Case 8:18-cv-03118-PX Document 1 Filed 10/10/18 Page 1 of 13 

IN THE UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF .MARYLAND 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

600 Pennsylvania A venue, N. W. 

Washington, DC 20580, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PASSPORT IMPORTS, INC., a corporation, 

also d/b/a PASSPORT TOYOTA 

5050 Auth Way 

Marlow Heights, Maryland 20746 

Prince George's County, 

PASSPORT MOTORCARS, INC., a corporation, 

also d/b/a PASSPORT INFINITI OF ALEXANDRIA, 

PASSPORT NISSAN OF ALEXANDRIA, and 

PASSPORT NISSAN OF MARLOW HEIGHTS 

150 S. Pickett Street 

Alexandria, Virginia 22304, 

AUTOS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation, 

also d/b/a PASSPORT INFINITI OF SUITLAND 

4800 Branch A venue 

Suitland, Maryland 20746 

Prince George's County, 

EVERETT A. HELLMUTH, ill, individually and as an 

officer ofPASSPORT IMPORTS, INC., PASSPORT 

MOTORCARS, INC., and AUTOS INTERNATIONAL, 

INC. 

5050 Auth Way 

Marlow Heights, Maryland 20746 

Prince George' s County, 

JAY A. KLEIN, individually and as an officer of 

PASSPORT IMPORTS, INC., PASSPORT 

MOTORCARS, INC., and AUTOS INTERNATIONAL, 

INC. 

5050 Auth Way 

Marlow Heights, Maryland 20746 

Prince George's County, 

TEMECULA EQUITY GROUP, LLC, a limited liability 

company, also d/b/a OVERFLOWWORKS.COM 

25220 Hancock Avenue, #220 

Murrieta, California 92562, and 

Civil Action No. ______ 

COMPLAINT FOR 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF 

I 
Case 8:18-cv-03118-PX Document 1 Filed 10/10/18 Page 2 of 13 

JEFFREY R. BUSH, individually and as an officer of 

TEMECULA EQUITY GROUP, LLC. 

25220 Hancock Avenue, #220 

Murrieta, California 92562, 

Defendants. 

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

1. The FTC brings this action under Section 13(b) ofthe Federal Trade Com:nussion 

Act ("FTC Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), to obtain permanent injunctive relief, rescission or 

reformation ofcontracts, restitution, the refund ofmonies paid, disgorgement ofill-gotten 

monies, and other equitable relieffor Defendants' acts or practices in violation ofSection 5(a) of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), 

and 1345, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 53(b ). 

3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

PLAINTIFF 

4. The FTC is an independent agency ofthe United States Government created by 

statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41.:.ss. The FTC enforces Section S(a) ofthe FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 

which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. 

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

attorneys, to enj oin violations ofthe FTC Act and to secure such equitable reliefas may be 

appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation ofcontracts, restitution, the refund 

ofmonies paid, and the disgorgement ofill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 56(a)(2)(A). 

2 
Case 8:18-cv-03118-PX Document 1 Filed 10/10/18 Page 3 of 13 

DEFENDANTS 

6. Defendant Passport Imports, Inc. ("Passport Imports"), also doing business as 

Passport Toyota, is a Virginia corporation with its principal place ofbusiness at 5050 Auth Way, 

Marlow Heights, Maryland 20746. Passport Imports transacts or has transacted business in this 

district. 

7. Defendant Passport Motorcars, Inc. ("Passport Motorcars"), also doing business 

as Passport Infiniti ofAlexandria, Passport Nissan ofAlexandria, and Passport Nissan ofMarlow 

Heights, is a Virginia corporation with its principal place ofbusiness at 150 S. Pickett Street, 

Alexandria, Virginia, 22304. Passport Motorcars transacts or has transacted business in this 

d'istrict. 

8. Defendant Autos International, Inc. ("Autos International"), also doing business 

as Passport Infiniti ofSuitland, is a Virginia corporation with its principal place ofbusiness at 

4800 Branch Avenue, Suitland, Maryland, 20746. Autos International transacts or has transacted 

business in this district. 

9. Defendant Everett A. Hellmuth, III is the founder, president, and a director of 

Defendants Passport Imports, Passport Motorcars, and Autos International (the "Passport 

Corporate Defendants"). At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with 

others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had the. authority to control, or participated in the 

acts and practices ofthe Passport Corporate Defendants, including the acts and practices set forth 

in this Complaint. Defendant Hellmuth, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts 

orhas transacted business in this district. 

