1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

ALDEN F. ABBOTT 

General Counsel 

STEPHEN T. FAIRCHILD 

WA Bar No. 41214; sfairchild@ftc.gov 

RICHARD MCKEWEN 

WA Bar No. 45041; rmckewen@ftc.gov 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

915 Second Avenue, Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Tel.: (206) 220-6350; Fax: (206) 220-6366 

ROBERT J. QUIGLEY, Local Counsel 

CA Bar No. 302879; rquigley@ftc.gov 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

10990 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 

Los Angeles, CA 90024 

Tel.: (310) 824-4300; Fax: (310) 824-4380 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

9 

1 o 

11 

12 

13 

f"fll! -

No fee.. 

un NOV -4 AH 9: 30 

14 

15 

16 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

17 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMERICAN FINANCIAL SUPPORT 

SERVICES INC., 

ARETE FINANCIAL GROUP, a 

corporation, also d/b/a Arete Financial 

Freedom, 

ARETE FINANCIAL GROUP LLC, 

CBC CONGLOMERATE LLC, also 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Civ. No. SACV 19 - 02109 JVS (ADS )

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 1 of 24 Page ID #:1 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

d/b/a file.mg, 

DIAMOND CHOICE INC., also d/b/a 

Interest Rate Solutions, 

J&L ENTERPRISE LLC, also d/b/a 

Premier Solutions Servicing, 

LA CASA BONITA INVESTMENTS, 

INC., f/k/a La Casa Bonita Investments 

LLC, also d/b/a Education Loan 

Network, also d/b/a Edunet, 

US FINANCIAL FREEDOM CENTER, 

INC., a corporation, 

CAREY G. HOWE, individually and as 

an officer or manager of Arete Financial 

Group; Arete Financial Group LLC; 

CBC Conglomerate LLC; and La Casa 

Bonita Investments, Inc., 

ANNA C. HOWE, individually and as 

an officer of CBC Conglomerate LLC, 

SHUNMIN "MIKE" HSU, individually 

and as an officer or manager of Arete 

Financial Group; Arete Financial Group 

LLC; CBC Conglomerate LLC; and La 

Casa Bonita Investment, Inc., 

RUDDY PALACIOS a/k/a RUDDY 

ARAHONA, individually and as an 

officer of Arete Financial Group; Arete 

Financial Group LLC; and Diamond 

Choice Inc., 

LIVER POMAZI, individually and as 

an officer or director of Arete Financial 

rou2; Arete Financial Group LLC; and 

1 

B

O

G

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 2 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 2 of 24 Page ID #:2 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

J&L Enterprise LLC, and 

JAY SINGH, individually and as an 

officer of American Financial Support 

Services Inc. and US Financial Freedom 

Center Inc., 

Defendants, 

MJ WEAL TH SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

Relief Defendant. 

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission"), for its 

Complaint alleges: 

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

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

Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act ("Telemarketing 

Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108, to obtain temporary, preliminary, and permanent 

injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of 

monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief for 

Defendants' acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 45(a), and the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), 16 C.F.R. pt. 310, in 

connection with Defendants' ongoing deceptive marketing and sale of student loan 

debt relief services. 

2. Since at least April 2014, Defendants have operated an unlawful debt 

relief scheme that preys on consumers with student loan debt. Defendants promise 

consumers that, in exchange for the payment of an upfront fee and subsequent 

monthly fees, Defendants will reduce consumers' monthly student loan payments 

or eliminate all, or a substantial portion of, their federal student loan debt by 

enrolling consumers in student loan forgiveness, consolidation, or repayment 

programs. In numerous instances, however, Defendants fail to reduce or eliminate 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 3 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 3 of 24 Page ID #:3 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

consumers' loan balances or monthly loan payments. Defendants also break their 

promises that they will apply consumers' monthly fee payments to Defendants 

toward the consumers' loans and assume responsibility for servicing those loans, 

leaving consumers on the hook for adverse consequences like increased interest 

and delinquency. As a result, consumers who already struggle to pay their student 

loans lose even more money to Defendants. Since the beginning of their scheme, 

Defendants have pocketed at least $43 million in revenues from consumers. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

§§ 1331, 1337(a), and 1345. 

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

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

PLAINTIFF 

5. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States government 

created by statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or 

affecting commerce. The FTC also enforces the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 

6101-6108. Pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, the FTC promulgated and enforces 

the TSR, 16 C.F.R. pt. 310, which prohibits deceptive or abusive telemarketing acts

or practices. 

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

its own attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and the TSR, and to secure 

such equitable relief as may be appropriate in each case, including rescission or 

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

disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 57b, and 6102(c). 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 4 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 4 of 24 Page ID #:4 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7. Defendant American Financial Support Services Inc. ("AFSS") is a 

Delaware corporation with its current principal place of business at 500 Ygnacio 

Valley Road, Suite 430, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. At all times material to this 

Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, or as part of the common 

enterprise described in Paragraph 22, AFSS has advertised, marketed, offered to 

provide, sold, or provided student loan debt relief services to consumers in this 

District and throughout the United States. 

8. Defendant Arete Financial Group, also doing business as Arete 

Financial Freedom ("Arete Financial Freedom"), is a California corporation with 

its current principal place of business at 1261 East Dyer Road, Suite 100, Santa 

Ana, CA 92705. From approximately June to August 2017, Arete Financial 

Freedom also listed its principal place of business in California Secretary of State 

filings as 5772 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 220, Huntington Beach, CA 92649. At all 

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

of the common enterprise described in Paragraph 22, Arete Financial Freedom has 

advertised, marketed, offered to provide, sold, or provided student loan debt relief 

services to consumers in this District and throughout the United States. 

