“Entities constitute an enterprise that is common they exhibit either straight or horizontal commonality—qualities which may be demonstrated by a showing of strongly interdependent financial passions or perhaps the pooling of assets and profits.” F.T.C. v. System Servs. Depot, Inc., 617 F.3d 1127, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2010). In determining whether a standard enterprise exists, courts may give consideration to such facets as whether or not the businesses had been under typical ownership and control; if they shared phone numbers, employees, and email systems; and whether they jointly participated in a “common venture” in which they benefited from a shared business scheme or referred customers to one another whether they pooled resources and staff. Id. at 1243.
Meant for its declare that the Tucker Defendants involved in a standard enterprise, the FTC points out that “the Tucker business Defendants, wholly owned and managed by Scott Tucker and Blaine Tucker, shared a workplace with one another and provided workers with AMG.” (Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 24:13-14; see also Ex. 57 to Singhvi Decl., ECF No. 57; Cert. of Int. Events, ECF No. 58; Tucker Defs.’ Am. Ans. ¶¶ 10-12, 15, ECF No. 397). Further, the FTC additionally shows that the Tucker business Defendants plus the Lending Defendants commingled funds that are corporate “a large number of excessive and apparently random payments produced by the Lending Defendants to your Tucker business Defendants.” (Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 24:13-14; see also Ex. 5 to Singhvi Decl. at 5-7, 22-25, 45, 53, 57, 67-70, ECF No. 781-11).
The “Tucker Corporate Defendants” are: AMG; amount 5 Motorsports, LLC; LeadFlash asking LLC; Ebony Creek Capital Corporation; and Broadmoor Capital Partners.
Although the Tucker Defendants acknowledge that “the majority of the movement for Preliminary Injunction is specialized in wanting to establish that Scott and Blaine Tucker had been people of the alleged typical enterprise,” they neither reveal nor refute the FTC’s proof that lenders involved in a typical enterprise. (Tucker Defs.’ Resp. 21:10-11, ECF No. 797). Properly, predicated on FTC’s proof showing that a standard enterprise existed, and also the Tucker Defendants’ tacit agreement for this claim by 
failing woefully to refute it, the Court discovers that the FTC will probably flourish in appearing that the Tucker Defendants involved with a typical enterprise.
The Relief Defendants are Liable
District courts receive broad authority underneath the FTC Act to fashion equitable treatments to your degree required to guarantee effectual relief. System Servs. Depot, 617 F.3d at 1141-42. “The broad equitable capabilities associated with federal courts can be used to recover sick gotten gains for the main benefit of the victims of wrongdoing, whether held by the initial wrongdoer or by a person who has gotten the proceeds following the incorrect.” S.E.C. v. Colello, 139 F.3d 674, 676 (9th Cir. 1998). “The creditor plaintiff must show that the relief defendant has received ill gotten funds and that he won’t have a claim that is legitimate those funds.” Id. at 677. Upon this kind of showing, the treatment is an equitable financial judgment within the level of the funds that the relief defendant received. See id.; see additionally S.E.C. v. Banner Fund Int’l, 211 F.3d 602, 617 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“Disgorgement can be an equitable responsibility to get back an amount corresponding to the total amount wrongfully acquired, instead of a requirement to replevy a particular asset.”).
The Relief Defendants received funds based on the fraudulent tasks of this other defendants. Kim Tucker received at the very least $19 million in non-salary re re payments, often orchestrated by Scott Tucker, originating from a Lending Defendant or a part of this typical enterprise. (See, e.g., Ex. 109 to Singhvi Decl., ECF No. 781-115). Park 269, wholly owned by Kim Tucker and nominal owner of a $8 million mansion in Aspen, Colorado, additionally received re payments arranged by Scott Tucker when it comes to home’s purchase, home loan, home fees, furnishing, upkeep, and housekeeping. (See, e.g., Ex. 118 to Singhvi Decl., ECF No. 781-124). Predicated on this proof of commingling of funds, and given that the Court has preliminarily discovered Scott Tucker become physically responsible for violations regarding the FTC Act, the Court discovers that the FTC has demonstrated a probability of success so it shall cure the Relief Defendants.