10. Defendant Jay A. Klein is the vice president ofDefendants Passport Imports, 

Passport Motorcars, and Autos International. At all times material to this Complaint, acting 

3 
Case 8:18-cv-03118-PX Document 1 Filed 10/10/18 Page 4 of 13 

alone or in concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to 

control, or participated in the acts and practices ofthe Passport Corporate Defendants, including 

the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Defendant Klein, in connection with the 

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

11. The Passport Corporate Defendants have operated as a common enterprise while 

engaging .in the deceptive acts and practices alleged below. The Passport Cmporate Defendants 

have conducted the business practices described below through an interrelated network of 

companies that have common ownership, officers, managers, employees, and business functions. 

Because the Passport ·Corporate Defendants have operated as a common enterprise, each ofthem 

is jointly and severally liable for the acts and practices alleged below. Defendants Hellmuth and 

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

acts and practices ofthe Passport Corporate Defendants that constitute the common enterprise. 

12. The Passport Corporate Defendants and Defendants Hellmuth and Klein 

(collectively, "the Passport Defendants") have advertised, offered for sale, and sold motor 

vehicles and services related to motor vehicles to consumers. 

13. Defendant Temecula Equity Group, LLC, also doing business as 

Overflowworks.com ("Overflow''), is a California limited liability company with its principal 

place ofbusiness at 25220 Hancock Avenue, #220, Murrieta, California 92562. Overflow 

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

provides direct mail marketing services, including designing marketing campaigns, for the 

automotive, mortgage, and solar industries. 

14. Defendant Jeffrey R. Bush ("Bush") is the managing member and CEO of 

Te~ecula Equity Group, LLC and holds himself out as the founder, president, and managing 

4 
Case 8:18-cv-03118-PX Document 1 Filed 10/10/18 Page 5 of 13 

partner ofOverflowworks.com. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone orin 

concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or 

participated in the acts and practices ofOverflow set forth in this Complaint. Defendant Bush, in 

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

COMMERCE 

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

course oftrade in or affecting commerce, as "commerce" is defined in Section 4 ofthe FTC Act, 

15 u.s.c. § 44. 

DEFENDANTS' BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

16. In January and February 2015, Defendants mailed "urgent" vehicle recall notices 

to nearly 7,000 Toyota owners. In June 2017, Defendants mailed virtually identical notices to 

thousands ofadditional consumers. Despite the notices' claims about urgent recal1s, Defendants 

sent the notices to consumers without limiting distribution to those whose vehicles were subject 

to open (i.e., unrepaired) safety recalls. Indeed, the vast majority ofthe consumers who were 

sent those notices did not have a vehicle subject to an open recall. After receiving the notices, 

many consumers tried to determine their vehicle's actual recall status by, for example, calling the 

Passport Defendants' dealerships. Many ofthose who called were told that they had to visit 

Defendants' dealerships to learn about the status, and some visited Defendants' dealerships and 

paid for repairs unconnected to a recall. 

DEFENDANTS' TOYOTA RECALL NOTICES 

17. In or about November 2014, Defendant Bush ofOverflow suggested to Defendant 

Klein ofPassport that Overflow create vehicle recall notices for the Passport companies to send 

to vehicle owners. Bush sent Klein two examples ofrecall notice postcards that Overflow 

5 
Case 8:18-cv-03118-PX Document 1 Filed 10/10/18 Page 6 of 13 

previously had used for other dealerships. Each notice included the name, address, and logo ofa 

s:pecific car dealership. Bush offered to replace the dealer information on the sample notices 

with that ofthe Passport companies, and print and mail the notices. 

18. Klein selected one ofthe notices, and Bush, on behalfofOverflow, replaced only 

the dealership's name and contact information to create a Passport Toyota recall notice. Both 

sides ofthat notice are reproduced below. 

