FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/27/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600552 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

HEALTH RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC, 

a limited liability company, 

DOCKET NO. 9397 

WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, 

a limited liability company, and 

KRAMER DUHON, 

individually and as an officer of HEALTH 

RESEARCH LABORATORIES, LLC and 

WHOLE BODY SUPPLEMENTS, LLC 

RESPONDENTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF 

CONTESTED STIPULATED CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

SUMMARY 

Pursuant to Section 5 of the FTC Act, Complaint Counsel filed an Administrative 

Complaint seeking a cease and desist order prohibiting Respondents from advertising or 

promoting four supplements. Respondents have agreed to the entry of a cease and desist 

order that tracks the exact language in the Administrative Complaint. Remarkably, 

Complaint Counsel argues that a cease and desist order should not be entered because (a) 

this Court does not have the authority to issue a cease and desist order; and (b) the entry 

of such an order is improper because it would not “affect the outcome of this proceeding” 

and because it would “wrongfully foreclose” the FTC from “using Section 19’s monetary 

recovery tools.” Response, pp. 4, 7. 

1 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/27/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600552 | PUBLIC

 

 

																																																						

PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

The issue before the Court is whether the Court can recommend entry of a cease 

and desist order that prohibits Respondents from participating in certain “acts or 

practices” specifically identified in the Administrative Complaint. This Court has the 

authority to recommend entry of a cease and desist order, and it should do so. 

FACTS 

In an attempt to sway the Court against Respondents, Complaint Counsel recites 

false allegations—not from the pleadings in this proceeding—but from the FTC’s federal 

court lawsuit that Respondents settled in 2018. Almost all of the “Background” is not in 

the Administrative Complaint and relates solely to allegations that were settled without 

any finding of liability. Further, this is not a proceeding to enforce the 2018 Stipulated 

Consent Judgment. The FTC lost that effort. 

The Administrative Complaint in this case alleges that Respondents have 

“disseminated or [have] caused to be disseminated advertising and promotional 

materials”1 for four supplements that the Commission contends were “not substantiated 

at the time the representations were made.”2 Because Respondents stopped this alleged 

“act or practice” more than a year ago—prior to the filing of the Administrative 

1 See Complaint, ¶¶ 7, 9, 11, and 13. 

2 See Complaint, ¶¶ 15, 17, 19, and 21. 

2 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/27/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600552 | PUBLIC

 

																																																						

PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

Complaint—and have no intention of ever selling these supplements again, Respondents 

seek entry of a voluntary cease and desist order.3 

ARGUMENT 

I. The Court has authority to recommend issuance of the proposed cease and desist 

order. 

The FTC filed this administrative action pursuant to Section 5 of the FTC Act, 

which allows the FTC to issue “an order requiring [Respondents] to cease and desist from 

using such method of competition or such act or practice.” See 15 U.S.C. § 45(b). 

Respondents are admittedly seeking relief that is “unusual.” Most Respondents do not 

voluntarily seek an order prohibiting them from the “act or practice” listed in the FTC’s 

administrative complaint. Respondents are tired of fighting with the FTC (a fight that has 

now lasted more than six years). 

Respondents initially filed the Motion with the Commission and the filing was 

“returned” with the notation that it was “[a]ddressed to the wrong decision-maker.” See 

Ex. A (January 13, 2021 email from FTC Apps). Considering that Respondents had no 

ability to file this Motion with the Commission, Respondents re-filed the Motion before 

the Office of the Administrative Law Judges. In their Motion, Respondents requested 

that the Administrative Law Judge and/or the Commission enter a binding cease and 

desist Order and noted that, if the Court did not have the authority to enter the Order, 

3 Complaint Counsel alleges that Respondents want to continue billing customers for the 

four supplements at issue. This statement is not accurate. The requested order prohibits 

not only all marketing, but also all sales of the products. 

3 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/27/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600552 | PUBLIC

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

the Court should refer the Motion to the Commission. Admittedly, Respondents’ initial 

request was slightly imprecise. To clarify, Respondents seek to have this Court 

“recommend” (not refer) entry of requested cease and desist order to the Commission and 

seek to have the Commission immediately enter the order. 

Complaint Counsel’s first argument is that the Court has no authority to issue 

cease and desist orders provided by Section 5 of the FTC Act. To be clear, Respondents 

are seeking the entry of a cease and desist order and, if this Court does not have the 

authority to enter such a motion, then Respondents request that the Court recommend 

entry of such an order and refer the motion to the Commission for final entry. The FTC 

does not argue that the Court does not have authority, after a final hearing, to 

recommend entry of a cease and desist order. Clearly, if the party against whom the cease 

and desist order stipulates to the entry of such an order, then this Court should have the 

authority to enter an order without conducting a full administrative hearing. 

