UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

ORLANDO DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, and 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, 

Plaintiffs, 

Case No. ----

[FILED UNDER SEAL] _..~·--· ~ 

t ....... 

vs. I __ Ji 

LIFE MANAGEMENT SERVICES OF ORANGE 

COUNTY, LLC, a Florida limited liability 

company, et al., 

. 1 

r 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTEMOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

WITH ASSET FREEZE, APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER, OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF AND AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

SHOULD NOT ISSUE 

r 1 :._j 

\ 

., 

~ ; 

! 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

¥. l 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. l 

II. DEFENDANTS' BUSINESS PRACTICES .................................................................... .4 

A. The Rate-Reduction Scheme: Defendants Falsely Promise Consumers 

Permanent and Substantial Credit-Card Interest-Rate Reductions ............................... .4 

1. Defendants Make Illegal Telemarketing Calls to Locate Victims .......................... .4 

2. Defendants Guarantee Substantial and Permanent Rate Reductions 

That Will Save Consumers Thousands of Dollars ................................................... 5 

3. Defendants Extract an Illegal Up-Front Fee ............................................................ 7 

4. Consumers Almost Never Receive the Promised Results ....................................... 7 

B. The Debt-Elimination Scheme: Defendants Fraudulently Guarantee Debt 

Elimination Through a Nonexistent Government Fund Paid for By CreditCard Companies ............................................................................................................. 9 

1. Defendants Collect Up to $20,000 and Instruct Consumers to Stop Paying 

their Credit-Card Bills .............................................................................................. 9 

2. There is No Government Fund, and Consumers Suffer Serious Harm 

By Not Paying Their Credit-Card Bills ................................................................. 10 

C. Defendants Instruct Consumers to Pay the Up-Front Fees Using CreditCard Cash Advances .................................................................................................... 12 

D. Defendants' Abusive Telemarketing Practices ............................................................ 13 

E. Consumer Harm ........................................................................................................... 14 

III. DEFENDANTS ................................................................................................................ 14 

A. The Corporate Defendants ........................................................................................... 16 

1. Telemarketer Corporate Defendants ...................................................................... 17 

2. Shell Corporate Defendants ................................................................................... 18 

B. Individual Defendants .................................................................................................. 23 

C. Relief Defendants ......................................................................................................... 26 

1 

I 

! 

I 

I 

I 

I 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

IV. THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. ....... .27 

A. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act Authorizes the Court to Grant the 

Requested Relief .......................................................................................................... 27 

B. Plaintiffs Have Shown a Likelihood of Success on the Merits .................................... 29 

I. Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated a Likelihood of Success in Establishing 

that Defendants' Deceptive Practices Have Violated the FTC Act (Counts 

One and Two) and the FDUTPA (Count Eleven) .................................................. 29 

a. Defendants Misrepresent the Results They Will Achieve for Consumers ...... 30 

b. Defendants Fail To Disclose the True Cost of Their Debt-Relief Services ..... 31 

2. Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated a Likelihood of Success in Proving that 

Defendants have Violated the TSR (Counts Three Through Ten) ........................ 32 

a. Defendants Misrepresent the Performance, Nature or Essential 

Characteristics of Their Debt-Relief Services (Counts Three and Four) ......... 32 

b. Defendants Fail to Disclose Material Aspects of their Debt-Relief 

Services (Counts Five and Six) ........................................................................ 33 

c. Defendants Unlawfully Charge an Advance Fee for Their Debt-Relief 

Services (Counts Seven) .................................................................................. 33 

d. Defendants Violated the Do Not Call and Robocall Provisions of the TSR 

(Counts Eight, Nine, and Ten) ......................................................................... 34 

C. The Equities Heavily Favor the Requested RelieL ..................................................... 34 

V. THE TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD EXTEND TO ALL 

DEFENDANTS ................................................................................................................ 36 

A. Corporate Defendants are Jointly and Severally Liable as a Common Enterprise ...... 36 

B. The Individual Defendants Are Personally Liable and Subject to Monetary 

and Injunctive Relief .................................................................................................. 38 

C. Relief Defendants Should Disgorge Ill-Gotten Funds ................................................. 39 

2 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

VI. AN EX PARTE TRO WITH ADDITIONAL EQUITABLE RELIEF IS 

NECESSARY TO PRESERVE EFFECTIVE FINAL RELIEF ............................... .40 

A. An Asset Freeze Is Necessary ...................................................................................... 41 

B. Appointing a Receiver Will Prevent Further Mismanagement and Assist the 

Court's Ability to Provide Effective Final Relief.. ...................................................... .42 

C. Immediate Access and Limited Expedited Discovery ................................................ .43 

D. The TRO Should Be Issued Ex Parte ......................................................................... .44 

VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 45 

3 

! 

( 

I 

I 

i 

! 

i 

I 

i 

f 

i 

I 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Opinions 

AT&T Broadband v. Tech Commc'ns Inc., 381 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2004) ................................. 44 

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Kimberlynn Creek Ranch, Inc., 276 F.3d 187 

4th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................................................... 39 

Delaware Watch Co., v. FTC, 332 F.2d 745(2d Cir. 1964) .................................................... .36, 37 

FTC v. Amy Travel Service, 875 F.2d 564 (7th Cir. 1989) ...................................................... 30, 38 

FTC v. Direct Benefits Group, LLC, 6:11-cv-1186-0rl-28TBS, 2013 WL 3771322, 

(M.D. Fla. July 18, 2013) ................................................................................................... 37 

FTC v. E.MA. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2014) ..................................................... 29 

FTCv. GemMerch. Corp., 87 F.3d 466 (11th Cir. 1996) ................................................ .27, 38, 41 

FTC v. HES Merch. Servs., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17292 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2014) ............... .38 

FTC v. Holiday Enters., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35858 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 5, 2008) ......................... 39 

FTC v. JAB Mktg. Assocs., LP, 746 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2014) .................................................. .30 

FTCv. Inbound Call Experts, 14-81395-CIV-MARRA, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182857, 

(S.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2014) ................................................................................................... 29 

FTC. v. Info. Mgmt. Forum, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91242, (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2013) ..... .29 

FTC v. J.K. Publ'ns, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2000) .................................................. 37 

FTC v. Network Servs. Depot, Inc., 617 F.3d 127 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................ 39 

FTCv. Tashman, 318 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) ................................................... 29, 30 

FTC v. Transnet Wireless Corp., 506 F. Supp. 2d 1247(S.D. Fla. 2007) ............................... .38, 39 

FTCv. U.S. Oil & Gas Corp., 748 F.2d 1431 (11th Cir. 1984) ................................... 27, 28, 41, 42 

FTC v. Univ. Health, 938 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1991) ................................................................... 28 

FTC v. Wilcox, 926 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D. Fla. 1995) ............................................................... .30, 38 

FTC v. Windward Mktg., 1:96-CV-615-FMH,1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17114, 

(N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 1997) ............................................................................................ 32, 38 

FTC v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc., 861 F.2d 1020 (7th Cir. 1988) ................... 34, 35, 41 

FTC v. World Wide Factors, Ltd., 882 F.2d 344 (9th Cir. 1989) ........................................... .35, 36 

In re Removatron Int'/ Corp., 111F.T.C.206, 309 (1988), qff'd 884 F.2d 1489 

(1st Cir. 1989) ............................................................................................................................... 32 

Kinney ex rel. NLRB v. Int'! Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 150, 994 F.2d 1271 

(7th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................................... 35 

Millennium Commnc's & Fulfillment, Inc., 761 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) ....................... 28 

Partners In Health Care Ass'n, 2015 U.S. Dist LEXIS 71027, 

(S.D. Fla. May 31, 2016) ................................................................................................... 30 

PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 842. So.2d 773, 777 (Fla. 2003) .................................... .29 

Republic of the Congo v. Air Capital Grp., LLC, 614 F.App'x 460 (11th Cir. 2015) ................... 29 

Rollins v. Metro. Life Ins. Col, 863 F.2d 1346 (7th Cir. 1988) ...................................................... 39 

SECv. Antar, 831 F. Supp. 380 (D.N.J. 1993) ............................................................................. .39 

SEC v. First Fin. Group of Texas, 645 F.2d 429 (5th Cir. 1981) ........................................... .42, 43 

Filed Cases 

FTC v. 2145183 Ontario Inc., also dlb/a Dynamic Fin. Resolutions Inc., 

No. 09C-7423(N.D. IlI. Nov. 30, 2009) .............................................................................. .2 

FTC V. A+ Fin. Center, LLC, No. 12-cv-14373 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2012) ..................................... 2 

I 

! 

l ' • 

I 

l 

f 

r 

I 

f 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Filed Cases (Cont'd) 

FTCv. All US Marketing LLC, No. 6:15-cv-01016-0RDL-28GJK (M.D. Fla. June 22, 

2015) .............................................................................................................................. 2, 36 

FTC v. Ambrosia Web Design LLC, No. 2248-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Oct. 22, 2012) ....................... 2 

FTCv. Direct Fin. Mgmt., No. lOC-7149 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2010) ................................................. 2 

FTCv. Econ. Relie/Techs., LLC, No. 09-CV-3347 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 30, 2009) .............................. 2 

FTC v. ELH Consulting, LLC, No .. CV-12-2246-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Oct. 22, 2014) ................... 2 

FTCv. Home Assure, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32055, (M.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2009) ............... .41 

FTCv. Innovative Wealth Builders, Inc., No. 8:13-CV-00123-VMC-EAJ (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 

2013) ................................................................................................ 2, 36 

FTC v. JPM Accelerated Servs. Inc., No. 6:09-CV-2021-0RL-28-KRS (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 

2009) .................................................................................................................................... 2 

FTC v. Lifewatch Inc., No:l5-c-5781, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45057 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2016) .35 

FTC v. Millennium Telecard,Jnc., 2001 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 7495l(D.N.J. July 11, 2011) ......... .42 

FTCv. Nat'! Card Monitor, LLC, No. CV-12-2521-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Nov. 27, 2013) ............. .2 

FTCv. The Green Savers, LLC, No. 12-CV-1588 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2012) ........................... 2, 36 

FTC v. Wash. Data Res., 856 F. Supp.2d 1247(M.D. Fla. 2012) .................................................. 37 

FTC v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 665 F.2d 1072 (D.C. 1981) ................................................................ 34 

FTC v. WV Universal Mgmt., LLC, No. 12-CV-1618 (M.D. Fla. Oct 29, 2012) ...................... 2, 36 

Statutes, Regulations, and Rules 

15 U.S.C.A. § 45(a) ................................................................................................................. 28, 29 

15 U.S.C.A. § 57b(a)(l) & (b) ....................................................................................................... 28 

15 U.S.C.A. § 1601 ........................................................................................................................ 13 

15 U.S.C.A. § 6105(b) ................................................................................................................... 28 

16 C.F.R. Part 310 .......................................................................................................................... 28 

16 C.F.R. § 310.2 ........................................................................................................................... 32 

16 C.F.R. § 310.3 ............................................................................................................... 31, 32, 33 

16 C.F.R. § 310.4 ........................................................................................................................... 34 

16 C.F.R. § 310.8 ........................................................................................................................... 34 

Fed, R. Civ. P. 65(b) ...................................................................................................................... 41 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) ...................................................................................................................... 44 

Fed. R .Civ. P. 34(b) ...................................................................................................................... 44 

Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes ............................................................................................. 28 

§ 501.204, Florida Statutes (2015) ................................................................................................ .29 

I 

f 

I 

I 

f 

f 

l 
I. INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and the State of Florida ("State of Florida")' ask 

that this Court immediately halt an ongoing telemarketing scheme that has stolen well over $15 

million from nearly 3,000 consumer victims struggling with credit-card debt.2 Defendants 

bombard consumers with robocalls that pitch a service that Defendants falsely promise will 

result in a permanent and substantial reduction in consumers' interest rates, save consumers 

thousands of dollars, and enable consumers to pay off their debts much faster ("rate-reduction 

service"). Defendants collect an illegal up-front fee for their "service" ranging from $500 to 

$5,000, but rarely, if ever, deliver the promised results. This scheme is nearly identical to ones 

1 Plaintiffs submit six volumes of exhibits in support of this motion, including sworn declarations from: 42 victims 

of Defendants' scheme; three financial institutions; an expert in the credit-card and retail-banking industry; three 

investigators from the FTC and the State of Florida; a Bureau Chief for the Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services ("FDACS"); and a detective with the Orlando Police Department. Plaintiffs' evidence also 

includes call transcripts highlighting Defendants' deceitful sales tactics, and business records demonstrating 

Defendants' financial and operational integration. Exhibits are marked beginning with Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 and 

cited with the abbreviations "PX" followed by the exhibit number. Exhibits that are declarations also include a 

citation to the declarant and the paragraph number for the relevant testimony. 

2 The total monetary harm is likely significantly higher. PX 45 ~11 (Dec. of FTC Forensic Accountant Emil 

George). Mr. George's financial analysis is for the period January 2013 to May 2015, and Defendants scheme is 

ongoing. Indeed just two weeks ago, on May 24, 2016, the Orlando version of craiglist.org contained a job posting 

seeking to fill seven "fronter" and "qualifier" positions. The posting asked interest parties to call a telephone 

number tied to an employee of Corporate Defendant Life Management Services. Compare PX 60 ("Call 386-456-

8715 to set up an interview with John"), with PX 43 ~ 115 (Ex. 66) (Dec. of Patricia Compton) (stating that the 

FDACS's records show that 386-456-8715 is the telephone number for John Kunz, who has been employed by 

Cotporate Defendant Life Management Services since May 2014, and before that was employed by Corporate 

Defendant Loyal Financial); see also PX 47 ~~ 46-55 (Dec. ofFlorida Investigator Jacquelyn Randolph) (Ex. 23) 

(describing April 2016 undercover site visit to Defendants' call center in response to Craigslistjob posting seeking 8 

telemarketers); PX 111~43-46 (Dec. of Donna White) (paid Corporate Defendant YCC Solutions in February 

2016 and received New Client Packet in April 2016). 

1 

I 

i 

! 

I 

I 
that have been the subject of numerous successful FTC law enforcement actions involving the 

infamous "Rachel from Cardholder Services" messages. 3 

Unfortunately, Defendants' scam goes even further. In addition to their rate-reduction 

scheme, Defendants also market a credit-card debt-elimination service ("debt-elimination 

service") that results in more pervasive consumer harm. Defendants promise consumers that for 

another illegal up-front fee, which can be as high as $20,000,4 Defendants will pay off their 

credit-card balances by using money obtained from a special government fund. 5 In truth, no such 

fund exists, 6 and consumers who pay Defendants' hefty up-front fees do not have their debt 

eliminated and are often left deeper in debt and with severely damaged credit. 7 

In addition, Defendants' use of prerecorded telemarketing solicitations, or "robocalls," to 

search for potential victims is itself a separate form of abuse inflicted on the American public. 

