by implication, that a consumer cannot 

or should not contact or communicate with his or her lender or servicer. 

COUNT V

(Material Misrepresentations)

54. In numerous instances, in the course of providing, offering to provide, 

or arranging for others to provide mortgage assistance relief services, Defendants, 

in violation of the MARS Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 322.3(b)(1)-(4), and Regulation O, 12 

C.F.R. § 1015.3(b)(1)-(4), have misrepresented, expressly or by implication, 

material aspects of their services, including, but not limited to:

(a) Defendants’ likelihood of obtaining mortgage loan modifications for 

consumers that will make their payments substantially more affordable; 

(b) The amount of time it will take the mortgage assistance relief service 

provider to accomplish any represented service or result; 

(c) Defendants are affiliated with, endorsed, or approved by, or otherwise 

associated with:

(i) The United States government,

(ii) Any governmental homeowner assistance plan,

(iii) Any Federal, State, or local governmental agency, unit, or 

department,

(iv) Any nonprofit housing counselor agency or program, or

(v) The maker, holder, or servicer of the consumer’s dwelling loan, 

and 

(d) The consumer’s obligation to make scheduled periodic payments or 

any other payments pursuant to the terms of the consumer’s dwelling 

loan.

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #:614
17

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

COUNT VI

(Failure to Disclose)

55. In numerous instances, in the course of providing, offering to provide, 

or arranging for others to provide mortgage assistance relief services, Defendants 

have failed to make the following disclosures:

(a) in all general commercial communications –

(1) “[Name of company] is not associated with the government, 

and our service is not approved by the government or your 

lender,” in violation of the MARS Rule, 16 C.F.R. 

§ 322.4(a)(1), and Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. § 1015.4(a)(1); and

(2) Even if you accept this offer and use our service, your lender 

may not agree to change your loan,” in violation of the MARS 

Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 322.4(a)(2), and Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. 

§ 1015.4(a)(2);

(b) in all consumer-specific commercial communications –

(1) “You may stop doing business with us at any time. You may 

accept or reject the offer of mortgage assistance we obtain from 

your lender [or servicer]. If you reject the offer, you do not 

have to pay us. If you accept the offer, you will have to pay us 

[insert amount or method for calculating the amount] for our 

services,” in violation of the MARS Rule, 16 C.F.R. 

§ 322.4(b)(1), and Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. § 1015.4(b)(1);

(2) “[Name of Company] is not associated with the government, 

and our service is not approved by the government or your 

lender,” in violation of the MARS Rule, 16 C.F.R. 

§ 322.4(b)(2), and Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. § 1015.4(b)(2); 

(3) “Even if you accept this offer and use our service, your lender 

may not agree to change your loan,” in violation of the MARS 

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 17 of 21 Page ID #:615
18

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

Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 322.4(b)(3), and Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. 

§ 1015.4(b)(3); and

(4) “If you stop paying your mortgage, you could lose your home 

and damage your credit,” in violation of the MARS Rule, 16 

C.F.R. § 322.4(c), and Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. § 1015.4(c).

CONSUMER INJURY

56. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury 

as a result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, the MARS Rule, and 

Regulation O. In addition, Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of 

their unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants 

are likely to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm the 

public interest. 

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF

57. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers this Court 

to grant injunctive and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to halt 

and redress violations of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. The Court, in 

the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, including 

rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and 

the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to prevent and remedy any violation of any 

provision of law enforced by the FTC.

58. Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, and Section 626 of the 

Omnibus Act authorize this Court to grant such relief as the Court finds necessary 

to redress injury to consumers resulting from Defendants’ violations of the MARS 

Rule, including rescission and reformation of contracts and the refund of money.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission, pursuant to Sections 13(b) 

and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) and 57b, the Omnibus Act, and the 

Court’s own equitable powers, requests that the Court:

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 18 of 21 Page ID #:616
19

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

A. Award Plaintiff such preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as 

may be necessary to avert the likelihood of consumer injury during the 

pendency of this action, and to preserve the possibility of effective final 

relief, including but not limited to a temporary and preliminary injunction, 

an order freezing assets, and appointment of a receiver; 

B. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC 

Act, the MARS Rule and Regulation O by Defendants; 

C. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to 

consumers resulting from Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act and the 

MARS Rule and Regulation O, including but not limited to, rescission or 

reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the 

disgorgement of ill-gotten monies; and

D. Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such other 

and additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper.

Dated: April 2, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

JONATHAN E. NUECHTERLEIN

General Counsel

/s/ LaShawn M. Johnson 

LASHAWN JOHNSON

ljohnson@ftc.gov

MARK L. GLASSMAN

mglassman@ftc.gov

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

NJ-3158

Washington, D.C. 20580

Telephone: (202) 326-3057 (Johnson)

 (202) 326-2826 (Glassman)

Facsimile: (202) 326-3768

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 19 of 21 Page ID #:617
20

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

BARBARA CHUN

bchun@ftc.gov

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

10877 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700

Los Angeles, CA 90024

Telephone: (310) 824-4343 

Facsimile: (310) 824-4380

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 20 of 21 Page ID #:618
21

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

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of April 2015, I caused the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF to be served by third party commercial carrier for overnight delivery on the following:

Christian D. Quezada

[Street address omitted per 

L.R. 79-5.1]

Garden Grove, CA 92843

Defendant (Pro Per)

Christian Quezada

Agent for Service of Process

CD Capital Investment, LLC

[Street address omitted per 

L.R. 79-5.1]

Garden Grove, CA 92843

Christian Quezada

Agent for Service of Process

CD Capital, LLC

[Street address omitted per 

L.R. 79-5.1]

Garden Grove, CA 92843

Additionally, I have caused the foregoing documents to be emailed to Mireya 

Duenas and Defendant Gabriel Drews Stewart who have consented to service via 

email. I also have emailed Defendant Christian Quezada.

s/ LaShawn M. Johnson

LaShawn M. Johnson

Case 8:14-cv-01033-JLS-RNB Document 61 Filed 04/02/15 Page 21 of 21 Page ID #:619