9. Defendant Arete Financial Group LLC is a California limited 

liability company with its principal place of business listed in California Secretary 

of State filings as 1261 East Dyer Road, Suite 100, Santa Ana, CA 92705. Arete 

Financial Group LLC sometimes also does business as Arete Financial Freedom. 

Arete Financial Group LLC has also operated under the name Arete Finacial [sic] 

Group LLC, a California limited liability company that was registered with the 

California Secretary of State on or about February 15, 2017, and dissolved on or 

about March 26, 2018. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in 

concert with others, or as part of the common enterprise described in Paragraph 22, 

DEFENDANTS 

Corporate Defendants 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 5 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 5 of 24 Page ID #:5 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Arete Financial Group LLC has advertised, marketed, offered to provide, sold, or 

provided student loan debt relief services to consumers in this District and 

throughout the United States. 

10. Defendant CBC Conglomerate LLC, also doing business as 

lfile.org ("l file.org"), is or was a California limited liability company with its 

principal place of business at 1261 East Dyer Road, Suite 100, Santa Ana, CA 

92705. lfile.org has also represented, in documents filed with the California 

Secretary of State, that its principal place of business is or was 5862 BolsaAvenue, 

Suite 102, Huntington Beach, CA 92649. lfile.org's corporate status is currently 

listed as "FTB [Franchise Tax Board] Suspended" on the California Secretary of 

State's website. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert 

with others, or as part of the common enterprise described in Paragraph 22, 

1 file.org has advertised, marketed, offered to provide, sold, or provided student 

loan debt relief services to consumers in this District and throughout the United 

States. 

11. Defendant Diamond Choice Inc., also doing business as Interest 

Rate Solutions ("Diamond Choice"), is a California corporation with its principal 

place of business at 1261 East Dyer Road, Suite 250, Santa Ana, CA 92705. 

Individual Defendant Palacios is the owner, and serves as chief executive officer, 

chief financial officer, and director, of Diamond Choice. Diamond Choice has held 

an ownership interest inArete Finacial [sic] Group, LLC. At all times material to 

this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, or as part of the common 

enterprise described in Paragraph 22, Diamond Choice has advertised, marketed, 

offered to provide, sold, or provided student loan debt relief services to consumers 

in this District and throughout the United States. 

12. Defendant J&L Enterprise LLC, also doing business as Premier 

Solutions Servicing ("PSS"), is a Delaware limited liability company with its 

registered address and principal place of business at 18001 Sky Park Circle, Suites 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 6 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 6 of 24 Page ID #:6 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

L-M, Irvine, CA 92614. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in 

concert with others, or as part of the common enterprise described in Paragraph 22, 

PSS has advertised, marketed, offered to provide, sold, or provided student loan 

debt relief services to consumers in this District and throughout the United States. 

13. Defendant La Casa Bonita Investments, Inc., formerly known as La 

Casa Bonita Investments LLC, also doing business as Education Loan Network, 

also doing business as Edunet ( collectively, "La Casa Bonita"), is a California 

corporation with its current principal place of business at 5772 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 

220, Huntington Beach, CA 92649. La Casa Bonita Investments, Inc. is the 

corporate successor to La Casa Bonita Investments LLC, which was a California 

limited liability company that conducted business at 5862 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 102, 

Huntington Beach, CA 92649. On or about August 1, 2016, La Casa Bonita 

Investments LLC filed an Articles of Incorporation with Statement of Conversion 

with the California Secretary of State and thereby converted into Defendant La 

Casa Bonita Investments, Inc. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone 

or in concert with others, or as part of the common enterprise described in 

Paragraph 22, La Casa Bonita has advertised, marketed, offered to provide, sold, or 

provided student loan debt relief services to consumers in this District and 

throughout the United States. 

14. Defendant US Financial Freedom Center, Inc. ("USFFC") is a 

Delaware corporation with its current principal place of business at 500 Y gnacio 

Valley Road, Suite 430, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. At all times material to this 

Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, or as part of the common 

enterprise described in Paragraph 22, USFFC has advertised, marketed, offered to 

provide, sold, or provided student loan debt relief services to consumers in this 

District and throughout the United States. 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 7 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 7 of 24 Page ID #:7 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Individual Defendants 

15. Defendant Carey G. Howe ("Mr. Howe") holds himself out as the 

president and an owner of Arete Financial Freedom and Arete Financial Group 

LLC, as a manager of 1 file.org, and as the chief executive officer and sole director 

of La Casa Bonita. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in 

concert with others, Mr. Howe has formulated, directed, controlled, had the 

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

Defendants, including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. For 

example, Mr. Howe has responded to consumer complaints about 1 file.org lodged 

with the Better Business Bureau ("BBB"), and has signatory authority on 

Corporate Defendants' bank accounts. Mr. Howe resides in this District and, in 

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

this District and throughout the United States. 

16. Defendant Anna C. Howe ("Ms. Howe") holds herself out as the 

chief operating officer and a manager of 1 file.org. At all times material to this 

Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Ms. Howe has formulated, 

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

practices of the Corporate Defendants, including the acts and practices set forth in 

this Complaint. For example, Ms. Howe has responded to consumer complaints 

about 1 file.org lodged with the BBB and has represented that she handles refunds, 

chargebacks, and sales-related issues for Defendants. Ms. Howe resides in this 

District and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has 

transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. 