Consumers whose telephone numbers are listed on the National Do Not Call Registry are doubly 

harassed, as they should not be receiving any telemarketing calls from Defendants, let alone 

3 See, e.g., FTCv. All USMktg. UC, No. 6:15-cv-01016-0RDL-28GJK (M.D. Fla. June 22,2015);FTCv. ELH 

Consulting, UC, No. CV-12-2246-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Oct. 22, 2014); FTC v. Innovative Wealth Builders, Inc., 

No. 8:13-CV-00123-VMC-EAJ (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2013); FTCv. Nat'/ Card Monitor, LLC, No. CV-12-2521-PHXJAT (D. Ariz. Nov. 27, 2012); FTC v. WV Universal Mgmt., LLC, No. 12-CV-1618 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2012); FTC 

v. A+ Fin. Cente1~ LLC, No. 12-CV-14373 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2012); FTCv. The Green Savers, LLC, No. 12-CV1588 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2012); FTC v. Ambrosia Web Design UC, No. 2248-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Oct. 22, 2012); 

FTCv. Direct Fin. Mgmt., No. lOC-7149 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2010); FTCv. 2145183 Ontario Inc., also d/b/a 

Dynamic Fin. Resolutions Inc., No. 09C-7423 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2009); FTC v. JPM Accelerated Servs. Inc., No. 

6:09-CV-2021-0RL-28-KRS (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2009); FTCv. Econ. Retie/Techs., LLC, No. 09-CV-3347 (N.D. 

Ga. Nov. 30, 2009). 

4 See PX 31 4114116 & 10 (Dec. of James Pompati) (noting payments of$2,500 and $19,500 to Corporate Defendant 

URB Management); PX104 at 1-2 ($21,029); see also PX 20 41141111 & 20 (Dec. of William Healey) (noting payments 

of$4,000 and $13,199 to Corporate Defendant LPS); PX104 at 3-4 ($16,000), 5 ($17,000), 6 ($16,400), 7($14,200) 

& 8 ($14,500). 

5 See, e.g. PX 3 41116 (Dec. ofJason Adkins); PX 9 4118 (Dec. of Sharon Burke); PX 20 41116 (Healey Dec.); PX 30 411 

16 (Dec. of Kim Myre-Napieralski); PX 31iJ8 (Pompati Dec.); PX 111 41127 (Dec. of Donna White); PX 112 ii 5 

(Dec. of Patti Fraver). 

6 See PX 42 ii 105 (Dec. of Industry Expert Lisa Wilhelm) ("I can categorically say that no multi-billion government 

fund paid for by the credit card industry to eliminate consumers' credit-card debts exists"). 

7 See id. at 411il 107-109. 

2 

I 

I, 

l 

1 

l 

1 

i 

! 

! 

j 

I 

I 

I 

f 
robocalls. Consumers have filed at least 8,500 complaints with the FTC regarding Defendants' 

illegal telemarketing calls. 8 

Defendants conceal their misconduct from consumers and law enforcement by operating 

through a maze of shell companies, aliases, and fake addresses. 9 Within the past three years, 

Defendants have faced legal action from three states for their unlawful conduct, including the 

State of Florida. 10 In response, Defendants have simply created new companies, moved their call 

center, or shifted banking or management responsibilities to other Defendants so that they could 

continue to engage in the same illegal conduct. 11 

Given Defendants' ongoing, pervasive, and undeterred fraud, Plaintiffs ask this Court to 

enter an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") to halt Defendants' illegal conduct. 

The proposed TRO would enjoin Defendants' unlawful practices, freeze Defendants' assets, 12 

appoint a temporary receiver for all Corporate Defendants, grant Plaintiffs and the receiver 

immediate access to Defendants' telemarketing room to preserve and collect records, and 

8 See PX 46 mf 40 & 41 (Dec. of FTC Investigator Reeve Tyndall) (listing do not call complaints against phone 

numbers (248) 215-0437 and (361) 271-4848)); id. at~~ 1-10 (linking (248) 215-0437 to Defendants); id. at~~ 25-

36 (linking (361) 271-4848 to Defendants). 

9 PX47 mf 23-26 (Randolph Dec.); PX 44 ~~ 9-10 &15-16 (Exs. 2 & 6) (Dec. Detective Gary Kleier, Orlando 

Police Department). 

10 See· PX 43 ~~ 29-33 (Dec. ofFDACS Bureau Chief Patricia Compton) (2013: Florida); PX 106 (2016: Oregon 

Department of Justice); PX 108 & PX 109 (2014: Mississippi Public Service Commission). 

11 As detailed below, Individual Defendant Kevin Guice was cited by FD ACS in February 2013 after an onsite visit 

to Loyal Financial revealed unlawful telemarketing activity. He was arrested during that same inspection for running 

an unlicensed telemarketing operation for a different entity in a suite adjacent to Loyal Financial's. PX 43 mf 29-32 

(Compton Dec.). After FDACS rejected Loyal Financial's application to renew its telemarketing license due to 

these violations, Kevin Guice was replaced as the company's manager by Individual Defendant Linda McNealy. PX 

43 ~ 43 (Ex. 12). Loyal Financial's renewal application was thereafter approved, but the company did not submit 

another one. Instead, Corporate Defendant Life Management Services was formed in February 2014 and submitted 

a telemarketing license application in March 2014. PX 47 at~ 10 (date of formation) (Randolph Dec.); PX 43 at~ 

45 (date of application). After Life Managem'ent Services obtained a telemarketing license in April 2014, 42 

telemarketers shifted employment from Loyal Financial to Life Management Services, and Loyal Financial's 

telemarketing license expired. PX 43 ~~ 40 & 56-57. At or about the same time, Defendants shifted their call 

centers from Loyal Financial to Life Management Services. See PX 102 at 3 (reflecting rent check paid for Science 

Drive, dated June 2014). 

12 The complaint names two individuals who received proceeds from the fraud as relief defendants. The proposed 

TRO would also freeze Relief Defendants' assets. 

3 
provide for certain expedited discovery. Such relief is necessary to stop ongoing consumer 

hann, to prevent the destruction of records, and to halt the continued dissipation of assets, 13 

thereby preserving the Court's ability to provide effective final relief to the victims of 

Defendants' unlawful activities. 

II. DEFENDANTS' BUSINESS PRACTICES 

A. The Rate-Reduction Scheme: Defendants Falsely Promise Consumers 

Permanent and Substantial Credit-Card Interest-Rate Reductions 

1. Defendants Make Illegal Telemarketing Calls to Locate Victims 

Consumers' first contact with Defendants is typically through an unsolicited robocall 

instructing recipients to "press 1" if they want to have their credit-card interest-rates lowered. 14 

Defendants send these robocalls to consumers regardless of whether they are on the National Do 

Not Call Registry. 15 

13 Defendants have withdrawn $2.53 million in cash from corporate accounts between January 2013 and June 2015. 

PX 45 'I) 22 (George Dec.). On 84 occasions, Defendants withdrew more than $10,000 in cash from corporate 

accounts in a single day. Id. at 'l)'I) 23-24. 

14 PX 46 irir 14 & 26 (Tyndall Dec.); PX 51 at 4; PX 52 at 4; see also PX I iii! 3-5 (Dec. of Jim Anderson); PX 4 ifif 

5-7 (Dec. of Marilyn Bishop); PX 7 if 5 (Dec. ofJacqueline Brabson); PX IO if 6 (Dec. of Betty Cherry); PX 11 if 5 

(Dec. of Colin Cherry); PX 12 ifir 5-6 (Dec. of Reed Coombs); PX 15 iii! 3-4 (Dec. of Dennise Gannon); PX 16 ifir 5-

6 (Dec. of Deborah Gascon); PX 19 ifif 4-6 (Dec. of Patricia Grinnan); PX 23 iii! 3-4 (Dec. of Sara Jorolemon); PX 

29 if'I) 6, 8 (Dec. of Rosa Mussallem); PX 32 iJiJ 4-5 (Dec. of Joseph Railey); PX 33 iii! 5-6 (Dec. of Gerald Schallon); 

PX 34 irir 3-4 (Dec. of Jessica Schley); PX 35 'l)'I) 5-6 (Dec. of Ann Scholzen); PX 36 if 3 (Dec. ofElaine Thomas); 

PX 37 irir 5-6 (Dec. of Joan Wedemeyer); PX 111 if 5 (Dec. of Donna S. White); PX 155 if 4 (Dec. of Jeffrey 

Franklin). 

15 PX 1 'I) 11 (Anderson Dec.); PX 2 if 3 (Dec. ofErika Adkins); PX 4 'I) 3 (Bishop Dec.); PX 7 if 3 (Brabson Dec.); 

PX 8 'I) 3 (Dec. of Mitchell Brown); PX 10 if 4 (Betty Cherry Dec.); PX 11 'I) 5 (Colin Cherry Dec.); PX 12 'I) 3 

(Coombs Dec.); PX 15 4112 (Gannon Dec.); PX 16 if 3 (Gascon Dec.); PX 18 4112 (Dec. of Sylvia Graham); PX 19 if 3 

(Grinnan Dec.); PX 20 ii 3 (Healey Dec.); PX 21 if 3 (Dec. of Jimmy F. Henderson); PX 22 'I) 3 (Dec. of JoAnn 

James); PX 23 if 2 (Jorolemon Dec.); PX 24 if 3 (Dec. of Nona L. Knauss); PX 25 if 4 (Dec. of Donald R. Kubeny); 

PX 27 if 2 (Dec. of Norma Jean Lohr); PX 28 if 3 (Dec. of Hannah Maxwell); PX 29 iJ4 (Mussallem Dec.); PX 30 'I) 

2 {Dec. of Kim Myre-Napieralski); PX 32 if IO {Railey Dec.); PX 33 'I) 3 (Schallon Dec.); PX 35 if 3 (Scholzen 

Dec.); PX 37 if 3 (Wedemeyer Dec.); PX 38 if 3 (Dec. of Harley Wiley); PX 111'I)3 {White Dec.). 

4 

I 

! 

I 

l 

I 

f 
Consumers who "press l" are transferred to a call center staffed by Defendants' 

telemarketers. 16 The telemarketers typically tell consumers that they are eligible for lower 

interest rates on their existing credit cards if they have at least $2,000 in credit card-debt, interest 

rates over nine percent, and at least one credit card "in good standing." In reality, Defendants are 

screening and identifying consumers with sufficient available credit on their card to pay 

Defendants' fees. 17 

Defendants ask consumers to disclose highly sensitive personal information including full 

credit-card numbers, social security numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, and mothers' 

maiden name. 18 After obtaining this infonnation, Defendants contact consumers' credit-card 

issuers to detennine whether the consumer has sufficient available credit to pay Defendants' 

fee. 19 Consumers with enough available credit to pay Defendants' fees are told that they have 

"qualified" for the rate-reduction services. 

2. Defendants Guarantee Substantial and Permanent Rate Reductions 

That Will Save Consumers Thousands of Dollars 

To promote the fiction that Defendants offer a legitimate service, Defendants' 

telemarketers tell eligible consumers that they work for "Bank Card Services," "Credit 

Assistance Program," or other generic names commonly associated with credit-card issuers. 20 

Building on this ruse, Defendants tell consumers that they are a "licensed enrollment center" for 

major credit-card associations, such as MasterCard and Visa, and represent that they work 

16 As detailed below in Section III(A), since 2013 Defendants' telemarketers have been employed by Corporate 

Defendants Life Management Services and Loyal Financial, but financial records show that the telemarketers have 

also been paid by Corporate Defendants URB Management and KWP Services. PX 46i! 90 (Tyndall Dec.) & PX 

114. 

17 PX 46 iii! 17 & 28 (Tyndall Dec.); PX 51 at 6-7; PX 5 iii! 6-8 (Dec. of Dorothy Blakely). 

18 See, e.g., PX 13 ii 9 (Dec. of Amy DeMarco); PX 34 ii 9 (Dec. of Jessica Schley). 

19 PX 46 iii! 18 & 19 (Tyndall Dec.); PX 51 at 7-13. 

20 PX 46 iii! 15 & 29 (Tyndall Dec.); PX 51 at 8; PX 52 at 7; PX 19 if 9 (Grinnan Dec.); PX 48 (Ex. I) (Caplan 

Dec.). 

5 

i ' 

I 

l 

f 

! 

1 

i 

l 

I 

I 
directly with consumers' bank or other credit-card issuers.21 These representations are false, as 

Defendants have no relationship with these entities. 22 Nevertheless, Defendants' claims have 

tricked consumers into believing that Defendants have some affiliation with consumers' banks or 

credit-card companies.23 

After gaining a consumer's trust with these false affiliations, Defendants guarantee that 

they can substantially and permanently lower the consumer's credit-card interest rates.24 

Defendants also promise to save the consumer thousands of dollars in a short time25 and claim 

that the consumer will become debt-free faster, typically three-to-five times faster, than she 

would without Defendants' program. 26 In fact, Defendants' own telemarketing scripts direct 

employees to guarantee consumers they will get out of debt "3-5 times faster," save them at least 

$2500, and have "absolutely no out of pocket expense."27 

21 PX46 iJiJ 16 & 29; PX 51at8-9; PX 52 at 7. 

22 See PX 39 iJiJ 27-32 (Dec. of Gail Kilmer (Citibank)); PX 40 iii! 4-5 (Dec. ofJohn Brady (MasterCard)); PX 41 iii/ 

7-11 (Dec. of Martin Elliott (Visa)). 

23 See, e.g., PX 36 if 8 ("I thought Samantha Anderson [telemarketer] was working with a bank") (Thomas Dec.); PX 

2 if 13 (telemarketer claimed that "UAD was a credit-counselling service and had a history of working directly with 

credit-card companies. Based on this, I believed that UAD had a close working relationship with these companies, 

and could get us lower interest rate than what was available to the general public.") (Erika Adkins Dec.); PX 26 iJ8 

(was told by telemarketer that "!VD had a relationship with GM and Chase" and "referred to the GM MasterCard 

and the Chase Visa credit card as 'our cards"') andiJ 9 ("I believed that IVD had some kind of arrangement with 

GM and Chase. I also believed that IVD could obtain an interest rate on these cards that was not available to the 

broader public.") (Dec. of Luann Laxton). . 24 See, e.g., PX 19 at 77 :4-6 (Ex. I - Grinnan Call Transcript). See also, e.g. PX 5 iii/ 5-6 (Dec. of Dorothy Blakely); 

PX 19 iii! 20-22; PX 22 if 8 (Dec. of JoAnn James); PX 36 ii 8 (Dec. of Elaine Thomas); PX 51 at 14; PX 111 if 10 

(White Dec.); PX 112 ii 6 (Fraver Dec.). 

25 See, e.g., PX 28 if 6 (Dec. of Hannah Maxwell); PX 22 ii 8 (James Dec.). 

26 See, e.g., PX 19 at 46:18-22 (Ex. I -Grinnan Call Transcript) ("We are required to show every cardholder a bare 

minimum savings of at least $2,000 in interest charges and guarantee that that will allow you to pay off your account 

three to five times faster than your current payment practice"); PX 12 if 6 (Coombs Dec.). 

27 PX43 (Exs. 2, 19, 28, 31) (Compton Dec.). 

6 

1 

i 

i 

i 

! 