Complaint Counsel argues that the Court and the Commission cannot enter the 

proposed cease and desist order because it does not include findings of fact. Findings of 

fact are intended to aid reviewing courts by providing a clear understanding of the basis 

of a decision. See generally F.T.C. v. Burke, 617 Fed.Appx. 667, 668 (9th Cir. 2015) 

Wynn Oil Co. v. Purolator Chemical Corp., 536 F.2d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1976). When the 

basis of the decision is the consent of the party against whom the order is entered, 

findings of fact should be unnecessary. However, to the extent that findings of fact are 

necessary, Respondents request the proposed order include the following finding of fact: 

4 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/27/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600552 | PUBLIC

 

 

																																																						

PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

“The Court finds that Respondents consented, and stipulated, to the entry of this cease 

and desist order.” 

Complaint Counsel argues that “Respondents’ order neither proposes findings of 

fact nor waives such findings.” Response, p. 6. Respondents assumed that, by requesting 

entry of a cease and desist order, Respondents were waiving any requirement that the 

order be expressly supported by factual findings. But, to the extent that waiver is not 

clear, Respondents hereby expressly waive the requirement that the cease and desist order 

include factual findings. Further, Respondents expressly consent to the Court and the 

Commission’s jurisdiction to enter the requested order. 

II. The Court and the Commission should enter the proposed order. 

A. The proposed order will affect the outcome of this case. 

Complaint Counsel argues that the Court should deny the Motion because entry of 

the proposed order would not affect the outcome of these proceedings. The proposed 

order is directly relevant to one of Respondents’ primary defenses. In their Answer, 

Respondents allege: 

The causes of action alleged in the Complaint are barred by mootness 

because all alleged conduct (i.e., marketing and advertising) referenced in 

the Complaint ceased more that [a] year prior to the filing of the Complaint 

and will not reoccur in the future. The FTC has alleged no fact regarding a 

likelihood of reoccurrence. Further, the FTC Act does not grant the FTC 

the authority to seek a cease and desist order for conduct that ceased prior 

to the Administrative Complaint without evidence that the conduct will 

likely reoccur in the future.4 

4

 Answer, ¶ 24. 

5 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/27/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600552 | PUBLIC

 

 

																																																						

PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

Immediately after the Answer was filed, Complaint Counsel represented the 

following to Respondents’ counsel: 

Your Answer also asserts that “[t]he FTC has alleged no facts regarding the 

likelihood of recurrence.” Id. at 3. Again, we disagree and we further 

disagree that such an allegation must be included in the Complaint. See 16 

C.F.R. § 3.11(b). Nevertheless, we intend to prove a likelihood of 

recurrence as part of the administrative case. As such, you should prepare 

an appropriate defense.5 

Respondents took Complaint Counsel’s advice. The proposed cease and desist order 

would prohibit a future “recurrence” of the alleged act or practice. This is the essence of 

the relief that the FTC seeks in this administrative proceeding. The FTC cannot 

reasonably argue that the requested relief simply has no effect on the outcome of this case. 

Further, the cease and desist order is not intended to be a “voluntary discontinuance” of 

the alleged “act or practice.” Response, p. 7. Unlike voluntary discontinuance, noncompliance with the cease and desist order comes with substantial penalties. See 15 U.S.C. 

45(l) (monetary violations for each violation of a cease and desist order). 

B. A potential future Section 19 action is irrelevant to this proceeding. 

Finally, Complaint Counsel argues that the proposed cease and desist order may 

negatively affect a future action that the FTC may file someday under Section 19 of the 

FTC Act. The FTC has filed no action under Section 19, nor has it stated that it will file 

an action under Section 19. Refusing to enter the proposed cease and desist order in this 

case simply because the FTC may someday file a separate action in federal court against 

5 See Ex. B (Dec. 14, 2020 letter from Jonathan Cohen) (emphasis added). 

6 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/27/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600552 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

the Respondents is not a legal basis for denying the stipulated relief. Nothing in Section 5 

or 12 of the FTC Act—the sections that govern this proceeding—state that this Court 

should enter only those findings that may be beneficial to the FTC in later actions. 

Further, there is a strong argument that the language of Section 19 requires a violation of 

the cease and desist order for the FTC to commence a civil action under Section 19. See 

15 U.S.C. §57b(a)(2) (“If any . . . corporation engages in any unfair or deceptive act or 

practice . . . with respect to which the Commission has issued a final cease and desist 

order which is applicable to such . . . corporation, then the Commission may commence a 

civil action against such . . . corporation.”). 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER 

Respondents request that the Administrative Law Judge recommend to the 

Commission, and the Commission enter, a binding order, that provides as follows: 

The Court finds that Respondents consented, and stipulated, to the entry of 

this cease and desist order. 

Pursuant to the stipulation requested by Respondents, Respondents shall 

cease and desist from disseminating or causing to be disseminated all 

advertising or promotional materials for Black Garlic Botanicals, BG18, 

The Ultimate Heart Formula, and Neupathic, as well as any substantially 

similar products. 