17. Defendant Shunmin Hsu, also known as Mike Hsu, holds himself 

out as the secretary, chief financial officer, and a director of Arete Financial 

Freedom, as a manager of Arete Financial Group LLC and 1 file.org, and as the 

chief financial officer of La Casa Bonita. At all times material to this Complaint, 

acting alone or in concert with others, Mr. Hsu has formulated, directed, 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 8 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 8 of 24 Page ID #:8 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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

the Corporate Defendants, including the acts and practices set forth in this 

Complaint. For example, Mr. Hsu has signatory authority on Corporate 

Defendants' bank accounts, has opened a payment processing account using a 

Corporate Defendant's email address, and has participated in marketing, sales, and 

chargeback reduction strategies for Corporate Defendants. Mr. Hsu resides in this 

District and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has 

transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. 

18. Defendant Ruddy Palacios, also known as Ruddy Barahona 

("Palacios"), holds himself out as the chief operating officer, an owner, and a 

director of Arete Financial Freedom; as the chief executive officer of Arete 

Financial Group LLC; and as chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and 

director of Diamond Choice. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone 

or in concert with others, Mr. Palacios has formulated, directed, controlled, had the 

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

Defendants, including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. For 

example, Mr. Palacios has signatory authority on Corporate Defendants' bank 

accounts, has opened a payment account using a Corporate Defendant's email 

address, and has registered at least one web domain associated with Corporate 

Defendants. Mr. Palacios resides within this District and, in connection with the 

matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this District and 

throughout the United States. 

19. Defendant Oliver Pomazi holds himself out as the sole owner of PSS, 

the chief executive officer of Arete Financial Freedom, and has held himself out as 

a director of Arete Finacial [sic] Group, LLC. At all times material to this 

Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Mr. Pomazi has formulated, 

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

practices of the Corporate Defendants, including the acts and practices set forth in 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 9 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 9 of 24 Page ID #:9 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

this Complaint. For example, Mr. Pomazi has signatory authority on Corporate 

Defendants' bank accounts, has opened a payment account using a Corporate 

Defendant's email address, and has responded to consumer complaints lodged with 

the BBB. Mr. Pomazi resides within this District and in connection with the 

matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this District and 

throughout the United States. 

20. Defendant Jay Singh holds himself out as the president, chief 

executive officer, and director of AFSS and USFFC. At all times material to this 

Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Mr. Singh has formulated, 

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

practices of AFSS and USFFC, including the acts and practices set forth in this 

Complaint. For example, Mr. Singh has opened a payment account using a 

Corporate Defendant's email address, is the point of contact for USFFC's website 

registration, and has responded to consumer complaints lodged with the BBB. Mr. 

Singh resides in California and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, 

transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the United 

States. 

Relief Defendant 

21. Relief Defendant MJ Wealth Solutions, LLC ("MJ Wealth 

Solutions") is a California limited liability company with its principal place of 

business listed in California Secretary of State filings as 5917 Oak Avenue #314, 

Temple City, CA 91780. Individual Defendant Hsu serves as the chief executive 

officer of MJ Wealth Solutions. MJ Wealth Solutions has received assets that can 

be traced directly to Defendants' deceptive acts or practices alleged below, and it 

has no legitimate claim to those assets. MJ Wealth Solutions transacts or has 

transacted business in this District. 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 10 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 10 of 24 Page ID #:10 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

COMMON ENTERPRISE 

22. Defendants AFSS, Arete Financial Freedom, Arete Financial Group 

LLC, 1 file.org, Diamond Choice, PSS, La Casa Bonita, and USFFC ( collectively, 

"Corporate Defendants") operate as a common enterprise while engaging in the 

deceptive acts and practices alleged below. Corporate Defendants conduct the 

business practices described below through an interrelated network of companies 

that have common ownership, identities, officers, managers, business functions, 

employees, and office locations, that commingle funds, and that use common 

contracts. Because these Corporate Defendants operate as a common enterprise, 

each of them is jointly and severally liable for the acts and practices alleged below. 

Furthermore, Defendants Carey G. Howe, Anna C. Howe, Shunmin Hsu, Ruddy 

Palacios, Oliver Pomazi, and Jay Singh (collectively, "Individual Defendants") 

formulate, direct, control, have the authority to control, or participate in the acts 

and practices of the Corporate Defendants that constitute the common enterprise. 

COMMERCE 

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

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

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

DEFENDANTS' DECEPTIVE STUDENT LOAN DEBT RELIEF SCHEME 

Background on Student Loan Forgiveness and Repayment Programs 

24. Student loan debt is the second largest class of consumer debt in the 

United States; more than 42 million Americans collectively owe nearly $1.5 trillion

in student loan debt. The student loan market shows elevated levels of distress, 

such as delinquency and default, relative to other types of consumer debt. 

25. To address this mounting level of distressed debt, the Department of 

Education ("ED") and state government agencies administer a limited number of 

student loan forgiveness and discharge programs. Most consumers, however, are 

not eligible for these programs because of strict eligibility requirements. For 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 11 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 11 of 24 Page ID #:11 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

example, one program requires the consumer to demonstrate a total and permanent 

disability; another applies only to consumers whose school closed while the 

consumer was still emolled. A third program, the Borrower Defense to Repayment 

("BDR"), may provide a loan discharge if the school, through an act or omission, 

violated state law directly related to the borrower's federal student loan or to the 

educational services for which the loan was provided. 

26. Other forgiveness programs require working in certain professions for 

a period of years. Teacher Loan Forgiveness applies to teachers who have worked 

full-time for five years in a low-income elementary or secondary school or 

educational service agency. Public Service Loan Forgiveness ("PSLF") applies to 

employees of governmental units or non-profit organizations who make timely 

monthly payments for a period of ten years while employed in the public sector. 