1 

I 

1 

l 

I 

i 

f 

I 
3. Defendants Extract an Illegal Up-Front Fee 

Defendants quote an up-front fee for their rate-reduction services that ranges from $500 

and $5,000.28 To convince consumers to pay, Defendants assert that the thousands of dollars 

consumers will save with Defendants' lower interest rate will easily offset their fee. 29 

Defendants' telemarketers instruct consumers to pay one of ten Corporate Defendants whose 

function is to maintain bank accounts where such payments are deposited. 30 Defendants' 

telemarketers tell consumers that these Corporate Defendants are "processing centers."31 

Consumers who pay Defendants frequently receive an invoice by email documenting the 

up-front payment. 32 The invoices specifically note: "Your ONE time service charge has already 

been applied today per our verbal agreement."33 

4. Consumers Almost Never Receive the Promised Results 

Defendants seldom, if ever, attain the results promised to consumers. 34 In some 

instances, Defendants call consumers' credit-card issuers and request a lower interest rate.35 

28 See, e.g. PX 24 iJ 26 (Knauss Dec.) (paid $500); PX 33 iJ 27 (Schallon Dec.) (paid $5,000). 

29 See, e.g., PX 4 iJ 17 (Bishop Dec.); PX 5 iii! 9-11 & 12 (Blakely Dec.); PX 20 ii 9 (Healey Dec.); PX 22 iJ 8 (James 

Dec.). 

30 These Corporate Defendants are IVD Recovery, LLC, KWP Services, LLC, KWP Services of Florida LLC, 

LPSofFlorida L.L.C., LPSotFLA LLC, URB Management, LLC, UAD Secure Services LLC, UAD Secure Service 

ofFL LLC, YCC Solutions LLC, and YFP Solutions LLC. As detailed in Sections IIl(A)(2) and V(A), Corporate 

Defendants hold accounts at financial institutions where consumer up-front fees are deposited, use those accounts to 

pay many of the expenses of the enterprise, and ultimately deliver profits from the enterprise to Individual and 

Relief Defendants. 

31 PX 19 iJ 82 and 103:4-6 (Ex. 2) (Grinnan Dec.). 

32 PX 22 (Ex. 2) (James Dec.); PX 36 (Ex. 1) (Thomas Dec.); PX 5 (Ex. 3) (Blakely Dec.); PX 155 (Ex. 2) (Franklin 

Dec.). 

33 E.g., PX 12 at 6 (Ex. I) (Coombs Dec.); PX 22 at 7 (Ex. 2) (James Dec.); PX 36 at 6 (Ex. 1) (Thomas Dec.); PX 

155 at 7 (Ex. 2) (Franklin Dec.). 

7 

I 

I I 

l 

l 

' ! 

! 

! 

1 

l 
However, it is highly unlikely for consumers who have fixed-rate credit-cards to obtain any 

goodwill reductions from their issuers.36 Consumers with variable interest-rate credit cards in 

good standing may receive a one-to-three-percent reduction,37 if they receive anything at all, but 

even this modest interest-rate reduction is not the permanent or substantial reduction Defendants 

promised.38 

In other instances, Defendants obtain new credit cards for consumers with low 

introductory rates ("promotional rates") and help consumers transfer their credit-card debt to 

those new cards ("balance transfer"). 39 These "promotional rate" cards rarely, if ever, offer 

permanently lower interest rates, and in most cases, the interest rate on these credit cards 

increases substantially at the end of the promotional term. 40 Moreover, these rate-lowering 

tactics (calling to request a lower rate or transferring a balance to a new promotional-rate card) 

do not require any specialized expertise and are tasks consumers could easily perfonn on their 

34 See, e.g. PX 33 (Schallon Dec.); PX 20 (Healey Dec.); PX 2 & 3 (Dees. of Erika Adkins and Jason Adkins); PX 

18 (Graham Dec.); PX 15 (Franklin). Defendants' blanket guarantees are inherently fraudulent. At the time they 

make these guarantees, Defendants possess little to no information about the consumer; cf PX42 '\145 (Wilhelm 

Dec.) (Defendants would need a "basic understanding" of consumer's financial profile before they could "credibly 

promise a substantially reduced interest rate, or identify payofftimeframe."). By contrast, credit card issuers 

possess detailed credit profiles of consumers and engage in a sophisticated analysis of several factors relating to 

those profiles when evaluating interest rate reduction requests. Id. at '\l'\I 48-49. Without an understanding of these 

factors, Defendants cannot predict, much Jess guarantee, whether a creditor would agree to lower a cardholder's 

interest rate. Id. at '\I 48; see also id. '\1102 ("I can reach no other conclusions than that ... Defendants' 

representations and promises made to consumers while pitching their rate reduction services were unachievable[.]"). 

35 E.g., PX 12 '\l'\I 24-26 (Coombs Dec.). 

36 PX 42 if 49 (Wilhelm Dec.). 

37 Id. at'\[ 52. 

38 Issuers can alter interest rates on variable-rate credit cards based on changes to the Prime Rate. PX 42 '\122 

(Wilhelm Dec.). 

39 See, e.g., PX 2 (Erika Adkins Dec.); PX 12 (Coombs Dec.); PX 13 (DeMarco Dec.); and, PX 16 (Gascon Dec.). 

40 In theory, Defendants could move a consumer from one promotional card to the next indefinitely. In practice 

however, rolling debt from one promotional card to another is reflected in, and negatively impacts, the consumer's 

credit profile. Over time it becomes less likely issuers will approve the consumer's card application. PX 42 at 31 n. 

44 (Wilhelm Dec.). In any event, Plaintiffs are aware of no consumer who has obtained consecutive promotional 

rate cards through Defendants' rate-reduction scheme. 

8 

l 

i 

i 

l 

i 

~ 

I 

I 

I 

f 
own for free. 41 

In sum, despite Defendants' promises to the contrary, consumers who pay Defendants' 

up-front fees almost never obtain a permanent and substantially lower interest rate, save 

thousands of dollars in interest payments, or pay off their credit-card debts three-to-five times 

faster. 

B. The Debt-Elimination Scheme: Defendants Fraudulently Guarantee Debt 

Elimination Through a Nonexistent Government Fund Paid for By CreditCard Companies 

1. Defendants Collect Up to $20,000 and Instruct Consumers to Stop 

Paying their Credit-Card Bills 

For their debt-elimination scheme, Defendants mainly target consumers who have 

already paid the up-front fee for their purported rate-reduction services.42 Defendants' debtelimination pitch is simple, effective, and wholly deceptive. Defendants promise consumers that 

they can obtain money from a government fund that they can use to pay off consumers' creditcard balances within 18 months. 43 Defendants further claim that the government fund is paid for 

by credit-card companies that were found to be charging excessive interest rates.44 In other 

instances, Defendants target senior citizens by claiming the government has a "new program" 

which will eliminate their credit-card debt. 45 

To have their debt eliminated, Defendants claim that a consumer need only do three 

41 See, e.g., PX 5 ~ 39 (Blakely Dec.); PX 28 (Ex. 7) (Maxwell Dec.) (letter from Chase bank detailing the 

consumer's ability to settle their debt or negotiate lower interest rates on their own behalf with Chase). 

42 See, e.g. PX 2 & 3 (Dees. of Erika Adkins and Jason Adkins); PX 4 (Bishop Dec.); PX 7 (Brabson Dec.); PX 10 

(Betty Cherry Dec.); PX 18 (Graham Dec.); PX 20 (Healey Dec.); PX 21 (Henderson Dec.);PX 25 (Kubeny Dec.); 

PX 26 (Laxton Dec.); PX 36 (Thomas Dec.); PX 38 (Wiley Dec.); PX 1 IO (Dec. ofFlorence Schuldt); PX 1I1 

(White Dec.). 43 Supra note 5. 

44 See, e.g. PX 20 ~ 16 (Healey Dec.); PX 1 IO, 11 (White Dec.). 

45 PX 112 , 5 (Fraver Dec.); PX 7, 25 (Brabson Dec.). Some consumer declarants have also reported that 

Defendants describe their rate-reduction service as being designed to help senior citizens. See PX 18 ~~ 6-9 

(Graham Dec.); PX 30 ~ IO (Myre-Napieralski Dec.). 

9 

! 

I 

I 

i 

; 

i 

I 

i 

r 

! 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
things. First, the consumer must pay the Defendants an up-front fee, which can range from 

approximately $2,500 to $20,000.46 Second, the consumer must make minimum payments on 

her credit cards for a period ranging from three to six months. Third, the consumer must then 

stop paying her credit-card bills.47 

When making their debt-elimination pitch, Defendants do not tell consumers that failing 

to make timely payments to their creditors could have serious consequences, including collection 

lawsuits, higher interest rates on existing credit-card debt, and higher credit-card debt due to the 

accrual of fees and interest. Defendants also do not tell consumers that failing to pay their creditcard bills will likely reduce their creditworthiness.48 

Consumers who purchase Defendants' debt-elimination services typically receive a "New 

Client Packet" in the mail two to three months later.49 The New Client Packet documents the 

consumer's up-front payment, the date of enrollment, and amount of the consumer's unsecured 

debt to be eliminated.50 Defendants also represent in the New Client Packet that the consumer 

will receive a full refund of her purchase price if Defendants are unable to pay off the 

consumer's unsecured debt within 18 months. 51 

2. There is No Government Fund, and Consumers Suffer Serious Harm 

By Not Paying Their Credit-Card Bills 

Defendants' conduct after receiving a consumer's up-front payment is, in at least some 

instances, indistinguishable from outright theft. For example, one consumer reports that she paid 

Defendants $7,500 and did not even receive the New Client Packet before Defendants stopped 

46 See PX 7 'lJ 28 (Brabson Dec.) ($2,462) and supra note 4. 41See, e.g., PX 2 'lJ 32 (Erika Adkins Dec.). 48 See, e.g., PX 28 'l!il 21-22 (Maxwell Dec.); PX 111 iii! 33-36 (White Dec). 49 See, e.g., PX 7 if 33 (J. Brabson Dec.); PX 111if'l!43-46 (White Dec). 50 See, e.g., PX 20 at 19-20 (Ex. 4) (Healey). 

51 See, e.g., id. at 18-19, 22 (Ex. 4). 

10 

l 

! l 

I 

I 

J 

I 

l 

I 

I 

I 
returning her calls. 52 Defendants also cut off contact with consumers who continue to pay their 

credit card bills, or who refuse to sign and return a Power of Attorney form that is included in the 

New Client packet. 53 

When Defendants do take action on a consumer's behalf, the services that they provide 

are materially different from what they had promised. Defendants do not pay off consumers' 

credit-card debt by accessing a government fund because there is no such fund. Instead, in some 

circumstances, Defendants attempt to settle consumers' credit-card debt. After convincing 

consumers to execute the Power of Attorney form and stop paying their credit card bills, 

Defendants contact a consumer's creditors, hold themselves out as the consumer's agent, and try 

to negotiate a deal to pay the creditors less than the full amount of the consumer's unsecured 

debt. These efforts are rarely successful. 54 

52 PX 26 '11'1144-47 (Laxton Dec.). 

53 See, e.g., PX 16 'lf'lf 46-47 (Gascon Dec.); PX 18 ml 66-77 (Graham Dec.); PX 30 '11'1153-64 (Myre-Napieralski 

Dec.). 

54 The experience of Jason and Erika Adkins is particularly instructive. In 2014, the Adkinses purchased 

Defendants' debt-elimination services after being promised full debt elimination via a $25 billion government fund. 

The Adkinses paid UAD Secure Services $9,389 and, per Defendants' instructions, stopped paying their credit-card 

bills in late 2014. PX 3 'II 36 (Ex. 3 at 18) (sum listed on New Client Packet). The Adkinses initially received a 

number of delinquency notices, but those notices soon ceased. See id. at 'II 38 (telemarketer stated that "UAD was 

taking care of the issue."). Defendants responded to Jason Adkins's uneasiness with claims about past successes. 

Id. at'IJ 39. In April 2014, the Adkinses began receiving debt-collection notices. In one letter, the creditor claimed 

to accept less than the full amount due as "settlement in full." Id. at 'If 41 (Ex. 6). Per Defendants' instructions, the 

Adkinses faxed all correspondence to their point of contact using the provided fax number (877) 733-5445. PX 2 at 

'II 52 (faxing delinquency notices) (Ex. 6) (fax transmission receipt), 'II 55 (faxing debt-collection notice) (Ex. 8) (fax 

receipt). 

In May 2015, Defendants called Jason Adkins and asked for more money to settle his debt. When asked why 

additional funds were needed, Defendants claimed that they had been "unable to access the $25 billion fund," had 

"fired the law firm responsible for accessing the fund," and that everyone was "learning as we go." PX 3 at 'If 45. 

Defendants' telemarketer stated that if Adkins could provide a little more money, "UAD might be able to make this 

issue 'go away.'" Id. at 'If 46. Despite claiming to be in uncharted waters, Defendants' telemarketer cited past 

experience when counselling the Adkinses to "hold tight," stating "after 15-18 months, most creditors are willing to 

take pennies on the dollar. Citibank, especially, was often willing to walk away for nothing." Id. at '114 7. Mr. 

Adkins refused to provide additional money. Shortly thereafter, Jason Adkins was sued by a creditor for nonpayment; Erika Adkins was sued for the same reason a month later. PX 2 'IJ 59 (Ex. 11) (complaint) (Erika Adkins 

Dec.); PX 3 'If 50 (Ex. 7) (complaint) (Jason Adkins Dec.). 

11 
Regardless of what happens to their credit-card debt, consumers suffer serious harm by 

following Defendants' instructions to stop paying their credit card bills.55 Consumers fall further 

behind on their bills, end up paying higher interest rates on existing debt, and have reduced credit 

scores and higher overall credit-card debt due to late fees. 56 

Consumers can also face lawsuits from creditors. 57 When consumers are sued, 

Defendants send consumers generic, boilerplate pleadings that are not personalized to 

consumers' circumstances or jurisdiction, and instruct consumers to file these documents pro se. 

These filings contain false allegations, such as claims that there is a "billing error dispute."58 As 

a result, non-lawyer consumers using Defendants' documents often end up filing false statements 

with a court. 59 In the end, these consumers are left deeper in debt, worse off financially, and 

some have even had to file for bankruptcy.60 

C. Defendants Instruct Consumers to Pay the Up-Front Fees Using Credit-Card 

Cash Advances 

Since at least March 2014, Defendants have been urging consumers to pay the up-front 

fees by taking a cash advance on their credit cards, and instructing them to send the proceeds to 

When the Adkinses contacted Defendants, Defendants again asked for money, repeatedly using the phrase "learning 

as we go." PX 3 ifif 52-53. Eventually, Defendants provided the Adkinses with a document styled as an "Answer" 

and instructed them to file it prose. Citing "verbiage from the FTC website," the Answer alleges that a creditor's 

failure to respond in a timely fashion to a "billing error dispute" notification cancelled the creditor's right to collect 

the unsecured debt, "'even if the bill is correct." PX 2 at 63 (Ex. 13). 

Jason Adkins filed the Answer, which the Court accepted despite its failure to "comply with the rules of the court." 

PX 3 at 62 (Ex. 10) (Journal Entry, Judge Eddy); see also id. at if 58. The Adkinses declared bankruptcy shortly 

thereafter. PX 3 if 59. 55 See, e.g., PX 2 & 3 (Dees. of Erika Adkins and Jason Adkins) (filed bankruptcy); PX 20 mi 20 & 49 (credit score 

reduced from 730 to 579), if 43 (issuer canceled credit card and hired debt collector), if 46 (issuer reduced credit 

limit) (Healey Dec.). 

56 Id. 

57 See supra note 54; see also PX 112 mi 38-42 & 49 (Exs. 7, 8 & 10) (Fraver Dec.). 

58 PX 2 at 63 (Ex. 13) (Erika Adkins Dec.); see also supra note 54. 59 See supra note 54. 

60 Id. 

12 

l 

I 

l 

I 

I 

I 
Defendants by personal check, cashier's check, or money order. 61 Alternatively, Defendants ask 

consumers to send a credit-card convenience check made payable to one of the Corporate 

Defendants.62 Defendants instruct consumers to send their payments by mail or courier to Post 

Office boxes and UPS stores in the Orlando, Florida area. 63 

By accepting cash advances, Defendants avoid having to maintain an active a credit-cardprocessing merchant account, which payment processors are required to monitor for fraud. 64 As 

a result, consumers are deprived of their credit-card chargeback rights under federal law. 65 

Defendants also do not inform consumers that credit-card issuers often charge a fee for cashadvance transactions, and may charge a higher interest rate on this type of credit-card debt. 66 

D. Defendants' Abusive Telemarketing Practices 

As noted above, Defendants initially contact potential victims by using robocalls. 

Indeed, two telephone numbers associated with Defendants have generated more than 7,500 

robocall consumer complaints.67 Defendants have also called numbers on the National Do Not 

Call Registry; in fact, Defendants have never even paid the annual fee to access the National Do 

Not Call Registry. 68 

61 See, e.g., PX 15 (Gannon Dec.), PX 18 (Graham Dec.), PX 30 (Myre-Napieralski Dec.). 62 See, e.g., PX 110 'II 7 (Schuldt Dec.). Convenience checks, also called credit-card checks, can be used to take a 

cash advance on a credit card. Credit-card issuers often send consumers these checks along with routine 

correspondence, such as consumers' credit-card statements. 63 See, e.g., PX 19 ili! 50, 64-67 (Grinnan Dec.); PX 38 '11'1124 & 26 (Wiley Dec.); PX 44 ml 15-16 (Kleier Dec.); PX 

48 'II 23 (Ex. 4) (Caplan Dec.). 

64 PX42 'II 89 (Wilhelm Dec.). 

65 See Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., and Regulation Z, 12 CFR § 226, et seq. 66 PX42 'II 35 (Wilhelm Dec.). 

67 See PX 46 '!I'll 40 & 41 (Tyndall Dec.). 68 PX 46 iJ 56-57 (Tyndall Dec.). 

13 

I ! 

l 

l 

I 

' I 

l 

I l 
E. Consumer Harm 

Defendants have grossed well over $15.6 million since January 2013 .

69 During the same 

period, at least 2,800 consumers have paid Defendants through credit-card convenience checks, 

personal checks, ACH transfers, money orders, and cashier's checks, several of which are for 

more than $10,000.70 And consumers who pay these amounts, particularly for Defendants' debtelimination services, often see their credit ruined in exchange for the exorbitant and illegal upfront fees Defendants collect. For example, two consumers who submitted declarations in 

support of Plaintiffs' motion describe having paid Defendants $22,000 and $17, 199 respectively, 

only to face collection actions. 71 

This consumer harm is exacerbated by the fact that Defendants typically do not refund 

consumers' up-front payments. 72 In some instances, Defendants have intimidated consumers 

who hesitated or refused to pay the illegal up-front fee after verbally agreeing to do so. 73 

III. DEFENDANTS 

Defendants are a common enterprise of thirteen companies controlled by a cohort of five 

individuals who own, operate, and manage the Corporate Defendants. Defendants transact 

business through a maze of interrelated companies that share bank accounts, 74 office space, 75 and 

69 PX 45 iii I (George Dec.). As detailed in footnote 2, this likely understates the total consumer harm. 

70 Between January 2013 and June 2015, at least 102 consumers paid Defendants more than $10,000. See PX 45 ~ 

13 (George Dec.) (limiting analysis to where payor can definitively be identified). 

71 PX 31 (Pompati Dec.); PX 20 (Healey Dec.). 

72 See, e.g., PX 2 & 3 (Jason and Erika Adkins Dees.); PX 7 (Brabson Dec.); PX 18 (Graham Dec.); PX 27 (Lohr 

Dec.). Defendants promised at least one consumer a partial refund, but only if the consumer abandoned her 

complaint with the State of Florida. See Maxwell Dec, ii 23, Ex. 6 (emails from Celina Young with UAD, sent to 

Hannah Maxwell). 

73 See, e.g., PX 25 (Kubeny Dec.); PX 111 (White Dec.). 

74 PX 45 at 16 (George Dec.) (Att. C) (detailing payments from one consumer to two or more Corporate 

Defendants); see also PX 46 ~ 97 (Tyndall Dec.) (checks payable to IVD Recovery deposited in Loyal Financial 

bank account), PX 94 (checks); PX 46 'II 98 (Tyndall Dec.) (UAD Secure Services checks deposited in LPS bank 

account); PX 99 (checks); PX 46 if 99 (UAD Secure Services checks deposited in URB Management bank 

account); PX 95 (checks); PX 46 ii 100 (Tyndall Dec.) (URB Management checks deposited in Loyal Financial 

bank account), PX 96 (checks). 

14 

~ I 

I 

i 

~ ! 

I 

l 

! 

I 

I 

l 

I 
telephone numbers. 76 Defendants are financially integrated, sharing assets and liabilities. For 

example, major expenses like payroll, 77 rent, 78 and telephone service79 that benefit the enterprise 

are often billed to one Corporate Defendant but paid by another Defendant.80 Revenue, in the 

form of consumer payments, is commingled among the Corporate Defendants, 81 and often 

reaches the Individual Defendants only after it has been funneled through numerous Corporate 

Defendants. 82 In addition, two Relief Defendants have received funds or other assets that are 

traceable to the fraudulent scheme, and to which they appear to have no legitimate claim.83 The 

table below groups Defendants by their status. 

75 As discussed in the declaration of Florida Investigator Jacquelyn Randolph, with the exception of Loyal Financial, 

IVD Recovery, and Life Management Services, the remaining Defendants listed residences and a UPS Store as their 

principal business addresses in filings with the Florida Secretary of State. See PX 47 'lfil 23-24 (Randolph Dec.); see 

also PX 44 ii 9 (Kleier Dec.). Corporate Defendants Loyal Financial and IVD Recovery, both of which have been 

administratively dissolved, had offices in the same building on Lake Underhill Road. See PX 47 ii 26 (Randolph 

Dec.). Corporate Defendant Life Management Services has its offices at 12001 Science Drive, Suites 125 & 180, 

Orlando, FL 32826. See PX 47 i!i! 46-55 (Randolph Dec.); PX 102. 

76 Consumers who have dealt with Corporate Defendants LPS, KWP, and YCC all report having received telephone 

calls from (361) 271-4848. See, e.g. PX 7 'If 41 (Brabson Dec.); PX 34i! 7 (Schley Dec.); PX Ill ii 41 (White Dec.). 

Orlando Police Detective Gary Kleier and FTC Investigator Reeve Tyndall similarly report having received calls 

from that number during their dealings with Defendants. See PX 44 ii 14 (Kleier Dec.); PX 46 'If 10 (Tyndall Dec.). 

77 PX 98 (BB&T wire transfers); PX 103 (SunTrust wire transfers); PX 114 (payroll checks); PX 46 'lf'lf 90, 95 & 96 

(Tyndall Dec.) (LPSofFlorida paid KWP Services' payroll in May of2015; LPSOFFLORIDA paid Life 

Management Services' payroll in July and August of2015; and, KWP Services paid Life Management Services' 

payroll in July of2015.). 

78 PX 46 ii 91 (Tyndall Dec.) (KWP Services paid Life Management Services' 12001 Science Drive rent from June 

2014 - February 2016); PX 102 (copies ofrelated checks). 

79 As discussed in greater detail at footnotes 118 and l 31, infra, a Grasshopper Group account in URB 

Management's name lists telephone numbers that consumer declarations have tied to Corporate Defendants URB 

Management and UAD Secure Services, and has had a credit card in the name ofKWP Services, LLC's manager, 

Karen Wahl, attached to the account, and a single Freedom Voice Systems account lists telephone numbers that 

consumer declarations and complaints have tied to KWP Services, LPS, YCC Solutions, and YFP Solutions. The 

same credit card held by Individual Defendant Harry Wahl, the manager of Corporate Defendant Life Management 

Services, is attached to the j2 Cloud Services accounts in the names ofUAD Secure Services, LPS, and KWP 

Services. See PX 46 iii! 81-84 (Tyndall Dec.). In addition, KWP Services paid URB Management's Grasshopper 

telephone bill from July 2014 - June 2015; Life Management Services paid the same URB Management 

Grasshopper telephone bill from September 2015 - January 2016. PX 86 at 3; PX 87 at 3; PX 88 at 3. 

80 Supra notes 77- 79. 

81 See PX 45 ii 25-39 (George Dec.) (detailing $8.8 million in transfers between Corporate Defendants). 

82 See PX 45 ii~ 40-50 and (Attach. D flow chart) (George Dec.) (tracing $1.6 million in consumer payments 

deposited in an LPS bank account to $890,000 in wire transfers to personal account of Individual Defendant Kevin 

Guice, including $755,000 via Corporate Defendant PW&F) . 

83 See id. (same funds tracked to check payments of$127,000 to Robert Guice and $84,000 to Timothy Woods from 

Kevin Guice's personal account). 

15 

I I 

! 

I 

i 

l 

I 

l 

I 
Table of Defendants by Category 

Primary Defendants Relief Defendants 

Telemarketer Corporate Shell Corporate 

• Life Management Services • IVD Recovery, LLC • Robert Guice 

of Orange County, LLC • KWP Services, LLC • Timothy Woods 

• Loyal Financial & Credit • KWP Services of Florida, LLC 

Services, LLC 

• LPSofFLA LLC 

Individual • LPSofFlorida L.L.C. 

•Kevin W. Guice • PW&F Consultants of Florida 

LLC 

•Chase P. Jackowski 

• UAD Secure Service of FL 

• Linda N. McNealy LLC 

• Clarence H. Wahl, a/k/a • UAD Secure Services LLC 

Harry C. Wahl 

• URB Management, LLC 

• Karen M. Wahl 

• YCC Solutions LLC 

• YFP Solutions LLC 

A. The Corporate Defendants 

Since January 2013, two Corporate Defendants, have held commercial telephone seller 

business licenses ("telemarketing licenses") issued by the Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services ("FD ACS"), housed the call centers, and employed the telemarketers who 

sell Defendants' bogus debt-relief services ("Telemarketer Corporate Defendants"). The other 

eleven Corporate Defendants have no known employees and appear to operate out of 

16 

I 

I 

l 

I 

I 

I 
Defendants' call center ("Shell CoriJorate Defendants"). 84 Defendants have opened more than 

two dozen bank accounts in the name of Shell Corporate Defendants, 85 and use these accounts to 

deposit consumers' up-front fees and pay business expenses. In addition, the Shell Defendants 

facilitate the movement of money among the entities in the common enterprise and distribute the 

profits of the enterprise to the Individual and Relief Defendants. 

1. Telemarketer Corporate Defendants 

Defendant Life Management Services of Orange County, LLC ("Life Management 

Services") is a Florida company with its principal place of business at 12001 Science Drive, 

Suites 125, 180 in Orlando, Florida. 86 This company has been the hub of Defendants' scheme 

since 2014, when Defendants moved their call center to the Science Drive location. Individual 

Defendant Harry Wahl was named as the company's manager in August 2014.87 Life 

Management Services has held a telemarketing license since April 2014, and renewed its license 

in April 2016.88 The company employs telemarketers pitching rate-reduction and debtelimination services, 89 and a telephone number used by the company has been the subject of at 

least 6,500 consumer complaints.90 An FTC investigator later recorded calls from this number 

and captured portions of Defendants' deceptive rate-reduction pitch.91 

84 See supra notes 9 & 75. 

85 PX 45 at 13 (Att. C) (George Dec.). 

86 PX 47 ~ 10 (Ex. I) (Randolph Dec.). 

87 Id. 

88 PX 43 ~~ 57-59 (Compton Dec.). 

89 PX 43 (Exs. 19 & 28) (Compton Dec.); see also PX 47 ~~ 46-55 (Randolph Dec.) (during April 2016 undercover 

site visit to call center at 12001 Science Drive, investigator told that the hiring company does rate-reduction 

services; overheard telemarketer discussing debt-elimination). 

90 See PX 11~~3 & 11 (Dec. of Colin Cherry); PX 46 ~ 40 (Tyndall Dec.). 91 PX46 ~~ 11-36 (Tyndall Dec.). 

17 

! 

1 

l 

I 

I 

I 

I 
Defendant Loyal Financial & Credit Services, LLC ("Loyal Financial"), 92 is a former 

Florida company with its principal place of business at 11549 Lake Underhill Road, in Orlando, 

Florida.93 Loyal Financial was fonned in 201 I by Individual Defendant Kevin Guice, and was 

the predecessor to Life Management Services.94 Until at least February 2014, Defendants' call 

center was located at 11549 Lake Underhill Road, and Loyal Financial employed telemarketers 

pitching rate-reduction and debt-elimination services. 95 In February 2013, FDACS sanctioned 

Loyal Financial and Mr. Guice for unlawful telemarketing practices. 96 Loyal Financial' s 

telemarketing license expired in May 2014, less than two weeks after Life Management Service 

obtained its telemarketing license.97 At or about the same time, 42 telemarketers left their 

employment with Loyal Financial and began working with Life Management Services at 12001 

Science Drive. 98 

2. Shell Corporate Defendants 

Defendant IVD Recovery, LLC ("IVD Recovery") is a former Florida company with its 

principal place of business at 11561 Lake Underhill Road, Suite A, Orlando, Florida 32825.99 

While active, IVD Recovery and Loyal Financial were located in the same building, 100 and bank 

records show more than $1.8 million in transfers from IVD Recovery to Loyal Financial. rn1 Bank 

records also demonstrate that Individual Defendant Harry Wahl controlled IVD Recovery. 

92 Loyal Financial also did business under the names FOC Credit and Reward Services. PX 47 'II 11 (Ex. 2) 

(Randolph Dec.). 

93 Id. 

94 Id. 

95 PX 43 '11'1116-28 (Exs. 1-4) & 34-40 (Compton Dec.). 

96 Id. at '11'1129-33 (Ex. 5-7). 97 Id. at 'II 57. 

98 Id. at '11'11 54-56 (Ex. 27). 99 PX 47 'II 12 (Ex. 3) (Randolph Dec.). 

100 Id. at 'If 26. 

101 PX 45 ii 26 (George Dec.). 

18 

i 

i 

l 

I 

! 