URGENT RECALL NOTICE 

'l'o\rrT•••,w;t· ~•.Y.t".•.1~1~:· "'",..., rtrn,..,,,.,1 f:1,,;J1r•rl.e,t-tw,·1=tt_m:f::~f<.l"1:>l,1\:~•rc:11Llt r C 

(i'rh-011:~f.H11£1,~ftAnL~m, .'II ~Ill l:,1'J,I lM~fr.-J_l,1 '1,1'f( ~1)11' Vlllt•_tltt ~11j~1(...:;Mo ,11,u .ill lt\f.;;1 .'lit:-' 

i 0 fi!iU't1 Al ti. e.~ftlt~f-i~rt)4 in:r:l.tfri~c,,;r\il1•r;:'J~iJ\ y(l111,.:•1!-'I'.~ ._ffl U,e , il!-WOf )'lhL•r1d /1'U• 

r"" 1,lv.•, ~tte-1: C0-11'01om1-1Nt' 

:i,;...,.,uuP~ollul"t l•'<Jy Hor,,•1:;,n1~1~<1 l<>.~Ji,_1,1~1 )'<!U 1i,;111lx1,1y.,:,o,,111,1,_1~ ~II/ 1!,!"911p ,:lit»\ 

t11 le.JV ·llt;"fi1nv. ~''':1-·~11,. ~!; .,,,,tti10ll..(f,--i;t~r· _h,!':'':tl)1)11,11H~"'t .\\'f::.11tQ_1~,~c'1J ~D t.: uH ,-,. 'lr.~~i ll,., in tl\~h-ittfin »_rt;i r~l•\·nr1l1Nira1fl ;;, 4i'W't" ~ 1>0,1,l.il~ 

ALL RECALL REPAIRS WILL BE 

PERFQRMED AT ·No CHARGE 

C.,11 it,_i:' ,J_t1J'"111:r~~w~ b_r1~5 ve:11,w,r..·.clr:,rn Our_·.,D.'.ltr,W-~J:'QI) mn1:- h' 

.out 1,1_ci,l1_orti_,_,~f•H •~l..trt fJ~~'f' ~•N~F'I i11r-· :.1f!111~,;.1,rJ 

Ar P:1s1.mon to.Yota, Yew, _Jl_lltort)U(lvo 'Sat~ryT1>:0ur·Sus111ess 

CALL (888) 770-3085 

VEIICLE ll'tlPO 

Yf.AR:~VARYEAR> 

MODEL: <VAR MODEL> 

=- ,.-1,C"lll - '~ Pllllllpllrt Ta,.. 

'-.!LI 6000Au111~ 

MarlowHelglts, MD20748

TOYOTA (111!1!)7TilYMW,pllll!IOIIIO)lata,cc,m 

--­ -"' 

VBNICLB •cALL NOnCE 

WARNING 

Your listed vehicle maybeunder an important factory/safely recall: 

THIM  NO CIIARIN!TO YOU 

CIIIIToday 

(-)ffNDII 

PASSPORT TOYOTA 

-.,artant Cal Us 1oran/lpplinlmont I 

Oirdcn1 

end'orRepair

b)'O<lr 

. Nl>-Ctarg11 ~ 

<vartule1\Jlln•me>

<Vllltldllelft.tadwarill,le oily, 8T

19. As depicted above, these notices warn consumers about urgent recalls, with 

language such as "URGENT RECALL NOTICE" in large white, bold-faced, uppercase letters on 

6 
Case 8:18-cv-03118-PX Document 1 Filed 10/10/18 Page 7 of 13 

a red background on one side, and "VEHICLE RECALL NOTICE," and "WARNING" in large 

red and black bold-faced, uppercase letters on a white background on the other. 

20. These notices are similar to and have the same color scheme as the official recall 

notices that manufacturers are required by the U.S. Department ofTransportation's National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (''NHTSA") to send to consumers. In 2014, NHTSA 

announced that all manufacturers must use a distinctive label for recall mailings to consumers, 

using white, uppercase letters against a red background. According to NHTSA, the label is 

intended to "help protect consumers from misleading sales and marketing materials that mimic, 

in their wording and presentation, legitimate safety recall alerts from manufacturers that can lead 

owners to purchase costly products and services that have no connection to a legitimate safety 

recall." 

21. Working on behalfofthe Passport Defendants, Defendant Overflow obtained, 

from a list brokering company, a list of6,920 consumers owning any model ofToyota from 

model years 2000-13 in zip codes close to Passport Toyota. Defendants did not act in response 

to a specific Toyota recall, and made no effort to limit the mailing list only to consumers whose 

vehicles were subject to open recalls. This was in spite ofthe fact that in August 2014, just 

months before Defendants sent their mailers, NHTSA announced the launch ofits search tool 

that could identify whether a vehicle was subject to an open recall by entering the Vehicle 

Jdentification Number ("VIN"); NHTSA's parent agency, the Department ofTransportation, 

also required manufacturers like Toyota to have VIN search tools on their corporate websites. 