27. The federal government also offers loan forgiveness through incomedriven repayment ("IDR") programs that enable borrowers to reduce their monthly 

payments and have portions of their loans forgiven. IDR programs allow eligible 

borrowers to limit their monthly payments based on a percentage of their 

discretionary monthly income. To remain in an IDR program, borrowers must 

recertify their income and family size annually. Obtaining forgiveness through IDR

programs requires a minimum of 20 or 25 years of qualifying payments. 

28. Because a borrower's income is likely to fluctuate over the life of the 

loan, monthly payments under the IDR programs can vary considerably from year 

to year. If a borrower's income were to increase over the repayment period, for 

example, the monthly payment amount could correspondingly increase to the point 

where those payments would pay off the loan before any amount could be forgiven 

at the end of the repayment term. 

29. Consumers can apply for BDR, PSLF, IDR, and other loan repayment 

and forgiveness or discharge programs through ED or their student loan servicers 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 12 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 12 of 24 Page ID #:12 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

at no cost; these programs do not require the assistance of a third-party company or

payment of application fees. 

30. ED will grant forbearance or deferment while processing applications 

for an alternative repayment plan, and in some cases of hardship. During 

forbearance, and, under some circumstances, during deferment, unpaid interest is 

added to the principal balance. 

Defendants' Deceptive Marketing of Student Loan Debt Relief Services 

31. Defendants promise to enroll consumers in student loan forgiveness, 

consolidation, and repayment programs to reduce or eliminate their monthly 

payments and principal balances. Defendants make these claims in radio and 

television advertisements, on the Internet, and in telemarketing calls. In some 

instances, in response to the Defendants' marketing materials, consumers call 

Defendants for more information. In other instances, Defendants' telemarketers, or 

third-party telemarketers working on Defendants' behalf, make unsolicited 

outbound calls to consumers to offer Defendants' services and convince consumers

to sign up with Defendants. 

32. In both inbound and outbound telemarketing calls, and in publicfacing statements, Defendants make at least four types of deceptive claims: (1) 

consumers who purchase Defendants' services will have their monthly student loan

payments reduced to a lower, specific amount or have their loan balances forgiven 

in whole or in part; (2) most or all of consumers' monthly fee payments to 

Defendants will be applied toward consumers' student loans; (3) Defendants will 

assume responsibility for servicing consumers' student loans; and (4) Defendants 

are affiliated or work directly with ED or one of ED's authorized loan servicers. 

Defendants' Deceptive Payment Reduction Representations 

33. Defendants' telemarketers inform consumers that Defendants can 

enroll them in programs such as BDR, PSLF, or IDR to lower their monthly 

payments or loan balances. Defendants' representatives further tell consumers that 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 13 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 13 of 24 Page ID #:13 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants will obtain a reduction in the consumer's monthly loan payment, or 

save the consumer a specific amount of money, if the consumer purchases 

Defendants' services. In some instances, Defendants promise consumers that their 

entire loan balances will be forgiven after the consumer makes lower monthly 

payments for a specified period of time, anywhere from three to ten years. 

34. In fact, Defendants fail to deliver the benefits they promise. 

Consumers consistently report that Defendants do not reduce consumers' monthly 

loan payments or cause loan balances to be forgiven. Instead, Defendants often 

merely contact a consumer's loan servicer to place the consumer's loans into 

temporary forbearance or deferment status, without the consumer's authorization 

or knowledge. 

3 5. During forbearance, borrowers are temporarily relieved of the 

obligation to make monthly payments, but interest continues to accrue on their 

loans and is added to the principal balance. During deferment, borrowers are 

relieved of making monthly payments and of paying interest on some federal loans,

but must pay interest on others. Thus, if a consumer's loan is placed into 

forbearance or deferment status, the consumer's loan balance increases while 

Defendants continue to collect the consumer's monthly fees. In numerous 

instances, consumers end up owing substantially more on their student loans after 

signing up and paying for Defendants' services. 

36. Even when Defendants enroll consumers in programs such as BDR, 

PSLF, or IDR, or consolidate consumers' loans, such consumers do not realize the 

savings or reduction in payments that Defendants promise. Furthermore, on IDR 

applications, Defendants frequently misstate borrowers' family sizes or indicate 

that borrowers do not have access to their spouses' income, even though they share 

bank accounts and file taxes jointly. Defendants do so in an effort to obtain for 

borrowers a larger reduction in payments than the borrowers would otherwise 

qualify for under ED regulations. 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 14 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 14 of 24 Page ID #:14 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants' Payment and Servicing Misrepresentations 

37. Defendants frequently represent that they will apply the monthly fees 

that consumers pay Defendants towards consumers' student loan debt. In numerous

instances, however, Defendants do not send such payments to consumers' student 

loan servicers. Instead, Defendants collect and retain consumers' payments to 

enrich themselves. 

38. Furthermore, Defendants frequently represent that they will assume 

responsibility for servicing consumers' student loans, and that consumers should 

stop paying their loan servicers and instead make their loan payments to 

Defendants. Defendants, however, are not federal loan servicers and, despite their 

representations to consumers, have not taken over or purchased consumers' student 

loans. Defendants do not, in fact, service consumers' student loans or make 

payments on their behalves. As a result, consumers' loan balances increase with 

accumulated interest. In addition, many consumers' loans become delinquent, and 

some consumers have been placed in default status and their income tax refunds 

have been garnished. 

Defendants' Government Affiliation Misrepresentations 

3 9. On their telemarketing calls with consumers, Defendants state or 

imply that they are affiliated, or work directly, with ED or its authorized servicers. 

For example, Defendants have stated that because they have a "better, more direct 

relationship" with ED than do its servicers, they can secure better repayment terms 

than consumers could obtain through their servicers. Defendants have also directly 

confirmed, in response to consumers' questions, that they work directly with ED. 