I 

f 

I 

l 

i 
Mr. Wahl is listed as a co-signer on an IVD Recovery checking account at Bank of America, 

signed all issued checks, 102 and statements for the account were mailed to his home address. w3 

Defendant KWP Services, LLC, is a Florida company formed in 2014 by Individual 

Defendant Karen Wahl. KWP Services of Florida LLC is a Florida company formed in 2015 

by Individual Defendant Harry Wahl. 104 KWP Services has issued payroll checks to 

Defendants' telemarketers and paid rent for the call center located at 12001 Science Drive. 105 

KWP Services has received monies traceable to Defendants' scheme, and has accepted more 

than $2 million in transfers from Corporate Defendants LPS, UAD Secure Services, and 

PW&F. 106 KWP Services has issued payments to Individual Defendants Linda McNealy and 

Kevin Guice, and Relief Defendants Timothy Woods and Robert Guice. 107 

Defendant LPSofFlorida L.L.C. is a Florida company founded in 2015. 108 Defendant 

LPSofFLA LLC was a Florida company founded in 2014 and dissolved in September 2015. 109 

Both entities were formed by Individual Defendant Chase Jackowski. 110 LPS has paid 

expenses of the common enterprise, including wires to Life Management Services for 

102 PX 47 'lJ'll 42 & 44 (Ex. 20) (Randolph Dec.). Harry Wahl also registered the domain YourIVDRecovery.com 

with GoDaddy.com in 2013. See PX 46 'lJ 86 (Tyndall Dec); PX 91. 103 PX 47 'lJ 43 (Ex.21) (Randolph Dec.). 

104 Unless specifically noted, we refer to the two entities collectively as "KWP Services." 

105 PX 46 'lJ 91 (Tyndall Dec.); PX 102 (checks). 

106 PX45 'lJ'lJ 30-32 (George Dec.). 

107 Id. at 'lJ'lJ 15-18. 

108 PX 47 'lJ 16 (Ex. 7) (Randolph Dec.). 109 Id. at 'lJ 15 (Ex.6). Unless specifically noted, we refer to the two entities collectively as "LPS." 110 Id. at'lJ'lJ 15-16. (Ex. 6-7). 

19 

I 

J 

I 

f 

l 
"payroll. " 111 Plaintiffs have traced at least $1.6 million in consumer payments deposited in a 

single LPS bank account to distributions made to each Individual and ReliefDefendant. 112 

Defendant PW &F Consultants of Florida LLC ("PW &F") is a former Florida 

company113 that appears to have existed solely to facilitate money transfers among the Corporate 

Defendants and distribute funds to Individual and Relief Defendants. PW &F has wired funds to 

KWP Services (more than $1 million) and Life Management Services ($43,000), and received 

wire transfers from UAD Secure Services (more than $600,000) and LPS (more than $2.2 

million). 114 Plaintiffs have traced money transfers involving LPS, KWP Services, and PW &F to 

distributions made to Individual Defendants Kevin Guice, Linda McNealy, Harry Wahl, 

Karen Wahl, and Relief Defendants Timothy Woods and Robert Guice. 115 

Defendant URB Management, LLC, is a former Florida company that has issued payroll 

checks to Defendants' telemarketers and paid other expenses of Defendants' enterprise. 116 URB 

Management has received millions of dollars in consumer payments traceable to Defendants' 

fraud, and made direct payments to Individual Defendant Kevin Guice of almost $1.5 

million. 117 Even after its dissolution, URB Management remained listed as the subscriber on an 

111 PX46 ii 98;see also PX 98 at2-7. 

112 Between November 2014 and March 2015, an LPS bank account received more than $1.64 million from 

consumers. Direct payments from this account, and money flows from this account through PW&F, LPS and KWP 

Services, and the personal account of Kevin Guice show distributions to Kevin Guice ($679,000), Chase Jackowski 

($155,576), Harry and Karen Wahl ($82,167), Linda McNealy ($41,750), Robert Guice ($127,000), and Timothy 

Woods ($84,000). See PX 45 iii! 40-50 (George Dec.) (Attach. D money flow diagram). 

113 PX 47, 17 (Ex. 8) (Randolph Dec.). 

114 PX45 ii~ 25-39 (George Dec.). 115 See supra note 112. 116 PX 46, 90 (Tyndall Dec.); PX 114 (summarizing payments from Corporate Defendants to Defendants' 

telemarketer employees); PX 47 ~ 20 (Ex. 11) (Randolph Dec.). 117 PX 45, 15 (41 transfers, $1.498 million) (George Dec). 

20 

t 

I 

I 

t 

I 

I 

! I 

I 

f 

I 
account for telephone numbers used in Defendants' enterprise. 118 An FTC investigator recorded 

an undercover call that he placed to one of the telephone numbers associated with this account, 

during which the call-recipient acknowledged that her employer sells rate-reduction services and 

has used the name "URB Management" and several other "merchant accounts." 119 

Defendants UAD Secure Services LLC and UAD Secure Service of FL LLC are 

Florida companies organized in 2013 and 2014 respectively. 120 UAD Secure Services has paid 

expenses related to Defendants' scheme and is listed as the account holder for a Post Office box 

where consumers' up-front payments are sent. 121 UAD Secure Services is also linked to the 

common enterprise through consumer declarations, 122 intercompany transfers, 123 and the 

commingling of funds with Corporate Defendants, including Loyal Financial. 124 UAD Secure 

Services has additionally made direct payments to Individual Defendant Kevin Guice of more 

118 Grasshopper Group LLC has provided toll-free telephone service to the Life Management Defendants. The Life 

Management Defendants' Grasshopper Group account is in URB Management's name, and since July 2014, Karen 

Wahl's credit card has been attached to the account. See PX 84 at 1-2. Telephone numbers on the account have 

included (866) 960-9368 and (866) 685-5195. See PX 85 at 1-2. Consumer declarations link these telephone 

numbers to URB Management and UAD Secure Services. See, e.g., PX 17 at 6 (Ex. 1) (Dec. of Dianne Goldsmith); 

PX 31 at 11 & 19 (Exs. 4 & 6) (Pompati Dec.). 

119 PX 46 if 4-9 (Tyndall Dec.). 

120 PX 47 ifif 18-19 (Exs. 9-10) (Randolph Dec.). Unless specifically noted, we refer to the two entities collectively 

as "UAD Secure Services." 

121 PX 46 iii! 63 & 94 (Tyndall Dec.) (UAD purchased $20,000 football tickets for Individual Defendant Kevin 

Guice); PX 98; PX 45 iii! 15, 30, 34 & 39 (George Dec.) (UAD paid Individual Defendant Kevin Guice $555,000 

in 11 separate transactions; UAD paid KWP Services $1,076,500 between June and November 2014; UAD paid 

PW&F $654,024 between August and November 2014; and, UAD paid Life Management Services $8,000 in April 

2015). 

122 PX 2 (Erika Adkins Dec.); PX 3 (Jason Adkins Dec.); PX 15 (Gannon Dec.); PX 18 (Graham Dec.); PX 23 

(Jorolemon Dec.); PX 28 (Maxwell Dec.); PX 31 (Pompati Dec.); PX 38 (Wiley Dec.). 

123 UAD Secure Services has transferred more than $1 million to KWP Services and more tl1an $600,000 to PW&F. 

PX 45 'l] 25-39. (George Dec.). 

124 Consumers who had made payments to UAD Secure Services have also paid Loyal Financial, URB Management, 

LPS, and KWP Services. PX 45 (Att. C) (George Dec.). 

21 

I 

l 

I 

l 

I 

I 
than $500,000125 and, in September 2015, a UAD Secure Services account purchased football 

tickets for Kevin Guice at a cost of $20,000. 126 

Defendant YCC Solutions LLC ("YCC Solutions") is a Florida company founded in 

August 2015. 127 YCC Solutions has wired funds to Life Management Services, which in tum has 

paid expenses of the joint enterprise. 128 YCC Solutions additionally accepts consumer payments 

for debt-relief services, 129 and issues consumers invoices and New Client Packets that are nearly 

identical to those received by consumers who paid LPS, KWP Services, UAD Secure Services, 

and URB Management. 130 YCC Solutions' contact telephone number is one of five numbers 

listed on an account paid for by Individual Defendant Karen Wahl; the other telephone 

numbers are linked to YFP Solutions, LPS, and KWP Services. 131 

Defendant YFP Solutions LLC ("YFP Solutions") is a Florida company founded in 

August 2015 by Individual Defendant Chase Jackowski. 132 YFP Solutions accepts consumer 

payments for debt-relief services, 133 including consumer payments referring to "Lea Brownell" 

and "Angie Morales." 134 FDACS records show that telemarketers named Lea Brownell and 

Angivette Morales have been employed by Life Management Services since May 2014, and were 

125 PX 46 iJ 15. (George Dec.). 126 PX 98. 

127 PX 47 iJ 21 (Ex. 12) (Randolph Dec.). 

128 PX 101 (January 2016 bank statement Life Management Services account showing incoming wire from YCC 

Solutions on January 19, and outgoing payments to j2 EFAX Services on the same day). 129 PX 8 (Dec. of Mitchell Brown); PX 12 (Coombs Dec.); PX 111 (White Dec.). 

130 PX 48 iii! 21, 23 (Exs. 2, 14) (Caplan Dec.). 

131 Freedom Voice Systems has provided toll-free telephone service to Defendants. Karen Wahl's credit card is on 

file for Defendants' Freedom Voice account, which has five telephone numbers. See PX 92 at 2. Consumer 

declarations and complaints link four of the five numbers- (866) 351-0009, (888) 687-3305, (800) 372-0145, and 

(800) 857-2964- to KWP Services, LPS, YCC Solutions, and YFP Solutions. See, e.g., PX 34 at 7 (Ex. I) (Schley 

Dec.); PX 37 at 5 (Ex. 1) (Wedemeyer Dec.); PX 111iJ18 (White Dec.); PX 46 iJ 49 (Tyndall Dec.). 

132 PX 47 iJ 22 (Ex. 13) (Randolph Dec.). 

133 January 2016 consumer payments to YFP Solutions contain hand-written such as "rate reduction freedom C," and 

"cc reduction." PX 100. 134 Id. at 3-5. 

22 
previously employed by Loyal Financial. 135 Lea Brownell has received payroll checks from 

Loyal Financial (signed by Individual Defendant Kevin Guice), URB Management, KWP 

Services (signed by Individual Defendant Harry Wahl) and Life Management Services. 136 Ms. 

Brownell is linked by consumer declaration to Defendants' marketing of debt-elimination 

services. 137 

B. Individual Defendants 

Each Individual Defendant has owned, operated, or managed one or more of the 

Corporate Defendants, and each shares proceeds from Defendants' debt-relief scheme. 

Defendant Kevin W. Guice is the principal beneficiary of the enterprise, having received 

more than $5 million in proceeds between January 2013 and May 2015. 138 Mr. Guice was the 

managing member of Corporate Defendant Loyal Financial until its dissolution in 2014, and 

has been identified by a former employee as its owner. 139 Mr. Guice has signed checks to 

Defendants' telemarketers and opened bank accounts that have received several million dollars 

in proceeds from Defendants' fraud. 140 Mr. Guice continues to be involved in Defendants' 

scheme, 141 and has received payments from Corporate Defendants PW &F, KWP Services, 

and LPS long after Loyal Financial's dissolution. 142 Mr. Guice has used these payments to fund 

a lavish lifestyle that includes a yacht, a collection ofluxury watches, and travel throughout the 

135 PX 43 '1J 56 (Ex. 27) (Compton Dec.). 

136 PX 97. 137 PX 4 '1J'1J 27-30 (Bishop Dec.), PX 111 ~ 25-28 (White Dec.). 138 PX 45 '1J 15. Mr. Guice has used some of these funds to issue payments to Relief Defendants Robert Guice and 

Timothy Woods. 139 PX 47 '1J 11 (Ex. 2) (Randolph Dec.); PX 43 '1J 29 (Ex. 5) (Compton Dec.). 140 PX 47 '11'1127-28 (Ex. 14) (Randolph Dec). 141 Kevin Guice provided funds to Chase Jackowski, who has opened at least I 0 bank accounts in the name of LPS 

and YFP Solutions. PX 47 '1J 45 (Ex. 22) (Randolph Dec.). 142 PX 47 '1J 28 (Randolph Dec.). 

23 

l 

I 

I 

I 

I 

f 
United States and abroad. 143 Furthermore, Defendant Kevin Guice has been cited for employing 

unlicensed telemarketers and using unapproved scripts, and was arrested for violations related to 

unlicensed telemarketing. 144 

Defendant Chase P. Jackowski is the sole manager of Corporate Defendants YFP 

Solutions, 145 LPSofFlorida L.L.C., 146 and LPSofFLA LLC. 147 Mr. Jackowski has withdrawn at 

least $230,000 from LPS's bank accounts between August 2014 and May 2015. 148 

Defendant Linda N. McNealy was the sole manager of Corporate Defendant Loyal 

Financial from May 2013 onwards, and played an active role in overseeing the Loyal Financial 

call center at 11549 Lake Underhill Road. 149 Since at least May 2014, Ms. McNealyhas 

managed the Life Management Services call center located at 12001 Science Drive. 150 Ms. 

McNealy has received at least $375,000 traceable to Defendants' scheme since 2013, including 

distributions from Corporate Defendants Loyal Financial, URB Management, KWP 

Services, and Life Management Services. 151 

143 PX 47 if'l! 33-39 (Randolph Dec.). In June 2014, Kevin Guice's personal CFE Account wired $162,325 to a 

business selling new and used luxury yachts. In February 2015, Kevin Guice made a $20,600 purchase at Hublot 

Boutique, a luxury watch brand. PX 48 'lJ 34 (Ex. 9) (Caplan Dec.). 

144 On February 28, 2013, FDACS investigations into Loyal Financial and Kevin Guice revealed Loyal Financial 

was employing or affiliated with unlicensed salespersons, and that Kevin Guice and Loyal Financial failed to 

provide revised scripts or other sales documents to the FDACS as required. Loyal Financial and Kevin Guice were 

cited for these telemarketing violations, and as part of the Settlement Agreement with the FDACS, Kevin Guice 

specifically agreed that both he and his representatives, agents, and employees would abide by Florida's 

Telemarketing Act in the future. At the same time, Kevin Guice was managing another telemarketing business 

named Community Economic Council ("CEC"). CEC was operating in an adjacent suite to Loyal. That same day, 

Kevin Guice was arrested for violations related to unlicensed telemarketing activity. PX 43 ~'l/ 29-33 (Ex. 5) 

(Compton Dec.) 

145 PX 47 ~ 22 (Ex. 13) (Randolph Dec.). 

146 PX 47 ~ 16 (Ex. 7) (Randolph Dec.). 

147 PX 47 ~ 15 (Ex. 6) (Randolph Dec.). 148 PX 45 ~ 21 (George Dec.). 

149 PX 43 ~ 38 & 95 (Ex. 12) (Compton Dec.); PX 47 ~ 11 (Ex. 2) (Randolph Dec.). 150 This is further illustrated by Ms. McNealy's $3,500 a week salary (far higher than other telemarketers), and by 

publicly available Facebook posts showing Ms. McNealy to be in regular contact with employees, providing advice, 

encouragement, and assistance. PX 45 'lJ 16; PX 48 ~ 34 (Ex. 10) (Caplan Dec.). 151 PX 45 'l! 16. (George Dec.). 

24 

' ! 

l 

I 

l ! 

I I 

I 

i 

I 

I 
Defendant Clarence H. ("Harry") Wahl 152 is the Registered Agent and sole manager of 

Corporate Defendants Life Management Services and KWP Services of Florida LLC,153 and 

was a signatory on a bank account opened by IVD Recovery on January 31, 2013 .