22. Instead ofusing these tools, Defendants mailed recall notices to 6,920 Toyota 

o-wners in two mailings, in January and February 2015. Despite styling the mailer as an 

"VRGENT RECALL NOTICE," Defendants sent the notices to Toyota owners regardless of 

7 
Case 8:18-cv-03118-PX Document 1 Filed 10/10/18 Page 8 of 13 

whether their Toyotas were subject to open recalls, and in the vast majority ofinstances to 

consumers whose Toyotas were not subject to open recalls. Indeed, public data indicates that, at 

that time, only approximately 20% ofautomobiles on the road were subject to recalls, and that 

the percentage ofToyotas on the road subject to recalls was even lower. 

23. The purpose ofsending the mailers was to increase business, not to alert 

consumers with recalls. For example, in January 2015, the customer relations manager for 

Passport Toyota sent an email to the company's service coordinators noting that the Toyota 

recall notice "was targeted towards customers that don't do business with us," and that the 

service manager bad directed the service coordinators to "just schedule these customers with an 

appointment. Do not worry aQout ifthere really is a recall or ifwe have parts." The Passport 

Toyota recall notice resulted in hundreds ofphone calls to the Passport Defendants, with 

Defendant Bush noting to Defendant Klein, "I don't think I've ever seen [this level of] response 

to a non customer database in 20 years ofdoing car dealer direct mail (hundreds ofmillions of 

pieces)." 

24. After receiving complaints about the recall mailing from conswners, Toyota, and 

other dealers, Defendant Klein admitted that he "got a ton ofheat from Toyota" and "Toyota and 

the local dealers wanted to crucify me." But despite the "heat,'' Klein noted to other Passport 

managers that, "as you see we had 410 unique callers" and asked them to try to figure out how 

much revenue the mailers had generated. 

DEFENDANTS' SUBSEQUENT RECALL NOTICES 

25. The Defendants were aware ofcomplaints about the Toyota recall notice, but 

continued sending virtually identical deceptive recall notices to consumers without first 

confirming that the recipients had vehicles with open recalls. For example, in June 2017, the 

8 
Case 8:18-cv-03118-PX Document 1 Filed 10/10/18 Page 9 of 13 

Passport Defendants received a bulletin from Nissan North America about a "voluntary service 

campaign"--distinct from a government-mandated safety recal1- to reprogram air bag control 

units in three models ofNissan vehicles from certain production ranges spanning over ten years. 

Nissan stated that it would notify owners ofaffected vehicles and ask them to bring their vehicles 

to an authorized Nissan dealer. The bulletin instructed dealers to verify whether vehicles were 

affected by the Voluntary Service Campaign, and to inform consumers who visited the service 

department iftheir vehicle was affected by checking the manufacturer's database. Instead, 

Defendant Klein noted in an email that included Defendant Bush that "[t]his is a whole lot of 

vehicles we should have Overf)ow run the counts in both Nissan [ dealerships' primary market 

areas] and do a Nissan recall postcard to these owners." 

26. Working with the Passport Defendants, Overflow created recall notices for 

Passport Nissan ofAlexandria and Passport Nissan ofMarlow Heights that were identical to the 

Passport Toyota recall notices, other than the name and address ofthe dealerships. In June 2017, 

Defendants mailed 8,121 Passport Nissan ofAlexandria notices and 6,370 Passport Nissan of 

Marlow Heights notices to co:nsumers who lived near those dealerships and had Nissan vehicles 

matching the models and years included in the voluntary service campaign-without first 

checking the manufacturer's database to see whether each vehicle was subject to the voluntary 

service campaign or any open recall. 

27. According to Nissan North America, the majority ofvehicles in the model years 

listed inthe voluntary service campaign did not even have the part that needed to be repaired. 

Thus, the majority ofconsumers who received the "urgent recall notice" did not have a vehicle 

subject to Nissan's voluntary service campaign, let alone subject to an open recall. 

28. In a July 10, 2017 email to the Passport Defendants' call center employees, the 

9 
Case 8:18-cv-03118-PX Document 1 Filed 10/10/18 Page 10 of 13 

director ofcustomer care for the Passport Auto Group acknowledged, "THESE MAILERS ARE 

NOT SPECIFIC RECALLS. THESE MAILERS WERE DESIGNED TOCULTNATE 

BUSINESS AND GET THE PHONE TO RING. The idea is to stimulate an inquiry and, in the 

process, provide us with the opportunity to 'discover' an open recall on their vehicle" (emphasis 

in original). Similarly, Defendant Klein has acknowledged in emails that the recall mailers 

"really get the phone ringing" and "drive some traffic" to the dealership. 