Pursuant to the Respondents’ request, Respondents shall cease and desist 

from selling or causing to be sold all dietary supplement products referenced 

in the Complaint (i.e., Black Garlic Botanicals, BG18, The Ultimate Heart 

Formula, and Neupathic), as well as any substantially similar products. 

Respondents also request such other relief to which Respondents may justly be entitled. 

7 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/27/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600552 | PUBLIC

 

 

 

PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

Dated: January 27, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

REESE MARKETOS LLP 

By: /s/ Joel W. Reese 

Joel W. Reese 

Texas Bar No. 00788258 

joel.reese@rm-firm.com 

Joshua M. Russ 

Texas Bar No. 24074990 

josh.russ@rm-firm.com 

750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600 

Dallas, TX 75201-3201 

Telephone: (214) 382-9810 

Facsimile: (214) 501-0731 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS 

8 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/27/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600552 | PUBLIC

I hereby certify that on January 27, 2021, I filed the foregoing document 

electronically using the FTC’s E-Filing system, which will send notification to: 

April J. Tabor The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Acting Secretary Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-113 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

Elizabeth Averill 

eaverill@ftc.gov 

Jonathan Cohen 

jcohen2@ftc.gov 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL 

 /s/ Joel W. Reese 

 Joel W. Reese 

PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

9 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/27/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600552 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC

EXHIBIT'A'
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/27/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600552 | PUBLIC

From: FTC Apps no-reply@apps.ftc.gov <f 

Subject: Re: D09397 Health Research Laboratories - A filing submission has been returned 

Date: January 13, 2021 at 8:33 AM 

To: joel.reese@rm-firm.com 

The Respondent Counsel under Docket Number: D09397 and Health Research 

Laboratories, EFiling has been uploaded to the system by Joel Reese on 2021-01-12 

16:42:45 EST and is Returned. File(s) included in this submission: Respondents' Motion for 

Acceptance of Contested Stipulated Case-and-Desist Order. 

2021-01-13 09:33:37 EST - Sherri Harris (Comments) Addressed to the wrong decisionmaker.) 

Please do not reply to this message as this email address is not monitored. 

For Procedural Matters contact: DocumentProcessing..@11g_.gov 

For Technical Matters contact: support.adminefiling..@11g_.gov 

PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/27/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600552 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC

EXHIBIT'B''
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 1/27/2021 | OSCAR NO. 600552 | PUBLIC

United Stall!S of Amenca 

FEDERAL TRAD!·. COMMISSION 

600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW. CC-9528 

\V ASHINGTON. DC 20580 

DI\ is10n of Enlor~emcn1 

Hurcau of Consumer f>mtc,·hon 

Elizabeth J. Averill 

(202) 326-2993: ea,•rrill(ti)ftc.gov 

Jonathan Cohen 

(202) 326-2551; jcohu2(iiJftc:.gov 

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL 

_locl Reese, Esq. 

Joshua Russ, Esq. 

Reese l\latketos LLP 

750 '.\I. Saint Paul Stret:l, Suire WO 

Dallas, Texas 75:!01 

(214) 382-9801; Jocl.Rccs1.:@ rtn-finn.com 

(214) 382-9810:Josh.Russ@ nn-finn.wm 

Dccc..·mbcr 14, 20.20 

RE: In re Hc;1/th Research Laboratorie.,,·, No. 9397 (F.T.C.) 

Scone of Compla_int 

Counsel, 

This corrcspon<lencc confirms our conYers:ition last week clarifying the scope of the 

Complaint in the abon:-capuonc<l matter and ad<lressing certain issues your .\nswcr raises .. \mong 

other things, your , \nswcr suggests or implies that the Complaint improperly cncompasses wrongful 

con<luct that took place prior to January 16, 201 H. \Ve <lisagrcc, as your clients di:sscm.inace<l all four 

of the advertisements attached to chc Complairn as Exhibits after cntr~· of Stipulntc<l Order. 

:\!though what transpired before January 16, 2018 may be relevant TO what subsequently occurred. 

or what might occur Ln the future, the Complaint docs not allege (and Complaint Counsel will not 

seek to pm\"e) that con<luct prior to January 16, 21)1 H Yiolatcd the l<TC .\ct. 

Your .--\nswt:r also asscrts that "ft)hc l·TC has alle~e<l no facts rt:K:tr<ling a likelihood of 

n:currcnce." Id at 3. , \g:un, we disagree, and we further disagree that such an allegation must be 

mcludcd in c.he Complaint. Sec 16 C.FR.f 3.110>). !\lc\·crrhelcss, we Ulfl'll<l to pron: a likelihoo<l of 

rccutrcncc as part ui the adm.inistrati,·c case .. \s ~uch, you should prepare an appropnate defense. 

As we indicated, this correspondence renders a potentially time-consuming or bur<lensomc 

formal amendment Lmnccl·ssary, and we appreci.:m· your willingness to acct:pt it. :\ccor<linglr, you 

may rely on trus corrt:spon<lcncc regarding the Complaint's scope. 

,_....--

an Cohen 

ai,11 Co1111sel 

PUBLIC