Munoz

Federal Trade Commission v. Munoz

Good Law
17 F. App'x 624
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 27, 2001No. 00-55319; D.C. No. CV-98-06364-SVWCalifornia1,041 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Automated Systems & Concepts International, Inc. (“ASCI”) and John Munoz appeal the district court’s final judgment after a bench trial. The district court held that appellants violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 , and Section 310.3(a)(2) of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3 (a)(2)(vi), by making false and deceptive statements in connection with the marketing of investments in three general partnerships (NABP I, II, and III). The district court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting appellants from making such misrepresentations and ordered appellants to pay the FTC $11,822,611 to redress those injured. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them.

We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 , 105 S.Ct. 1504 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Although the district court’s adoption of *626 findings proposed by the FTC does not alter the clearly erroneous standard, Russian River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (9th Cir.1998), “close…

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.