40. In fact, Defendants' representations in Paragraph 39 are false. 

Defendants are not affiliated with, and do not work directly with, ED or one of 

ED's authorized loan servicers. Defendants themselves are not authorized loan 

servicers or affiliated with or approved by ED in any manner. 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 15 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 15 of 24 Page ID #:15 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Materiality 

41. Based on Defendants' representations, consumers believe that 

Defendants will enroll them in programs that will reduce their monthly loan 

payments or loan balances; that Defendants will take responsibility for servicing 

the consumers' student loans and obtain for the consumers reductions in loan 

payments or balances; that Defendants will apply consumers' monthly fee 

payments to Defendants toward the consumers' loan balances; and that Defendants 

are affiliated, or work directly, with ED or its authorized loan servicers. Relying on 

these representations, consumers purchase the services that Defendants offer. 

Defendants' Upfront and Monthly Fees 

42. Defendants charge an upfront fee when consumers agree to their 

services. These upfront fees range from approximately $500 to as high as $1,800. 

43. Defendants require that consumers pay at least part of the upfront fee 

before they perform any work on consumers' behalf. As Ms. Howe admitted in 

answering a complaint about 1 file.org submitted to the BBB, "We do NOT start 

any work on a file until the first payment is made by the client." Similarly, 

Defendants' standard-form contract states: "Following receipt of all necessary 

information from Client and the first payment has been made, [Defendants'] 

Services will commence." Sometimes, when consumers are unable to pay the full 

upfront fee, Defendants offer to break it into monthly installments or to allow a 

postdated payment. In at least one instance, Defendants have also worked with a 

third-party company to offer a separate loan to cover the upfront fee-thereby 

piling another loan onto a consumer's existing student loans. 

44. In addition to the upfront fee, Defendants charge a monthly fee for 

their purported services, typically ranging from $19 to $49. 

Defendants' Tactics to Perpetuate Their Unlawful Scheme 

45. Defendants employ additional deceptive tactics to string consumers 

along and prevent consumers from learning of Defendants' deception. For 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 16 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 16 of 24 Page ID #:16 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

example, Defendants induce consumers to sign a power of attorney form during the

signup process. Often relying on the power of attorney form, Defendants then 

change consumers' login names and passwords on the federal student aid website, 

and also change the email addresses consumers have registered with their loan 

servicers to domains associated with Defendants. As a result, consumers stop 

receiving correspondence from their loan servicers and ED and temporarily lose 

access to their own loan information. Consumers often discover that they have 

been scammed only after talking to their actual loan servicer and realizing that 

Defendants have been making no payments to the servicer, while pocketing 

consumers' payments for themselves. When consumers ask for their money back, 

Defendants often refuse to issue full refunds, and will only issue a partial refund or 

no refund at all. 

46. Defendants also require consumers to sign "service agreements" that 

are substantially identical in content and format. These standard-form contracts 

contain terms that were not discussed with consumers during the Defendants' sales 

pitches, or that directly contradict Defendants' marketing materials or statements 

made to consumers during their calls with Defendants' representatives. For 

example, although Defendants represent in telemarketing calls that they are 

affiliated with ED, the form contract states, in the middle of dense text, that 

Defendants are not affiliated with a government agency. 

4 7. Consumers are often unable to spot these contradictions because 

Defendants rush consumers through the process of signing up by creating a sense 

of urgency. Defendants often require consumers to electronically sign forms during 

their phone call with Defendants, without affording consumers adequate time to 

consider the forms' language. In some cases, Defendants require consumers to 

review and sign Defendants' multi-page service agreement on consumers' mobile 

phones. The electronic forms use a hard-to-read font and jump from one signature 

line to another without a meaningful opportunity for review. 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 17 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 17 of 24 Page ID #:17 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Ongoing Unlawful Conduct 

48. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, the 

FTC has reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to violate laws

enforced by the Commission. 

THE FTC ACT 

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

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." 

50. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute 

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

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

CountI 

Deceptive Student Loan Debt Relief Representations 

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

promotion, offering for sale, or sale of student loan debt relief services, Defendants 

represent, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that: 

a. consumers who purchase Defendants' services generally will 

have their monthly payments reduced or their loan balances forgiven in 

whole or in part; 

b. most or all of consumers' monthly fee payments to Defendants 

will be applied toward consumers' student loans; 

C. Defendants will assume responsibility for servicing consumers' 

student loans; and 

d. Defendants are affiliated or work directly with ED or one of 

ED's authorized loan servicers. 

52. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants make 

the representations set forth in paragraph 51 of this Complaint, such 

representations are false or not substantiated at the time Defendants make them. 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 18 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 18 of 24 Page ID #:18 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5 3. Therefore, Defendants' representations as set forth in paragraph 51 of 

this Complaint are false or misleading and constitute deceptive acts or practices in 

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

THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

54. In 1994, Congress directed the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting 

abusive and deceptive telemarketing acts or practices pursuant to the 

Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108. The FTC adopted the original TSR in

1995, extensively amended it in 2003, and amended certain provisions thereafter. 

16 C.F.R. pt. 310. 

55. Defendants are "seller[ s ]" or "telemarketer[ s ]" engaged in 

"telemarketing" as defined by the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(dd), (fl), and (gg). A 

"seller" means any person who, in connection with a telemarketing transaction, 

provides, offers to provide, or arranges for others to provide goods or services to 

the customer in exchange for consideration. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(dd). A 

"telemarketer" means any person who, in connection with telemarketing, initiates 

or receives telephone calls to or from a customer or donor. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(ff). 

"Telemarketing" means a plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to induce

the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution, by use of one or 

more telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call. 16 

C.F.R. § 310.2(gg). 

