“Entities constitute a common enterprise whenever they display either straight or horizontal commonality—qualities that could be demonstrated by way of a showing of strongly interdependent financial passions or 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 start thinking about such facets as if the businesses were under common 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.

The FTC points out that “the Tucker Corporate Defendants, wholly owned and controlled by Scott Tucker and Blaine Tucker, shared office space with each other and shared employees with AMG.” (Mot in support of its claim that the Tucker Defendants engaged in a common enterprise. 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 and also the Lending Defendants commingled funds that are corporate “several thousand excessive and seemingly random payments produced by the Lending Defendants into the 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 Consulting LLC; Ebony Creek Capital Corporation; and Broadmoor Capital Partners.

Even though the Tucker Defendants acknowledge that “the almost all the movement for Preliminary Injunction is specialized in attempting to establish that Scott and Blaine Tucker had been users of the so-called typical enterprise,” they neither reveal nor refute the FTC’s proof that the lenders involved in an enterprise that is common. (Tucker Defs.’ Resp. 21:10-11, ECF No. 797). Consequently, centered on FTC’s proof showing that a typical enterprise existed, and also the Tucker Defendants’ tacit agreement for this claim by failing continually to refute it, the Court discovers that the FTC will probably flourish in demonstrating that the Tucker Defendants involved with a typical enterprise.

The Relief Defendants are Liable

District courts get broad authority beneath the FTC Act to fashion equitable treatments towards the level essential to make sure relief that is effective. System Servs. Depot, 617 F.3d at 1141-42. “The broad equitable abilities of this federal courts may be employed to recover sick gotten gains for the advantage of the victims of wrongdoing, whether held by the wrongdoer that is original by one that has gotten the profits 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 doesn’t have a genuine claim to those funds.” Id. at 677. The remedy is an equitable monetary judgment in the amount of the funds that the relief defendant received upon such a showing. See id.; see additionally S.E.C. v. Banner Fund Int’l, 211 F.3d 602, 617 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“Disgorgement is an equitable responsibility to get back an amount corresponding to the total amount wrongfully acquired, instead of a necessity to replevy a certain asset.”).

The Relief Defendants received funds produced by the fraudulent tasks for the other defendants. Kim Tucker received at the very least $19 million in non-salary re re re payments, frequently orchestrated by Scott Tucker, originating from a Lending Defendant or an associate associated with the 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 re 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). Centered on this proof of commingling of funds, and given that the Court has preliminarily found Scott Tucker become actually accountable for violations associated with FTC Act, the Court discovers that the FTC has demonstrated a chance of success so it shall get over the Relief Defendants.