29. The Passport Defendants' call center received 352 calls from consumers who had 

been sent the Passport Nissan ofAlexandria notice and 265 calls from consumers who had been 

sent the Passport Nissan ofMarlow Heights notice. 

30. At least one consumer complained to Nissan North America after receiving the 

Passport Nissan ofMarlow Heights notice. When the consumer, who was not a regular Passport 

customer, called to ask which recall his vehicle was subject to, the Passport representative said 

that information was not available over the phone and that the consumer would have to bring his 

vehicle to the service department to fmd out. The consumer subsequently called his regular 

dealership and learned his vehicle was not subject to any open recall. When the consumer called 

Passport back to complain about receiving the mailer when his vehicle was not subject to a 

recall, he was again diverted to the service department. 

31. Defendants knew that they could have confirmed which vehicles were actually 

subject to open recalls. For example, a manufacturer's representative confirmed in an email to 

Defendant Hellmuth that Passport could identify which consumers had vehicles with open reca11s 

by searching by VIN in the corporate database. And before Defendants sent yet another recall 

mailing in June 2017 to consumers without confirming their vehicles had open recalls, Defendant 

Hellmuth stated to staffin an email, "I suggest we do a mailer to these owners and get Them in. I 

10 
Case 8:18-cv-03118-PX Document 1 Filed 10/10/18 Page 11 of 13 

Would not tell [the manufacturer] or our staff that we Are mailing to the customers. Let's get this 

done for a Wide part ofD.C." 

YXQLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

32. Section 5(a) ofthe FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in or affecting commerce." 

33. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions ofmaterial fact constitute deceptive 

a·:ts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) ofthe FTC Act. 

Count I 

34. Through the means described in Paragraphs 18, 19, 22, 25, and 26 ofthis 

Complaint, Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that 

the vehicles ofthe consumers who received Defendants' recall notices were subject to an open 

safety recall. 

35. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances, the vehicles ofthe consumers who 

received Defendants' recall notices were not subject to open safety recalls. 

36. Therefore, the making ofthe representations as set forth in Paragraph 34 ofthis 

Complaint constitutes a deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce in violation of 

Section S(a) ofthe FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

CONSUMER INJURY 

37. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result 

ofDefendants' violations ofthe FTC Act. In addition, Defendants have been unjustly enriched 

as a result oftheir unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants 

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

11 
Case 8:18-cv-03118-PX Document 1 Filed 10/10/18 Page 12 of 13 

THIS COURT'S POWER To GRANT RELIEF 

38. Section 13(b) ofthe FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b ), empowers this Court to grant 

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

of any provision oflaw enforced by the FTC.The Court, in the exercise ofits equitable 

jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, including rescission or reformation ofcontracts, 

restitution, the refund ofmonies paid, and the disgorgement ofill-gotten monies, to prevent and 

remedy any violatio~ ofany provision oflaw enforced by the FTC. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, PlaintiffFTC, pursuant to Section 13(b) ofthe FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 

and the Court's own equitable powers, requests that the Court: 

A. Award Plaintiffsuch preliminary injunctive and ancillary reliefas may be 

necessary to avert the likelihood ofconsumer injury during the pendency ofthis action and to 

preserve the possibility ofeffective final relief; 

B. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations ofthe FfC Act by 

Defendants; 

C. Award such reliefas the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers 

resulting from Defendants' violations ofthe FTC Act, including but not limited to, rescission or 

reformation ofcontracts, restitution, the refund ofmonies paid, and the disgorgement ofillgotten monies; and 

D. Award Plaintiff the costs ofbringing this action, as well as such other and 

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

Respectfully submitted, 

Alden F. Abbott 

General Counsel 

12 
Case 8:18-cv-03118-PX Document 1 Filed 10/10/18 Page 13 of 13 

Dated: ~ (l>J :}()(<[ 

THOMAS E. KANE ~ ' 

REBECCA M. UNRUH 

Federal Trade Commission 

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

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Tel.: (202) 326-2304 (Kane) 

Tel.: (202) 326-3565 (Unruh) 

Fax: (202) 326-3768 

tkane@ftc.gov, runruh@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

13