56. Defendants are sellers or telemarketers of "debt relief services" as 

defined by the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.2( o ). Under the TSR, a "debt relief service" 

means any program or service represented, directly or by implication, to 

renegotiate, settle, or in any way alter the terms of payment or other terms of the 

debt between a person and one or more unsecured creditors or debt collectors, 

including, but not limited to, a reduction in the balance, interest rate, or fees owed 

by a person to an unsecured creditor or debt collector. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2( o ). 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 19 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 19 of 24 Page ID #:19 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

57. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from requesting or 

receiving payment of any fees or consideration for any debt relief service until and 

unless: 

(A) The seller or telemarketer has renegotiated, settled, reduced, or 

otherwise altered the terms of at least one debt pursuant to a settlement 

agreement, debt management plan, or other such valid contractual agreement

executed by the customer; 

(B) The customer has made at least one payment pursuant to that settlement 

agreement, debt management plan, or other valid contractual agreement 

between the customer and the creditor or debt collector; and 

(C) To the extent that debts enrolled in a service are renegotiated, settled, 

reduced, or otherwise altered individually, the fee or consideration either: 

( 1) Bears the same proportional relationship to the total fee for 

renegotiating, settling, reducing, or altering the terms of the entire 

debt balance as the individual debt amount bears to the entire debt 

amount. The individual debt amount and the entire debt amount are 

those owed at the time the debt was enrolled in the service; or 

(2) Is a percentage of the amount saved as a result of the 

renegotiation, settlement, reduction, or alteration. The percentage 

charged cannot change from one individual debt to another. The 

amount saved is the difference between the amount owed at the time 

the debt was enrolled in the service and the amount actually paid to 

satisfy the debt. 

16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(5)(i). 

58. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from misrepresenting, 

directly or by implication, a seller's or telemarketer's affiliation with, or 

endorsement or sponsorship by, any person or government entity. 16 C.F.R. § 

310.3(a)(2)(vii). 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 20 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 20 of 24 Page ID #:20 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

59. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from misrepresenting, 

directly or by implication, any material aspect of any debt relief service, including, 

but not limited to, the amount of money or the percentage of the debt amount that a 

customer may save by using the service. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(x). 

60. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

6102(c), and Section 18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of 

the TSR constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, 

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

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

Count II 

Advance Fee for Debt Relief Services 

61. In numerous instances, in connection with the telemarketing of 

student loan debt relief services, Defendants request or receive payment of a fee or 

consideration for debt relief services before: 

a. Defendants have renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise 

altered the terms of at least one debt pursuant to a settlement agreement, 

debt management plan, or other such valid contractual agreement executed 

by the customer; and 

b. The customer has made at least one payment pursuant to that 

settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other valid contractual 

agreement between the customer and the creditor. 

62. Defendants' acts or practices, as described in paragraph 61 of this 

Complaint, violate Section 310.4(a)(5)(i) of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(5)(i). 

Count III 

Misrepresentation of Affiliation 

63. In numerous instances, in connection with the telemarketing of 

student loan debt relief services, Defendants misrepresent, directly or indirectly, 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 21 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 21 of 24 Page ID #:21 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

expressly or by implication, that Defendants are affiliated with, or endorsed or 

sponsored by, the government or the U.S. Department of Education. 

64. Defendants' acts and practices, as described in paragraph 63 of this 

Complaint, violate Section 310.3(a)(2)(vii) of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. 

§ 310.3(a)(2)(vii). 

CountIV 

Material Debt Relief Misrepresentations 

65. In numerous instances, in connection with the telemarketing of 

student loan debt relief services, Defendants misrepresent, directly or indirectly, 

expressly or by implication, material aspects of their debt relief services, including 

that: 

a. consumers who purchase Defendants' services generally will 

have their monthly payments reduced or their loan balances forgiven in 

whole or in part; 

b. most or all of consumers' monthly fee payments to Defendants 

will be applied toward consumers' student loans; and 

c. Defendants will assume responsibility for servicing consumers' 

student loans. 

66. Defendants' acts and practices, as described in paragraph 65 of this 

Complaint, violate Section 310.3(a)(2)(x) of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(x). 

CountV 

Relief Defendant 

67. Relief Defendant MJ Wealth Solutions has received, directly or 

indirectly, funds and other assets from Defendants that are traceable to funds 

obtained from Defendants' customers through the deceptive acts or practices 

described herein. 

68. Relief Defendant is not a bona fide purchaser with legal and equitable 

title to Defendants' customers' funds and other assets, and Relief Defendant will be 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 22 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 22 of 24 Page ID #:22 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

unjustly enriched if it is not required to disgorge the funds or the value of the 

benefit it received as a result of Defendants' deceptive acts or practices. 

69. By reason of the foregoing, Relief Defendant holds funds and assets in 

constructive trust for the benefit of Defendants' customers. 

CONSUMER INJURY 

70. Consumers are suffering, have suffered, and will continue to suffer 

substantial injury as a result of Defendants' violations of the FTC Act and the TSR. 

In addition, Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful 

acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to 

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

THIS COURT'S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 

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

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

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

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

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

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

provision of law enforced by the FTC. 

72. Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, and Section 6(b) of the 

Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6105(b), authorize this Court to grant such relief as 

the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from 

Defendants' violations of the TSR, including the rescission or reformation of 

contracts, and the refund of money. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiff FTC, pursuant to Sections 13(b) and 19 of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 57b, Section 6(b) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

6105(b), and the Court's own equitable powers, requests that the Court: 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 23 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 23 of 24 Page ID #:23 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

A. Award Plaintiff such preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as 

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

of this action and to preserve the possibility of effective final relief, including a 

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, an order freezing assets, 

appointment of a receiver, immediate access to premises, an evidence preservation 

order, and expedited discovery; 

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

Act and the TSR; 

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

consumers resulting from Defendants' violations of the FTC Act and the TSR, 

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

paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies; 

D. Enter an order requiring Relief Defendant to disgorge all funds and 

assets, or the value of the benefit it received from the funds and assets, which are 

traceable to Defendants' deceptive acts or practices; and 

E. 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, 

Dated: November 4, 2019 ALDEN F. ABBOTT 

General Counsel 

L~1- ~,~ ~Fairchild 

Richard McKewen 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF - 24 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 24 of 24 Page ID #:24 
I 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CIVIL COVER SHEET 

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS ( Check box if you are representing yourself D ) DEFENDANTS ( Check box if you are representing yourself D ) 

Federal Trade Commission American Financial Support Services Inc., et al. 

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Contra Costa 

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) 

--------

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are 

representing yourself, provide the same information. 

Stephen T. Fairchild, Richard McKewen, Robert J. Quigley (local counsel) 

Federal Trade Commission 

915 Second Avenue, Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174; (206) 220-4476 (Fairchild) 

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.) 

[8) 1. U.S. Government 

Plaintiff 

D 2. U.S. Government 

Defendant 

D 3. Federal Question (U.S. 

Government Not a Party) 

D 4. Diversity (Indicate Citizenship 

of Parties in Item Ill) 

IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.) 

(1 N U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) 

Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are 

representing yourself, provide the same information. 

Unknown 

Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES-For Diversity Cases Only 

(Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant) 

PTF DEF PTF DEF 

Citizen of This State D 1 D 1 Incorporated or Principal Place D 4 D 4 of Business in this State 

Citizen of Another State D 2 D 2 Incorporated and Principal Place D 5 D 5 

of Business in Another State 

Citizen or Subject of a 

Foreign Country D 3 D 3 Foreign Nation 

6. Multidistrict 

[8] 1. Original D 2. Removed from D 3. Remanded from D 4. Reinstated or D 5. Transferred from Another D Litigation - Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened District (Specify) Transfer 

8. Multidistrict D Litigation -

Direct File 

V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: 0 Yes [2] No (Check "Yes" only if demanded in complaint.) 

CLASS ACTION under F.R.Cv.P. 23: 0 Yes [2] No O MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $ c1 

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.) 

15 U.S.C. § 53(b): Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. pt. 310. 

VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only). 

OTHER STATUTES CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY CONT. IMMIGRATION PRISONER PETITIONS PROPERTY RIGHTS 

 375 False Claims Act  110 Insurance  240 Torts to Land 

 462 Naturalization Habeas Corpus: D 820 Copyrights Application 

376 Qui Tam  120 Marine  245 Tort Product D 463 Alien Detainee D 830 Patent 

0 (31 USC 3729(a)) Liability 

 465 Other D 51 O Motions to Vacate D D 835 Patent - Abbreviated 130 Miller Act  290 All Other Real Immigration Actions Sentence 

 400 State 140 Negotiable Property TORTS D 530 General New Drug Application 

Reapportionment  Instrument TORTS PERSONAL PROPERTY D 535 Death Penalty D 840Trademark 

 410 Antitrust 150 Recovery of PERSONAL INJURY  370 Other Fraud Other: SOCIAL SECURITY 

 430 Banks and Banking  Overpayment &  310 Airplane 

  540 Mandamus/Other LJ 861 HIA(139Sff) Enforcement of 315 Airplane 371 Truth in Lending 

 450 Commerce/ICC Judgment  Product Liability 380 Other Personal  550 Civil Rights D 862 Black Lung (923) 

Rates/Etc.   460 Deportation  151 Medicare Act  320 Assault, Libel & Property Damage 

 555 Prison Condition 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405 (g)) 

Slander 

470 Racketeer lnflu- 15 2 Recovery of 330 Fed. Employers'  385 Property Damage 

 

560 Civil Detainee 0 864 SSID Title XVI 

 enced & Corrupt Org.  Defaulted Student  Product Liability Conditions of 

Loan (Exel. Vet.) Liability BANKRUPTCY Confinement 0 865 RSI (405 (g)) 

 480 Consumer Credit  340 Marine 

 490 Cable/Sat TV 1 5 3 Recovery of  422 Appeal 28 FORFEITURE/PENAL TY FEDERAL TAX SUITS 

D Overpayment of  345 Marine Product USC 158 625 Drug Related Liability   870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or 

 850 Securities/Com- Vet. Benefits 423 Withdrawal 28 Seizure of Property 21 Defendant) modities/Exchange 160 Stockholders'  350 Motor Vehicle  USC 157 USC 881 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC   690 Other 

~ 890 Other Statutory Suits   355 Motor Vehicle CIVIL RIGHTS 7609 

Actions Product Liability 

 440 Other Civil Rights LABOR .· . 

 190 Other . 

 891 Agricultural Acts 360 Other Personal 

Contract  Injury  441 Voting D 710 Fair Labor Standards 

893 Environmental Act  Matters D 195 Contract  362 Personal Injury-

 442 Employment Product Liability Med Malpratice D 720 Labor/Mgmt. D 895 Freedom of Info. D 196 Franchise 365 Personal Injury-  443 Housing/ Relations 

Act  Product Liability Accommodations D 740 Railway Labor Act D 896 Arbitration .. . R,EAL PrtOrERTY , 367 Health Care/ 445 American with 

D 210Land  Pharmaceutical  Disabilities- D 751 Family and Medical 

899 Ad min. Procedures Condemnation Personal Injury Employment Leave Act 

D Act/Review of Appeal of D 220 Foreclosure Product Liability  446 American with D 790 Other Labor 

Agency Decision 368 Asbestos Disabilities-Other Litigation 

D 950 Constitutionality of D 230 Rent Lease &  Personal Injury  448 Education D 791 Employee Ret. Inc. 

State Statutes Eiectment Product Liabilitv Security Act 

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Case Numbe SACV 19 - 02109 JVS (ADSx) 

I 

I 

I 

-------------------- CV-71 (05/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 1 of 3 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:25 
STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CIVIL COVER SHEET 

VIII. VENUE: Your answers to the questions below will determine the division of the Court to which this case will be initially assigned. This initial assignment is subject 

to change, in accordance with the Court's General Orders, upon review by the Court of your Complaint or Notice of Removal. 

QUESTION A: Was this case removed 

from state court? 

~· . -. 

iNmAL bw1510N 1~ cAtD 1s: · 

O Yes 0 No 

0 Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Western 

If "no," skip to Question B. If "yes," check the 1----------------------------+------------------, 

box to the right that applies, enter the D Orange Southern 

corresponding division in response to 1----------------------------+------------------, 

Question E, below, and continue from there. 0 Riverside or San Bernardino Eastern 

one of its agencies or employees, a 

PLAINTIFF in this action? 

0 Yes O No 

If "no, "skip to Question C. If "yes," answer 

Question 8.1, at right. 

the district reside in Orange Co.? 

check one of the boxes to the right  

B.2. Do 50% or more of the defendants who reside in 

the district reside in Riverside and/or San Bernardino 

Counties? (Consider the two counties together.) 

check one of the boxes to the right 

 

QUESTION C: Is the United States, or C.1. Do 50% or more of the plaintiffs who reside in the 

one of its agencies or employees, a district reside in Orange Co.? 

DEFENDANT in this action? 

0 Yes O No 

If "no," skip to Question D. If "yes," answer 

Question C.1, at right. 

check one of the boxes to the right  

C.2. Do 50% or more of the plaintiffs who reside in the 

district reside in Riverside and/or San Bernardino 

Counties? (Consider the two counties together.) 

check one of the boxes to the right  

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Southern Division. 

0 Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue 

from there. 

O NO. Continue to Question B.2. 

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division. 

0 Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below, and continue 

from there. 

NO. Your case will initially be assigned to the Western Division. 

0 Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below, and continue 

from there. 

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Southern Division. 

O Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue 

from there. 

O NO. Continue to Question C.2. 

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division. 

O Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below, and continue 

from there. 

NO. Your case will initially be assigned to the Western Division. 

O Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below, and continue 

from there. 

A. B. C. 

Riverside or San Los Angeles, Ventura, QUESTION D: Location of plaintiffs and defendants? Orange County Bernard0

ino County Santa Barbara, or San 

Luis Obispo County 

Indicate the location(s) in which 50% or more of plaintiffs who reside in this district 

reside. (Check up to two boxes, or leave blank if none of these choices apply.) 

Indicate the location(s) in which 50% or more of defendants who reside in this 

district reside. (Check up to two boxes, or leave blank if none of these choices 

appl .) 

D.1. Is there at least one answer in Column A? 

D Yes 0 No 

If "yes," your case will initially be assigned to the 

SOUTHERN DIVISION. 

Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there. 

If "no," go to question D2 to the right.  

Enter the initial division determined by Question A, B, C, or D above:  

QUESTION F: 0

N'1f ',, ,,', '', ,; ,, ',>,",:, ,',",»//-\)"!}, 

  

  

D.2. Is there at least one answer in Column B? 

D Yes 0 No 

If "yes," your case will initially be assigned to the 

EASTERN DIVISION. 

Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below. 

 

 

If "no," your case will be assigned to the WESTERN DIVISION. 

Enter "Western' in response to Question E, below. 

SOUTHERN 

Do 50% or more of plaintiffs or defendants in this district reside in Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo counties? D Yes [8} No 

CV-71 (05/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 2of 3 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:26 
STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CIVIL COVER SHEET 

IX(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court? ~ NO 0 YES 

If yes, list case number(s): 

IX(b). RELATED CASES: Is this case related (as defined below) to any civil or criminal case(s) previously filed in this court? 

~ NO 0 YES 

If yes, list case number(s): 

Civil cases are related when they (check all that apply): 

D A. Arise from the same or a closely related transaction, happening, or event; 

D B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or 

D C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges. 

Note: That cases may involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright is not, in itself, sufficient to deem cases related. 

A civil forfeiture case and a criminal case are related when they (check all that apply): 

 

 

 

A. Arise from the same or a closely related transaction, happening, or event; 

B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or 

C. Involve one or more defendants from the criminal case in common and would entail substantial duplication of 

labor if heard by different judges. 

X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY 

(OR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT): ~c.......'f'-=---..____,_ __________ _ DATE: 11/04/2019 

Notice to Counsel/Parties: The submission of this Civil Cover Sheet is required by Local Rule 3-1. This Form CV-71 and the information contained herein 

neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. For 

more detailed instructions, see separate instruction sheet (CV-071 A). 

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases: 

Nature of Sult Code Abbreviation 

861 HIA 

862 BL 

863 DIWC 

B63 DIWW 

B64 SSID 

B65 RSI 

CV-71 (05/171 

Substantive Statement of Cause of Action 

All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also, 

include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the program. 

(42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b)) 

All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coa.1 Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 U.S.C. 

923) 

All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus 

all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g)) 

All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as 

amended. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g)) 

All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act, as 

amended. 

All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. 

(42 U.S.C. 40S (g)) 

CIVIL COVER SHEET Page3of3 

Case 8:19-cv-02109-JVS-ADS Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:27