and Submitted September 14, 2018 San Francisco, California
from the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00030-JCM-PAL James C. Mahan,
District Judge, Presiding.
J. Porter (argued) and Sarah E. Spencer, Christensen &
Jensen, P.C., Salt Lake City, Utah, for
D. Abyad (argued), Attorney; Joel Marcus, Deputy General
Counsel; Alden F. Abbott, General Counsel; Gregory A. Ashe
and Adam M. Wesolowski, Attorneys; J. Reilly Dolan, Acting
Director; Bureau of Consumer Protection; Federal Trade
Commission, Washington D.C.; for Plaintiff-Appellee.
appearance for Receiver-Appellee.
Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Paul J. Watford, and Michelle
T. Friedland, Circuit Judges.
panel affirmed the district court's order entering a
preliminary injunction freezing all of the defendants'
assets in connection with Consumer Defense Global's loan
modification business operations in an action initiated by
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleging violations of the
FTC Act and Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. Part 1015 - Mortgage
Assistance Relief Services.
parties agreed that the FTC brought the action pursuant to
the second proviso of Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which
allows the FTC to seek injunctive relief without initiating
administrative action, but disputed whether the FTC was
required to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm to
panel held that although in the ordinary case a showing of
irreparable harm was required to obtain injunctive relief, no
such showing was required when injunctive relief was sought
in conjunction with a statutory enforcement action where the
applicable statute authorized injunctive relief. The panel
further held that circuit precedent to that effect did not
present an irreconcilable conflict with the holding in
Winter v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), and remained valid. The panel
concluded that the district court committed no error in
granting the motion for a preliminary injunction without
requiring the FTC to make the traditional showing of
panel addressed challenges to the district court's
jurisdiction and the scope of the injunction in a
concurrently filed memorandum disposition.
RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge.
appeal stems from an action initiated by the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) alleging violations of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and Regulation O, 12
C.F.R. Part 1015 - Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (the
MARS Rule). Defendants-Appellants Preferred Law, PLLC;
American Home Loan Counselors; Consumer Defense Group, LLC;
Consumer Defense, LLC; Brown Legal, Inc.; AM Property
Management, LLC; FMG Partners, LLC; Zinly, LLC; Jonathan P.
Hanley; Sandra X. Hanley; and American Home Loans, LLC
(collectively, Consumer Defense Global) appeal the district
court's order entering an injunction freezing all of the
defendants' assets in connection with Consumer Defense
Global's loan modification business
Defense Global contends that the district court erred as a
matter of law because the court presumed irreparable harm,
rather than requiring that the FTC demonstrate a likelihood
of irreparable harm. We have ...