154 Mr. Wahl 

issues payroll checks to Defendants' telemarketers, 155 handles consumer complaints, and has 

claimed ownership of KWP Services. 156 Mr. Wahl has been previously sanctioned for unlawful 

telemarketing in connection with the activities of another entity. 157 

Defendant Karen M. Wahl 158 is the sole listed manager of KWP Services, LLC, 159 and 

the signatory on KWP Services bank accounts that have been used to pay expenses related to 

Defendants' scheme. 160 Ms. Wahl's credit card is on file for two telephone accounts used by the 

joint enterprise. 161 In April 2015, Ms. Wahl filed a telemarketing license application on behalf of 

152 Mr. Wahl is identified in some corporate filings and bank records as Harry Wahl or Harry C. Wahl, but his 

Florida driver's license and Life Management Services' FDACS filings identify him as Clarence H. Wahl. 

153 PX 47 iMJ IO & 14 (Exs. 1 & 5) (Randolph Dec.). 

154 PX 47 ~ 42 (Ex. 20) (Randolph Dec.). 155 See, e.g., PX 97 at 3-4 (payroll checks from KWP Services and Life Management Services signed by Harry 

Wahl). 

156 In August of20I5, Mr. Wahl responded to a call from an Orlando Police Department Economic Crimes 

Detective, Gary Kleier, who was investigating a consumer complaint related to KWP Services. During conversations 

with Detective Kleier, Harry Wahl implied that he owned KWP Services, and assured Detective Kleier that he 

would rectify any issues with the business, including obtaining a refund for the complaining consumer. PX 44 ~~ 

11-12 (Ex. 3) (Kleier Dec.). 

157 In September of2009, another of Harry Wahl's telemarketing businesses, H&K Financial Marketing, LLC d/b/a 

H&K Marketing (collectively referred to as "H&K"), was the subject of an investigation conducted by the FDACS. 

At the conclusion of this investigation, it was determined that Harry Wahl and H&K were in violation of Florida 

Statutes for employing or being affiliated with unlicensed telemarketing activity. Harry Wahl settled these 

allegations with the FDACS by paying a $9,000 fine and an agreement that both he and his representatives, agents, 

and employees would abide by Florida's Telemarketing Act in the future. PX 43 ~ 106 (Ex. 62). 

158 Ms. Wahl has been married to Individual Defendant Harry Wahl since 2002. PX 48 ~ 36 (Ex. 11). 

159 PX 47 ~ 13 (Ex. 4) (Randolph Dec.). 

160 PX 46 ~~ 91-96 (Exs. 102, 98 & 103) {Tyndall Dec.) (KWP Services paid Life Management Services' 12001 

Science Drive rent from June 2014 - February 2016; KWP Services paid URB Management's Grasshopper 

telephone bill from July 2014 - June 2015; and, KWP Services paid Life Management Services' payroll in July of 

2015.). 

161 The first is in the name of Corporate Defendant URB Management (and is also linked to UAD Secure Services), 

and the second includes numbers that have been linked to Corporate Defendants KWP, LPS, YFP Solutions, and 

YCC Solutions. See supra notes 118 & 131. 

25 

i 

I 

I 

' I 

! 

I 

f I 
KWP Services that lists the company's physical address as 12001 Science Drive, Suite 125. 162 

The application also included scripts that are identical to those previously submitted by 

Corporate Defendant Loyal Financial (April 2012) and Life Management Services (March 

2014). 163 

C. Relief Defendants 

Since 2013, relief Defendant Robert Guice 164 has received at least $666,000 traceable to 

Defendants' scheme - $340,000 from three Corporate Defendants 165 and $326,000 from a single 

personal account belonging to Individual Defendant Kevin Guice. 166 Plaintiffs have found no 

evidence suggesting that Robert Guice did any legitimate work for the Corporate or Individual 

Defendants. 167 In addition to the funds he has received from Defendants, Robert Guice may have 

access to other funds traceable to Defendants' enterprise in in his personal account(s), via Kevin 

Guice, or through some other corporate entity. 

Since 2013, relief Defendant Timothy Woods 168 has received at least $821,250 traceable 

to Defendants' scheme - $597,250 from three Corporate Defendants, 169 and $224,000 from a 

single personal account belonging to Individual Defendant Kevin Guice. 170 Plaintiffs have 

found no evidence suggesting that Timothy Woods did any legitimate work for the Corporate or 

162 PX 43 'II 60 (Compton Dec.). 163 PX 43 '11'1116-25 (Exs. 2, 19, 28, 31) (Compton Dec.). Life Management Services submitted the same scripts in its 

March 2016 renewal application. Id. 

164 Robert Guice shares a last name with two Individual Defendants - Kevin Guice and Linda McNealy, whose 

2011 marriage license lists her maiden name as Guice. The same license identifies Robert Guice as having 

perfonned Ms. McNealy's marriage ceremony. PX 48 'II 36 (Ex. 13) (Caplan Dec.). 

165 Loyal Financial, KWP Services, and URB Management. PX 45 'II 18 (George Dec.). 

166 PX 47 'II 29 (Randolph Dec.). 

167 PX 47 ii 3l(Ex. 15) (Randolph Dec.); PX 46 'II 107 (Tyndall Dec). 

168 Individual Defendant Kevin Guice is married to Shannon Woods Guice, fonnerly known as Shannon Louise 

Woods. See PX 48 ii 36 (Ex. 12) (Caplan Dec.). 

169 Loyal Financial, KWP Services, and URB Management. PX 45 '1117 (George Dec.). 

170px 47 'I! 30 (Ex. 16) (Randolph Dec.). 

26 

' ' I 

! 

1 

1 

I 

i 

l 

i 

I 

I 

~ 

g ~ 
Individual Defendants. 171 In addition to the funds he has received from Defendants, Timothy 

Woods may have access to other funds traceable to Defendants' enterprise in in his personal 

account(s), via Kevin Guice, or through some other corporate entity. 

IV. THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

To put an immediate stop to Defendants' ongoing deceptive practices and to preserve the 

possibility of effective final relief, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an ex parte TRO with 

provisions for asset and document preservation, the appointment of a receiver, expedited 

discovery, immediate access to Corporate Defendants' business premises and records, and an 

order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. As shown below, the Court 

has the authority to enter the relief sought, the evidence demonstrates that Plaintiffs are likely to 

succeed on the merits, and the equities weigh in favor of the requested relief. 

A. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act Authorizes the Court to Grant the Requested 

Relief 

Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), provides that "in proper cases the 

Commission may seek, and after proper proof, the court may issue a permanent injunction." The 

practice of defrauding consumers by misrepresenting or omitting material facts in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act presents a "proper case" for injunctive relief under Section 13(b). 172 

Once the Commission invokes a federal court's equitable powers, the full breadth of the court's 

authority is available, including the power to enter a TRO, a preliminary injunction, and 

whatever additional preliminary relief is necessary to preserve the possibility of providing 

effective final relief. 173 Such ancillary relief may include an asset freeze to preserve assets for 

171 PX 47 ~ 32 (Randolph Dec.); PX 46 ~ 108 (Tyndall Dec.). 

172 See FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d 466, 468 (11th Cir. 1996). 

173 Jd.; FTCv. US. Oil & Gas Corp., 748F.2d1431, 1432 (11th Cir. 1984). 

27 

i 

! 

! 

l 

·, 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I I 
eventual restitution to victimized consumers as well as the appointment of a receiver. 174 

In determining whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief under Section 13(b) of the 

FTC Act, courts in the EJ eventh Circuit consider two factors: (I) the likelihood of success on the 

merits, and (2) whether the public equities outweigh any private equities. 175 This approach 

differs from the traditional four-pronged preliminary injunction standard. Unlike private 

litigants, Plaintiffs do not need to prove irreparable injury, which is presumed in a statutory 

enforcement action. 176 The FDUTPA requires even less. Under FDUTPA, the State of Florida's 

sole burden is to show a clear legal right to the relief requested. Section 501.207(1 )(b) of 

FDUTPA expressly authorizes the State of Florida to seek injunctive relief without showing 

irreparable harm, lack of an adequate legal remedy or public interest. 177 

As explained below, the materials submitted in support of this motion establish that 

Plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that Defendants' conduct violates 

Section 5(a) FTC Act, 178 Section 501.204 of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices 

Act ("FDUTPA"), 179 and multiple provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"). 180 The 

record further demonstrates that the equities favor the requested relief. 

174 US. Oil & Gas Corp., 748 F.2d at 1432-34. The court's expansive equitable powers also are available under the 

TSR. See 15 U.S.C. § 6105(b). Courts may enter any relief necessary to redress injury to consumers caused by TSR 

violations, including "rescission or refonnation of contracts [and] the refund of money or return of property." 15 

U.S.C. §§ 57b(a)(I) & (b). 175 FTCv. Univ. Health, 938 F.2d 1206, 1217 (llth Cir. 1991). 

176 Id. at 1218. 

177 Millennium Commc 'ns & Fulfillment, Inc. v. Florida, 761 So. 2d 1256, 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). 178 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (prohibiting deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce). 

179 Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes (2015) (prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of 

any trade or commerce). 

180 16 C.F.R. Part 310 (2015). 

28 

! 

I 

i 

! 

i 

I 

I 

I 
B. Plaintiffs Have Shown a Likelihood of Success on the Merits 

1. Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated a Likelihood of Success in Establishing 

that Defendants' Deceptive Practices Have Violated the FTC Act 

(Counts One and Two) and the FDUTPA (Count Eleven) 

Section 5(a) of the FTC act provides: "[U]nfair or deceptive acts or practices in or 

affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful." 181 An act or practice is deceptive under 

Section 5(a) if it involves a representation or omission that is material and would likely mislead 

consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances. 182 Similarly, under the FDUPTA, liability 

may be established if there is a representation or omission that is likely to mislead a consumer 

acting reasonably under the circumstances and which "offends established public policy."183 "A 

misrepresentation is material if it is likely to affect a consumer's decision to buy a product or 

service. " 184 

The FTC is not required to prove an intent to deceive to establish Section 5 liability. 

Moreover, the value of the product or service sold is "irrelevant" to the Section 5 analysis; 185 at 

181 FDUTPA likewise declares unlawful "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or 

commerce." Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes (2015). In construing this Section, the Florida Legislature has 

declared that "due consideration and great weight shall be given to the interpretations of the Federal Trade 

Commission and the federal courts relating to s. 5(a)(l) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 45(a)(l) 

as of July I, 2015." § 501.204(2), Fla. Stat. (2015); see also FTC. v. Info. Mgmt. Forum, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 91242, at *5 (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2013) ("Conduct that constitutes a 'deceptive act or practice' or an 'unfair 

act or practice' under the FTC Act is violation ofFDUTPA."). 182 FTC v. Tashman, 318 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2003); see also FTC v. Inbound Call Experts, 14-81395-CIVMARRA, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182857, at *6-7 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2014). 

183 PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 842 So.2d 773, 777 (Fla. 2003); see also Republic of the Congo v. Air 

Capital Grp., LLC 614 F. App'x 460, 470 (I Ith Cir. 2015) (listing examples of practices found to violate the 

FDUTPA). 

184 FTCv. E.MA. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 631 (6th Cir. 2014). 185 Inbound Call Expe11s, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182857, at *7. 

29 

t 

l 

' ! 

I 

j 

I 

t 

l 

I I 

I 
issue is whether "the seller's misrepresentations tainted the customer's purchasing decisions." 186 

a. Defendants Misrepresent the Results They Will Achieve for 

Consumers 

Count One alleges that Defendants have made numerous false and misleading 

representations while selling debt-relief services in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Count 

Eleven alleges that the same conduct violates the FDUPTA. 

While pitching their purported rate-reduction services, Defendants represent that they 

will substantially and permanently lower consumers' credit-card interest rates 187 and will save 

them thousands of dollars in a short time. 188 Defendants also guarantee that they will enable 

consumers to pay off their debt much faster, typically three to five times faster. 189 These claims 

are false because consumers who pay Defendants' up-front fee for rate-reduction services almost 

never obtain substantially lower interest rates that are permanent, or save the thousands of dollars 

in interest payments they were promised. 19° Consequently, consumers who purchase Defendants' 

services are not able to pay off their credit-card debts three to five times faster. 

Defendants also make false statements about their debt-elimination services. Defendants 

claim that they can eliminate consumers' credit-card debt within 18 months by using a 

government fund paid for by credit-card companies. 191 In truth, no such government fund 

actually exists, consumers rarely have their debt eliminated, and in most cases, consumers are 

186 FTC v. IAB Mktg. Assocs., LP, 746 F.3d 1228, 1235 (11th Cir. 2014); see also Partners in Health Care Ass 'n, 

2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71027, at *20-21 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2016) ("Worthlessness ... is not an element ofa claim 

for deceptive practices"). Relatedly, the existence of some satisfied customers is not a defense to Section 5 liability. 

See FTC v. Wilcox, 926 F. Supp. 1091, 1099 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (citing FTC v. Amy Travel Service, 875 F.2d 564, 572 

(7th Cir. 1989)); cf Tashman, 318 F.3d at 1278 (evidence of some satisfied customers was insufficient to overcome 

evidence that reasonable consumers were likely to be misled and were in fact misled, district court's finding to the 

contrary was clearly erroneous). 

187 See, e.g., PX 19 iii! 20-22 (Dec. of Patricia Grinnan); PX 51at14; PX 52; PX 5 iii! 5-6 (Blakely Dec.); PX 3618 

(Thomas Dec.); PX 22 'IJ 8 (James Dec.); PX 112 iiiJ 6-7 (Fraver Dec.). 188 PX 2816 (Maxwell Dec.) PX 22 iJ 8 (James Dec.). 

189 PX 19 (Ex. I) (Dec. of Patricia Grinnan, p. 46); PX 12 iJ 6 (Dec. ofReed Coombs). 

190 PX 42 ,ii 59-87 (detailing consumer examples). 

191 Supra note 5. 

30 

I 

I 

! 

I 
left worse off financially and with severely damaged credit. 192 Consumers who have purchased 

Defendants' debt-elimination services have reported paying higher interest rates on existing debt, 

higher credit-card debt due to the accrual oflate fees, and reduced credit scores. 193 At least two 

consumers were sued by creditors and were forced to declare bankruptcy. 194 

Defendants' misrepresentations are material to a consumer's decision to purchase debtrelief services because they relate directly to the effectiveness of those services. Consumers 

would not have paid thousands of dollars unless they believed that Defendants would deliver the 

promised services. Based on this evidence, Plaintiffs have demonstrated an overwhelming 

likelihood of success on the merits of Counts One and Eleven. 

b. Defendants Fail To Disclose the True Cost of Their Debt-Relief 

Services 

Count Two alleges that Defendants violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by deceptively 

failing to disclose the full cost of their debt-relief services. Specifically, Defendants fail to 

disclose that one of their rate-reduction tactics - transferring consumers' existing credit-card 

balance to a new promotional-rate card - may result in the consumer paying a variety of bank 

fees, such as balance-transfer fees, which can total three-to-five percent of the transferred 

balance. 195 When pushing consumers to take a credit-card cash advance to pay their up-front 

fees, Defendants also fail to inform consumers that issuers often charge a fee for cash-advance 

transactions, and may also charge a higher interest rate on this type of credit-card debt. 196 

Defendants' omissions relate directly to the price of their debt-relief services and are 

192 Supra notes 6-7. 

193 Supra notes 54-55. 

194 Supra note 57. 

195 PX 42 ~ 29 (Wilhelm Dec.). 

196 Id. at~ 35. 

31 

I 

i 

I 

! 

j 

I 

I 

i 

I 
therefore presumed material as a matter oflaw. 197 As such, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a 

likelihood of succeeding on the merits of Count Two of the Complaint. 

2. Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated a Likelihood of Success in Proving that 

Defendants have Violated the TSR (Counts Three Through Ten) 

The TSR applies to Defendants because they are "sellers" or "telemarketers" of"debt 

relief services" who engage in "telemarketing," as those terms are defined in the TSR. 198 

Defendants and/or Defendants' agents initiate telephone calls to customers, making them 

"telemarketers," and they offer to provide, or arrange for others to provide, services that alter the 

ternis of a debt between a person and one or more unsecured creditors, thereby providing "debt 

relief services." 199 These services are provided in exchange for consideration, making 

Defendants "sellers" under the TSR.200 

a. Defendants Misrepresent the Performance, Nature or Essential 

Characteristics of Their Debt-Relief Services (Counts Three 

and Four) 

Under the TSR, Defendants are specifically prohibited from misrepresenting any material 

aspect of any debt-relief service.201 As noted above, Defendants make numerous materially false 

representations while pitching their rate-reduction and debt-elimination services.202 These 

misrepresentations violate the TSR. 

In addition, the TSR prohibits misrepresenting a seller or telemarketer's affiliation with 

any person or government entity.203 During their telemarketing calls, however, Defendants claim 

197 Jn re Removatron Int'! Corp., 111 F.T.C. 206, 309 (1988), ajf'd 884 F.2d 1489 (1st Cir 1989); see also FTC v. 

Windward Mktg., 1:96-CV-615-FMH, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17114, at *28 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 1997). 

198 16 C.F.R. § 310.2. 

199 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(cc), (m). 

200 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(aa). 

201 16 C.F.R. § 10.3(a)(2)(iii). 

202 See supra Section IV(B)(l). 

203 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(vii). 

32 

I 

I 

I 

l 

! 

! 

! 

I 

I 

I 

i 

f 

I 

I 
that they are representatives of, or affiliated with, consumers' banks, credit-card issuers, or 

credit-card associations. 204 Defendants have no affiliation with these entities; accordingly, their 

claims are misrepresentations that violate the TSR. 205 

b. Defendants Fail To Disclose Material Aspects of their DebtRelief Services (Counts Five and Six) 

Defendants' telemarketing calls also contain material omissions that violate the TSR. 

Under the TSR, Defendants are prohibited from omitting material aspects of their debt-relief 

services, including the total cost of the debt-relief services, and the likely effect of their debtelimination services on consumers' financial health.206 During their calls, Defendants' 

telemarketers fail to disclose that: (1) their services may require consumers to pay a variety of 

additional fees, including balance-transfer fees and cash-advance fees; and (2) their debtelimination services will likely have a negative effect on consumers' creditworthiness, and may 

result in consumers being sued or increasing their total credit-card debt. 207 Defendants' failure to 

make these important mandatory disclosures violates the TSR. 208 

c. Defendants Unlawfully Charge an Advance Fee for Their 

Debt-Relief Services (Counts Seven) 

Defendants also have violated specific TSR provisions that make it illegal to collect an 

up-front fee for debt-relief services. The TSR prohibits Defendants from requesting or collecting 

fees from a consumer for any debt-relief service before (a) Defendants have renegotiated, settled, 

reduced or otherwise altered the terms of at least one debt, and (b) the consumer has made at 

204 See supra Section II(A)(2). 

205 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(vii). In addition to violating the TSR, these misrepresentations of affiliation also violate 

the FTC Act and the FDUPT A, and are included in Counts One and Eleven. 

206 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(i), (x). 

207 See supra Section IV(B)(l). 208 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(i), (x). 

33 

l 

~ 

I 

I t 

i 

I I 

I 

f 
least one payment under the new terms obtained by Defendants.209 Nonetheless, Defendants 

request an up-front fee ranging from $500 to $5,000 for their rate-reduction services and $2,500 

to $20,000 for their debt-elimination services.210 Defendants' collection of their up-front fees 

violates the TSR.211 

d. Defendants Violated the Do Not Call and Robocall Provisions 

of the TSR (Counts Eight, Nine, and Ten) 

Defendants have initiated, or caused a telemarketer to initiate, numerous unsolicited 

telemarketing calls: (1) to telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry; 212 and/or (2) 

that deliver prerecorded messages (i.e., robocalls).213 These calls violate the TSR.214 In addition, 

Defendants placed their numerous telemarketing calls without paying the annual fee to access the 

National Do Not Call Registry. Defendants' failure to pay the annual fee also violates the 

TSR.21s 

C. The Equities Heavily Favor the Requested Relief 

In balancing the equities, "public equities must receive far greater weight."216 The 

equities test "works on a sliding scale so that the greater the plaintiff's success on the merits, the 

less harm she must show in relation to the harm defendant will suffer if the preliminary 

209 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(5)(i). 

210 See supra Section IV(A)(3) and Section IV(B)(l). 

211 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(5)(i). One consumer, who had paid more than $17,000 in advance fees for rate-reduction 

and debt-elimination services, later asked Defendants why they had collected those fees from him when the TSR 

expressly prohibits the practice. Defendants told the consumer that the TSR did not apply to them because they are 

regulated by the FDACS. See PX 20 ~ 50 (Healey Dec). 

212 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(l)(iii)(B). 213 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(l)(v)(A). 214 16 C.F.R § 310.4(b)(l)(iii)(B); 16 C.F.R. § 3l0.4(b)(l)(v)(A). 215 16 C.F.R. § 310.8. 

216 FTC v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc., 861F.2d1020, 1028-1029 (7th Cir. 1988). See also FTCv. 

Weyerhaeuser Co., 665 F.2d 1072, 1083 (D.C. 1981) ("When the Commission demonstrates a likelihood ofultimate 

success, a countershowing of private equities along would not suffice to justify denial ofa preliminary injunction."). 

34 

! 

~ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

! 

I 
injunction is granted."217 Here, Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of prevailing on every 

count in the complaint. The public equities in this matter include protecting consumers who 

could be victimized by Defendants' ongoing scheme, and preserving the assets of Defendants 

and Relief Defendants to redress consumers who have already lost money by paying for 

Defendants' bogus services.218 

Defendants have continued their deceptive practices in the face of consumer complaints 

forwarded by FDACS,219 inquiries from law enforcement,220 and actions from state authorities. 221 

For example: 

• In February 2013, FDACS cited Kevin Guice and Loyal Financial for employing 

unlicensed telemarketers and using unsanctioned scripts while selling rate-reduction and 

debt-elimination services. Kevin Guice and Loyal Financial executed a settlement 

agreement, paid a $5,000 fine, and agreed to comply with Florida's Telemarketing Act. 222 

• In November 2014, the Mississippi Public Service Commission issued an administrative 

complaint against URB Management concerning unauthorized telemarketing in the state 

of Mississippi. The company signed a settlement agreement, paid a $2,000 fine, and 

agreed to cease selling their products to Mississippi residents without first complying 

with Mississippi law and making a number of disclosures.223 

• In February 2016, the Oregon Department of Justice executed an Assurance of Voluntary 

Compliance with LPS and Chase Jackowski relating to unauthorized telemarketing in the 

state of Oregon. The company issued a refund to an Oregon consumer who had 

217 FTC v. Lifewatch Inc., 15-cv-5781, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45057, at *54-55 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2016) (quoting 

Kinney ex rel. NLRB v. Int'! Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 150, 994 F.2d 1271, 1277 (7th Cir. 1993)). 

218 See FTC v. World Wide Factors, Ltd., 882 F.2d 344, 347 (9th Cir. 1989) (in balancing equities, ''the public 

interest should receive greater weight" than any private interest); FTC v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc., 861 

F .2d at 1029. 

219 PX 43 fil 78, 79, 69, 66, 43, 66, 69, 78, 79, 84 (Compton Dec.) (detailing consumer complaints against Corporate 

Defendants and attempts by FDACS to resolve them). 

220 In 2015, Defendants were contacted by the Orlando Police Department and the Minnesota Attorney General 

regarding complaints from senior citizens who were having difficulty obtaining refunds after becoming wise to 

Defendants' scam. PX 44 (Dec. Detective Gary Kleier, Orlando Police Department); PX 9 at 1if 9-12 (Dec. of 

Sharon Burke). 

221 See supra note 10. 

222 Recovered scripts and deal sheets demonstrate that Loyal Financial had been selling debt-elimination services. 

See PX 43 if 29-34 (Exs. 5-8) (Compton Dec.) ("The investigation further revealed Loyal was utilizing Lead Sales 

forms, Debt Elimination forms, and Enrollment forms ... "). In May 2013, FDACS initially refused to renew Loyal 

Financial's telemarketing license due to past unlicensed activity. Id. 

223 PX 108 & 109. 

35 

! 

I 

I 

I 
purchased Defendants' rate-reduction services, assented to a $7,500 fine, and agreed to 

abide by Oregon telemarketing laws. 224 

Given the Defendants' track record of unlawful business practices, there is a strong likelihood 

that Defendants will continue defrauding consumers absent strong injunctive relief from this 

Court. The public's interest in immediately halting this unlawful conduct far outweighs any 

remote interest Defendants may have in continuing to operate their fraudulent, unlawful 

business. 225 This Court has granted similar injunctive relief in numerous FTC enforcement 

actions, many of which involved rate-reduction scams like the one at issue here. 226 

V. THE TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD EXTEND TO ALL 

DEFENDANTS 

A. Corporate Defendants are Jointly and Severally Liable as a Common 

Enterprise 

Corporate Defendants are jointly and severally liable for violations of the FTC Act when, 

considering the "pattern and framework of the whole enterprise," there is evidence of a common 

enterprise between them.227 When examining whether a common enterprise exists among 

corporate defendants, courts look to a variety of factors including (1) common control; (2) the 

sharing of office space and officers; (3) commingling of corporate funds; and ( 4) failing to 

224 PX 106 & 107. 

225 See World Wide Factors, 882 F.2d at 347 (affinning the district court's finding that "there is no oppressive 

hardship to defendants in requiring them to comply with the FTC Act, refrain from fraudulent representation or 

preserve their assets from dissipation or concealment"). 

226 See, e.g., FTC v. All Us Mktg., LLC, No. 6:15-CV-1016-0RL-28GJK (M.D. Fla. June 22, 2015); Innovative 

Wealth Builders, Inc., No. 8:13-cv-123-T-33EAJ (M.D. Fla. Jan 14, 2013); FTC v. WV Universal Mgmt., LLC, No. 

6:12-cv-01618-ACC-KRS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2012); FTCv. The Green Savers, LLC, Case No. 6:12-cv-01588-JADAB (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2012). 

227 Delaware Watch Co., v. F.T.C., 332 F.2d 745, 746-47 (2d Cir. 1964). 

36 
maintain the separation between companies.228 

The facts here demonstrate that Corporate Defendants operate as a classic common 

enterprise, sharing owners,229 officers,230 offices,231 telephone numbers,232 employees,233 invoices, 

consumer New Client Packets, and other corporate documents sent to consumers,234 scripts,235 and 

expenses.236 Corporate Defendants also commingle finances, 237 share payments from a single 

consumer, 238 and routinely make payments to and on behalf of one another. 239 Additionally, 

despite their legal distinctions, Corporate Defendants function as one interdependent unit with 

228 See Del. Watch Co., 332 F.2d at 746; accord F. T. C. v. J.K. Publ'ns., Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1202 (C.D. Cal. 

2000) (fmding common enterprise where corporate defendants were under common control; shared office space, 

employees, and officers; and conducted their businesses through a "maze of interrelated companies"); F. T. C. v. 

Wash. Data Res., 856 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 1271 (M.D. Fla. 2012); F.T.C. v. Direct Benefits Group, LLC, 6:1 l-cvl 186-0rl-28TBS, 2013 WL 3771322, at *18 (M.D. Fla. July 18, 2013). 

229 PX 43 if 29 (Ex. 5) (Compton Dec;); PX 43 'llil 38 & 97 (Exs. 12 & 53) (Compton Dec.); PX 47 if 44 (Ex. 22) 

(Randolph Dec.); PX 43 if 100 (Exs. 56 & 58) (Compton Dec.). 230 PX 47 iii! 9-22 (Randolph Dec.); PX 43 iii! 38 & 97 (Exs. 12 & 53) (Compton Dec.). 231 PX43 if 60 (Ex. 30) (Compton Dec.) (12001 Science Drive Suite 125 was linked to both Life Management 

Services and KWP Services); PX 47 if'll 16 & 22 (Exs. 7 & 13) (4865 Darwood Drive Orlando, Florida 32812 was 

linked to YFP Solutions, LPSOFFLORlDA, and Chase Jackowski); PX 48 if 29 (Ex. 1) (Caplan Dec.). 232 PX 48 '1) 28 (Ex. 1) (Caplan Dec.); PX 43 'IJ'l] 44, 73, 75, 79, & 86 (Exs. 2, 16, 19, 28, 31, 36, 39, 40, 42, & 47) 

(Compton Dec.). 233 PX 43 '1] 56 (Ex. 27) (Compton Dec.); PX 48 'IJ 20 (Ex. 1) (Caplan Dec.). 234 PX 48 '1]'1] 22-23 (Exs. 3-4) (Caplan Dec.). 235 PX 43 'IJ'IJ 19-25 (Exs. 2, 19, 28, & 31) (Compton Dec.) (Loyal, KWP Services, and Life Management Services 

filed identical telemarketing sales scripts with the FDACS on numerous occasions, even including the same typos, 

and misplaced Defendant business names). 236 See supra notes 77-79. 

237 Randolph Dec 'I] 29 (Defendant Kevin Guice received deposits from URB Management, UAD Secure Services 

LLC, LPSofFLA, LPSOFFLORlDA, PW&F Consultants of Florida, KWP Services, Loyal Financial, Michael 

Yager, Harry Wahl, and Karen Wahl). 

238 PX 46 'll'IJ 97-100 (Exs. 94, 99, 95 & 96) (Tyndall Dec.) (Examples of Corporate Defendants sharing consumer 

payments include the following, since January 2013: Life Management Services deposited at least 11 consumer 

checks issued to IVD Recovery and Loyal Financial into their own account; Life Management Services deposited at 

least 2 consumer checks issued to UAD Secure Services into a LPSOFFLA bank account; Life Management 

Services deposited at least 3 consumer checks issued to UAD Secure Services into a URB Management account; 

and, Life Management Services deposited at least 6 consumer checks issued to URB Management into a Loyal 

Financial bank account.). 

239See supra notes 77-79. 

37 

l 

1 

! 

I 

I 

l 

' l 

f 

! 

l 

I ' 
the single purpose of defrauding consumers.240 Accordingly, each of the Corporate Defendants 

should be held jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of consumer injury caused by 

Defendants' unlawful acts. 241 The TRO should therefore extend to all Corporate Defendants. 

