UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff ,. V. LANIER LAW LLC, a Florida limited liability company, also d/b/a REDSTONE LAW GROUP and as LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. LANIER; FORTRESS LAW GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability company; SURETY LAW GROUP LLP, a District of Columbia limited liability partnership; LffiERTY & TRUST LAW GROUP OF FLORIDA LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and MICHAEL W. LANIER, individually and as an owner, officer, manager, and/or representative ofthe above·- mentioned entities; Defendants. Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-786-J-34PDB FlLED UNDER SEAL EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITH AN ASSET FREEZE AND OTHER RELIEF, AND SCHEDULING A INJUNCTION HEARING
26
Embed
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION … · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff,. V. LANIER
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,.
V.
LANIER LAW LLC, a Florida limited liability company, also d/b/a REDSTONE LAW GROUP and as LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. LANIER;
FORTRESS LAW GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability company;
SURETY LAW GROUP LLP, a District of Columbia limited liability partnership;
LffiERTY & TRUST LAW GROUP OF FLORIDA LLC, a Florida limited liability company;
and
MICHAEL W. LANIER, individually and as an owner, officer, manager, and/or representative ofthe above·-mentioned entities;
Defendants.
Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-786-J-34PDB
FlLED UNDER SEAL
EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITH AN ASSET FREEZE AND OTHER ~EQUITABLE RELIEF, AND SCHEDULING A
PRELIMil~ARY INJUNCTION HEARING
Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (''FTC"), filed its Complaint seeking a
permanent injunction and other equitable relief, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). The Complaint alleges the
Defendants violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), the Mortgage Assistance
Relief Services Rule {"MARS Rule"), 16 C.F.R. Part 322, recodified as Mortgage Assistance
Relief Services {Regulation 0), 12 C.F.R. Part 1015 {"Regulation 0 " ), and the
Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), 16 C.F .R. Part 310, in connection with the marketing and
sale of mortgage assistance relief services. The FTC has applied ex parte for a temporary
restraining order ("TRO" or "Order") and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction
should not issue pursuant to Section 13(b) ofthe FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b)(second proviso)
and Rule 65(br of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Plaintiff Federal Trade
Commissior:t's Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order with Ancillary Equitable
Relief and a Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support of the Ex Parte Motion
(TRO Motion).
FINDINGS OF FACT
This Court, having considered the complaint, the TRO Motion, and all attached
declarations, exhibits, and memonmdum of law filed in support, finds that:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, there is good cause to
believe it will have jurisdiGtion over all the parties hereto, and venue in this district is
proper;
2. There is good cause to believe that Defendants, Lanier Law LLC, also doing business
as Redstone Law Group, Fortress Law Group LLC, Surety Law Group LLP, Liberty
2
& Trust Law Group of Flmida LLC, and Michael W. Lanier, have engaged and are
likely to continue to engage in acts or practices that violate Section 5(a) of the FTC
Act, the MARS Rule, and the TSR, and that the FTC is therefore likely to prevail on
the merits ofthis action;1
3. There is good cause to believe that consumers will suffer immediate and continuing
harm from Defendants' ongoing violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act and of the
MARS Rule, unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined by Order of this Court;
4. There is good cause to bel.ieve that immediate and irreparable damage to the Court's
ability to grant effective fi:nal relief for consumers in the form of monetary restitution
and/or disgorgement of ilJl-gotten gains will occur from the transfer, dissipation, or
concealment by Defendanits of their assets or business records unless Defendants are
immediately restrained and enjoined by Order of this Court; and that in accordance
with FED. R. Crv.. P. 65(b), the interest of justice requires that the FTC's Motion be
heard ex parte without prior notice to Defendants. Therefore, there is good cause for
relieving the FTC of the duty to provide Defendants with prior notice of the FTC's
Motion;
5. There is a good cause to 'believe that this temporary restraining order with an asset
freeze, immediate access to business premisesj and other equitable relief is in the
1 Consistent with temporary restraining order practice, this finding is· based solely on the FTC's pleadings and declarations and is made for the purpose of resolving the TRO Motion. This conclusion does not forec1ose the argument at the preliminary injunction hearing that the FTC cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits.
3
public interest, and on the current record no private interest of the Defendants has
been shown to outweigh the public interest. 2
6. No security is required at this time.
DEFINITIONS
A. "Assets" means any legal or equitable interest in, right to, or claim to, any real or
personal property, including, without limitation, chattels, goods, instruments,
equipment, fixtures, general intangibles, leaseholds, mail or other deliveries,
inventory, checks, notesl a~ccounts, credits, contracts, receivables, shares of stock, and
all cash, wherever located.
B. "Defendants" means the: Individual Defendant and the Corporate Defendants,
individually, collectively, or in any combination, and each of them by whatever
names each might be kno·wn.
1 . "Corporate Defendants" means Lanier Law LLC, also doing business as
Redstone Law Group and the Law Offices of Michael W. Lanier, Fortress
Law Group LLC, Surety Law Group LLP, and Liberty & Trust Law Group of
Florida LLC, and their successors and assigns.
2. "Individual Defendant" means Michael W. Lanier.
2 Although the FTC requested the appointment of a receiver with broad receivership powers, the Court will deny that request at this time without prejudice to reconsideration at a subsequent hearing.
4
C. "Document" and .. Electronically Stored Information" are synonymous in meaning
and equal in scope to the usage of the term in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a),
and includes, but are not limited to:
1. The original or true copy of any written, typed, printed, electronically stored,
transcribed, taped, recorded, filmed, punched, or graphic matter or other data
compilations of any kind, including, but not limited to, letters, email or other
XVII. IT IS FURTHER ORDE:RED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b),
that Defendants shall appear on the 15th day of July, 2014, at 2:00p.m. at the United States
Courthouse, Courtroom 1 OB, Jacksonville, Florida, for a hearing to determine whether this
Temporary Restraining Order should be dissolved or converted to a preliminary injunction,
pending final resolution of this action.3 The .hearing is. expected to be conducted in
3 All persons entering the Courthouse must present photo identification to Court Security Officers. Allhough
24
accordance with Local Rule 4.06, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
(Local Rule(s)), and Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case does not appear to
involve the exceptional situation wherein the Court would allow the parties to submit
evidence at the hearing. See Local Rule 4.06(b). Thus, the hearing will be limited to the
written submissions and arguments of counsel.
In issuing this Temporary Restraining Order, the Court understands that Defendants
have not yet been given an opporltunity to be heard and emphasizes that it is not making a
final decision on any request for preliminary injunctive relief. However, the Court is
persuaded that issuing the Temporary Restraining Order until a full hearing can be held on
!he FTC's request for preliminary injunctive relief is the lawful and proper action.
SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
XVIII. IT 18 FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file any answering affidavits,
pleadings, or legal memoranda with the Court and serve the same on counsel for the FTC no
later than 4:00p.m. on Monday, July 14, 2014.
DURATION OF ORDER
XIX. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless earlier dissolved by Order of the Court, the
Temporary Restraining Order granted herein shall expire on the 23rd day of July, 2014, at 11
o'clock a.m.
cell phones, laptop computers, and similar electronic devices generally are not permitted in the building, attorneys may bring those items with them upon presentation to Court Security Officers of a Florida Bar card (presentation of the Duval County Courthouse lawyer identification card will suffice) or Order of special admission pro hac vice. However, all cell! phones must be turned off while in the courtroom.
25
XX. In all other respects the TRO Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 9th day of July, 2014, at \ \ o'clock a.m.
\, ~\ , r •r h/rv. \1, ., ~ L" ·(,., rJ uN'1rliD si ATEs 'nisr'RrcT ·roDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA