Federal Trade Commission v. Ivy Capital, Inc.

Good Law
616 F. App'x 360
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 5, 201513-16052California859 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

1. The district court properly held defendant Benjamin Hoskins individually liable for the deceptive telemarketing actions of the Ivy Capital enterprise. See FTC v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir.2009); see also 15 U.S.C. § 45 (a); 16 C.F.R. §§ 310.3 -.4. Because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to Mr. Hoskins’s individual liability, summary judgment in favor of the FTC on that issue was proper. Mr. Hoskins had “the authority to control” the deceptive acts because as owner and founder of Ivy Capital and as an owner, officer, agent or member of Dream Finance, Logic Solutions, Oxford Debt Holdings, LLC, Sell It Vizions, LLC, and Global Financial Group, LLC — all entities part of the Ivy Capital scheme — he participated in manager meetings, had the authority to sign contracts on behalf of the enterprise, was a signatory for multiple Ivy Capital accounts, provided consulting services and crucial start up resources, and even assisted in setting up a call center in the Philippines. See FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1170-71 (9th Cir.1997) (finding that the defendant’s role as president and her authority to sign documents on behalf of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.