B. The Individual Defendants Are Personally Liable and Subject to Monetary 

and Injunctive Relief 

To obtain injunctive and monetary relief against individuals for consumer harm from a 

company's conduct, Plaintiffs must show that the individual defendants (1) participated directly 

in the unlawful acts or practices or had authority to control them; and (2) had some knowledge of 

these acts or practices. 242 Having signing authority on corporate accounts evidences control.243 

Authority to control may also be evidenced by "active involvement in business affairs and the 

making of corporate policy, including assuming the duties of a corporate officer."244 Plaintiffs 

may satisfy the knowledge prong by showing actual knowledge of the misrepresentations, 

reckless indifference to the truth or falsity of the representations, or awareness of a high 

probability of fraud coupled with an intentional avoidance of the truth. 245 

240 PX 47 ~ 26 {Randolph Dec.); PX 47 ~~ 9-26 (Randolph Dec.); PX 44 ~~ 9-10 & 15-16 (Exs. 2 & 6) (Kleier Dec.); 

PX 5 (Blakely Dec.) (consumer was initially called by CMA or Credit Management Assistance, received an invoice 

from URB Management, received a contract from lVD Recovery, and paid the Defendants' fee to IVD Recovery); 

PX 155 (Franklin Dec.) (consumer was called by Card Management Associates, was emailed by IVD Recovery, 

received an invoice from FOCU Credit, and paid Defendants' fee to FOCU); PX 22 (James Dec.) (consumer was 

called by American Credit Assistance, received emails and an invoice from URB Management, but later received a 

Welcome Letter from ACA); PX 36 (Thomas Dec.) (consumer received an invoice from URB Management, and a 

New Client Packet and Welcome Letter from UAD Secure Services, consumer paid Defendants' fee to URB 

Management, and received a partial refund check remitted by Jessica Hernandez, a known Life Management 

Services employee); PX 48 (Ex. 1) (Caplan Dec.). 

241 SeeFTCv. HESMerch. Sen•s., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17292, at *16-17 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2014). 

242 See Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d at 470; FTC v. Amy Travel Serv., 875 F.2d at 573. 

243 See Transnet Wireless, 506 F. Supp. 2d at 1270 ("An individual's status as a corporate officer gives rise to a 

presumption of ability to control a small, closely-held corporation.") (citations omitted). 

244FTC v. Wilcox, 926 F. Supp. at 1104 (quoting Amy Travel, 875 F.2d at 573); see also FTC v. Windward Mktg., 

Ltd., 1997 WL 33642380, a *5 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 1997) (holding that defendant did not have to be an officer or 

even an employee to control corporate activities noting that courts consider "the control that a person actually 

exercises over given activities."). 

245 FTC v. Transnet Wireless Corp., 506 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 1270 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Amy Travel Service, 875 F.2d at 

574. 

38 
In this case, Individual Defendants participated in, controlled, and had knowledge of the 

enterprise's actions. Each Individual Defendant has been a manager of at least one of the limited 

liability companies involved in Defendants' enterprise. 246 Defendants Kevin Guice, Chase 

Jackowski, Harry Wahl, and Karen Wahl are also signatories on bank accounts into which 

millions of dollars of scam proceeds have been transferred.247 Linda McNealy has managed both 

call center locations, demonstrating her active involvement in Defendants' affairs. 248 Individual 

Defendants have also received large sums of money from the common enterprise,249 which 

further indicates their management roles in the companies, and that they have either direct 

knowledge of the fraud, or least constructive knowledge of the illegal activity. Accordingly, 

each Individual Defendant is properly subject to injunctive and monetary relief. 

C. Relief Defendants Should Disgorge Ill-Gotten Funds 

A court may grant equitable relief against a relief defendant if the relief defendant (1) 

received ill-gotten funds; and (2) does not have a legitimate claim to those funds. 250 A court may 

order disgorgement of such proceeds under the doctrines of constructive trust or unjust 

enrichrnent.251 

246 PX 47 iii! 9-22 (Exs. 1-13) (Randolph Dec.). 

247 See generally PX 45 (George Dec.). 

248 PX 43 iJiJ 38, 41& 95 (Ex. 12) (Compton Dec.); PX 48 iJ 34 (Ex. 10) (Caplan Dec.). 

249 See supra Section III(B). 

25° Commodity Futures Trading Comm 'n v. Kimberlynn Creek Ranch, Inc., 276 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2002) 

(federal courts may order equitable relief against a person not accused of wrongdoing in a securities enforcement 

action where that person received ill-gotten funds and did not have a legitimate claim to those funds); see also FTC 

v. Holiday Enters., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35858, at 31-33 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 5, 2008) (applying rationale in an FTC 

matter); FTC v. Transnet Wireless Corp., 506 F. Supp. 2d at 1273 (same). 

251 See FTC v. Network Servs. Depot, Inc., 617 F.3d 127, 1142 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding the district court properly 

imposed a constructive trust on defendants' funds in part because the funds were tainted in that they were traceable 

to the defendants' statutory violation); SEC v. Antar, 831 F. Supp. 380, 402 (D.N.J. 1993) (court found the nominal 

defendants liable as constructive trustees and subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment); see also Rollins v. Metro. 

Life Ins. Col, 863 F.2d 1346, 1354 (7th Cir. 1988) ("[A] constructive trust may be invoked even where the unjustly 

enriched person is completely blameless."); Transnet Wireless, 506 F. Supp. 2d at 1273 (relief defendant ordered to 

pay $1.6 million for money obtained through fraud where defendants failed to provide any services to payor). 

39 

l 

l 

t 

{ 

! 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

j 

I 

I 

' 
Each Relief Defendant has received funds derived from the fraudulent activity described 

above. Between January 2013 and May 2015, Robert Guice received at least $666,000 from 

Corporate Defendants and Individual Defendant Kevin Guice. 252 During the same period, 

Timothy Woods received at least $821,250 from Corporate Defendants and Individual Defendant 

Kevin Guice. 253 

Plaintiffs have found no evidence to suggest that Relief Defendants have a legitimate 

claim to those funds. Relief Defendants are not officers, managers or employees of the corporate 

defendants, and there is no evidence that either Robert Guice or Timothy Woods has provided 

any good or service of value to Defendants. As such, under either the doctrine of unjust 

enrichment or constructive trust, the Court is authorized to impose an asset freeze against 

Timothy Woods and Robert Guice to preserve the Court's ability to order disgorgement of 

consumer funds they unjustly received from Defendants' fraudulent scheme. 

VI. AN EX PARTE TRO WITH ADDITIONAL EQUITABLE RELIEF IS 

NECESSARY TO PRESERVE EFFECTIVE FINAL RELIEF 

In addition to an injunction halting Defendants' illegal conduct, Plaintiffs seek restitution 

for the consumer victims of Defendants~ scheme. To preserve the possibility of such relief, an ex 

parte TRO is necessary to prevent Defendants :from dissipating assets and destroying evidence. 

Plaintiffs respectfully request a TRO to: (a) immediately freeze Defendants and Relief 

Defendants' assets; (b) appoint a temporary receiver over Corporate Defendants; and (c) grant 

Plaintiffs immediate access to Corporate Defendants' business premises, business records, and 

other relevant information. If such relief is not provided or if Defendants are given advanced 

notice of this action, Defendants are likely to dissipate assets or destroy evidence. Indeed bank 

252 Supra notes 165 & 166. 253 Supra notes 169-170. 

40 

l 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

l 

I 
records show that Defendants have already withdrawn more than $2.5 million in cash from the 

enterprise. 254 Courts in this district have frozen defendants' assets, appointed receivers, and 

granted the FTC immediate access to defendants' business premises in numerous FTC 

enforcement actions, many of which involved rate-reduction scams like the one at issue here. 255 

A. An Asset Freeze Is Necessary 

Plaintiffs seek restitution for the victims of Defendants' scheme. To preserve the 

possibility of such relief, Plaintiffs ask the Court to freeze Defendants' and Relief Defendants' 

assets and to order an immediate accounting to prevent concealment or dissipation of assets 

pending a final resolution. Courts in this Circuit have repeatedly ordered asset freezes to 

preserve the possibility of consumer redress. 256 An asset freeze should be imposed where (l) 

there is a likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the defendants will dissipate assets absent 

an injunction.257 Asset freezes should extend to individual defendants when the movant shows a 

likelihood of success in establishing individual liability. 258 Here, an asset freeze will preserve the 

status quo, ensuring funds that have not already been dissipated are available for consumer 

redress. 

The evidence demonstrates that Defendants have defrauded consumers of more than $15 

million in just two and a halfyears.259 Individual Defendants and Relief Defendants have 

received large distributions from the enterprise. Kevin Guice in particular has used these ill254 See Declaration and Certification of FTC Counsel Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) in Support of Plaintiffs' Ex 

Parle Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion to Temporarily Seal File (describing need for ex parte 

relief and citing cases in which defendants who learned of impending FTC action withdrew funds, destroyed vital 

documents, and fled the jurisdiction). 

255 See supra note 226. 

256 See FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d at 469-70; FTC v. U.S. Oil & Gas Corp., 748 F.2d atl 434. 

257 See World Travel Vacation Brokers, 861 F.2d at 1031; see also FTC v. Home Assure, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 32055, at *8-11 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2009). 258 See Home Assure, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32055 at *5-6. 

259 Supra note 2. 

41 

I 

I 

! 

J 

I 
gotten gains to fund a lavish lifestyle. 260 In June 2014 alone, Kevin Guice spent $380,000 on 

hotels, rental cars, luxury shopping, and on a yacht.261 In addition, Individual Defendants have 

withdrawn more than $2.5 million in cash from the enterprise. 262 As previously discussed, 

Defendants have also created a maze of corporate entities to hide their ill-gotten gains, 263 and 

have responded to consumer complaints or government action by shifting banking 

responsibilities to a newly created corporate entity.264 Without an asset freeze, there is a serious 

risk that there will be no funds left for consumer redress. As such, an asset freeze is necessary to 

protect the funds from Defendants' illegal activities, prevent Defendants' continued misuse of 

consumers' money, and preserve the Court's ability to provide effective relief for consumers. 

B. Appointing a Receiver Will Prevent Further Mismanagement and Assist the 

Court's Ability to Provide Effective Final Relief 

Appointing a receiver for the Corporate Defendants is also critical, and Plaintiffs seek 

this relief pursuant to the Court's equitable powers under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. 265 Such 

an appointment is appropriate when, as here, Defendants have defrauded the public and have 

mismanaged funds that could be used for consumer redress. 266 

As noted above, Defendants' business is permeated with fraud. Defendants have caused 

more than $15 million in consumer harm in just two and a half years, and have continued their 

deceptive practices in the face of consumer complaints and law enforcement actions. The Court 

260 PX 48 ~ 34 (Ex. 9) (Caplan Dec.); PX 47 ~ 33-34 (Randolph Dec.). 

261 PX 47 ifif 33-34 (Randolph Dec.). 262 On 84 occasions, withdrawals from corporate accounts exceeded $10,000 in single day. Supra note 13. 263 Supra note 240. 

264 See supra note 11. 265 See U.S. Oil & Gas, 748 F.2d at 1432. 266 See FTC v. Millennium Telecard, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 74951, at *35 (D.N.J. July 11, 2011) ("In 

determining whether a Court-appointed Receiver is necessary, the 'prima facie showing of fraud and 

mismanagement is enough to call into play the equitable powers of the court."' (quoting SEC v. First Fin. Group of 

Texas, 645 F.2d 429, 438 (5th Cir. 1981)). 

42 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
should not pennit Defendants to continue controlling Corporate Defendants' affairs "for the 

benefit of those shown to have been defrauded,"267 especially given the amount of money 

Defendants have already withdrawn from the enterprise. Appointment of a receiver will preserve 

remaining Defendant funds, and a receiver can marshal additional resources to identify consumer 

victims for partial redress. Moreover, without a receiver, there is substantial risk that Defendants 

will hide assets, compromising the Court's ability to provide effective final relief. 268 

A receiver can also prevent the destruction of documents and dissipation of assets, assist 

the Court in assessing the extent of Defendants' fraud and understanding Defendants' current 

and past activity, and provide information to consumers ensnared in Defendants' debtelimination scheme. 

C. Immediate Access and Limited Expedited Discovery 

To locate wrongfully obtained assets, Plaintiffs request that this Court permit expedited 

discovery and allow Plaintiffs and the temporary receiver immediate access to Corporate 

Defendants' business premises and records. Immediate access to the business premises will 

allow the receiver and Plaintiffs to secure relevant records and prevent destruction of relevant 

evidence. Moreover, immediate access and expedited discovery are necessary to ensure that 

Plaintiffs, the temporary receiver, and the Court are fully informed of (1) the scope and scale of 

Defendants' business operations, financial status, and role in the scheme; (2) the range and extent 

of Defendants' unlawful conduct; (3) the identity of injured consumers; (4) total consumer harm; 

and (5) the location, nature, and extent of Defendants' and Relief Defendants' assets. District 

267 First Fin. Group of Texas, 645 F.2d at 438 ("It is hardly conceivable that the trial court should have permitted 

those who were enjoined from fraudulent misconduct to continue in control of (the corporate defendant's) affairs for 

the benefit of those shown to have been defrauded. In such cases the appointment of a trustee-receiver becomes a 

necessary implementation of injunctive relief.") (quotation omitted)). 

268 Id. at 438. 

43 
courts are authorized to depart from normal discovery procedure and fashion a discovery 

schedule that meets the needs of the particular case,269 and courts in this district have granted the 

FTC and court-appointed receivers immediate access in similar cases. 270 

In addition, the proposed TRO requires that Defendants and Relief Defendants' produce 

certain financial records and information on short notice, and requires financial institutions 

served with the order to disclose whether they are holding any of Defendants' and Relief 

Defendants' assets. These expedited discovery provisions will assist in implementing the asset 

freeze and preventing dissipation of assets. 

D. The TRO Should Be Issued Ex Parte 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) permits the Court to enter an ex parte order upon a 

clear showing that "immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result" if notice is 

given to defendants. 271 As discussed above, Defendants' business operations are permeated with 

fraud and deception. Courts in this district have on numerous occasions entered ex parte 

temporary restraining orders in similar FTC enforcement actions. 272 

As set forth in the FTC's Certification of Support of Ex Parte Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order Pursuant to Rule 65(b ), defendants involved in similar frauds have dissipated 

assets and destroyed documents after receiving advanced notice of federal action. Here, 

Defendants have already withdrayvn more than $7 million from corporate accounts and have 

continued their scheme despite law enforcement actions, regulatory citations, and numerous 

consumer complaints. It is thus highly likely that Defendants will conceal or dissipate assets 

269 Fed. R. Civ. P. I, 26( d), 34(b ). 270 See supra note 226. 

271 See AT&T Broadband v. Tech Commc'ns Inc., 381F.3d1309, 1319 {I Ith Cir. 2004)(holding that ex parte relief 

is appropriate where either the defendants or person involved in similar actions have concealed assets or destroyed 

documents in the past). 

272 See supra note 226. 

44 

i 

l 

f 

! ' I 

J 
and/or destroy evidence if given prior notice of the filing of this action. Such a result would 

cause immediate and irreparable harm, as it would impair this Court' ability to secure relief for 

consumers. Accordingly, it is in the interest of justice to provide the requested ex parte relief to 

prevent such harm, maintain the status quo, and preserve this Court's ability to award full and 

effective final relief. 

VII. CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this motion for an ex 

parte TRO with an asset freeze, appointment of a temporary receiver, and other equitable relief 

45 

l 

! 

t 

I 

I 

' l 

l 

! 

! 

! 

I 

I 

! 

I