Case 1:21-cv-02081-MKV Document 7 Filed 03/12/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-02081-MKV
`
`MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
`PROPOSED STIPULATED ORDER
`FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
`AND MONETARY JUDGMENT AND
`FOR THE COURT TO RETAIN
`JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE
`
`
`
`FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`WELLCO, INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”), respectfully moves
`
`the Court for entry of the attached proposed Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and
`
`Monetary Judgment against Defendants, Wellco, Inc. and George M. Moscone. The FTC and the
`
`Defendants have stipulated to the entry of the proposed Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction
`
`and Monetary Judgment, and for the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the Stipulated Order.
`
`In support of this motion, the FTC states as follows:
`
`1.
`
`On March 10, 2021, the FTC filed its Complaint for a permanent injunction,
`
`monetary relief, and other relief pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act
`
`(“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). See Docket No. 1.
`
`2.
`
`The FTC and Defendants Wellco, Inc. and George M. Moscone (“Defendants”),
`
`having been represented by counsel and acting by and through such counsel, have consented to
`
`the entry of a proposed Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment,
`
`attached as Attachment 1.
`
`3.
`
`Entry of this Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment
`
`would resolve all matters in dispute in this action, except the Court would retain jurisdiction for
`
`the purpose of enforcement of the Stipulated Order. The proposed Stipulated Order is fair and
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02081-MKV Document 7 Filed 03/12/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`reasonable and in the public interest, in light of SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 752 F.3d
`
`285 (2d Cir. 2014).
`
`4.
`
`The FTC respectfully requests, consistent with Section X of the proposed
`
`Stipulated Order, that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce it. This case is brought by the FTC
`
`in the public interest to address consumer injury and is thus unlike cases between private parties
`
`that are frequently resolved via confidential settlements, as described in the Court’s Rule of
`
`Individual Practice 6(c). Whereas cases between private parties typically conclude with a request
`
`for dismissal of the case to end the dispute, here the FTC seeks the entry of a Stipulated Order
`
`that is public, and which contains injunctive provisions governing conduct, compliance reporting,
`
`and monetary payment obligations that require ongoing monitoring. The FTC regularly requests
`
`that courts enter permanent injunctions pursuant to the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 53(b)(2). The
`
`FTC does so by filing proposed orders, including stipulated orders, in this district and districts
`
`nationwide to protect the public, and retention of jurisdiction is a standard term. See, e.g., FTC v.
`
`Outreach Calling, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-07505(MKV)(GWG) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2020), ECF Nos. 40
`
`(court retains jurisdiction to enforce stipulated order) and 42 (provision XVI, “Retention of
`
`Jurisdiction). See also SEC v. Luckin Coffee, Inc., No. 20-cv-10631 (MKV) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4,
`
`2021), ECF No. 14 (Court retained jurisdiction to enforce terms of consent judgment enjoining
`
`defendant from committing fraud in connection with the offer, purchase and sale of securities).
`
`Moreover, the FTC must sometimes seek contempt against defendants who violate a
`
`court’s permanent injunction or final order. See, e.g., FTC v. BlueHippo Funding, LLC, 762 F.3d
`
`238, 243 (2d Cir. 2014) (“[W]e think it clear that the FTC may pursue recovery for contempt
`
`damages based on alleged violations of a Consent Order.”). The FTC hopes that it will never be
`
`necessary in this case, but if the FTC must move for contempt, expressly retaining jurisdiction
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02081-MKV Document 7 Filed 03/12/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`would make clear that the Court would receive the motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 12, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`JAMES REILLY DOLAN
`
` Acting General Counsel
`
`
`/s/ Michael Ostheimer
`Michael Ostheimer
`Carl H. Settlemyer
`Federal Trade Commission
`600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
`Suite CC-10603, -10509
`Washington, D.C. 20580
`(202) 326-2699, -2019
`mostheimer@ftc.gov / csettlemyer@ftc.gov
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02081-MKV Document 7 Filed 03/12/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 12, 2021, I electronically filed the FTC’s Motion For
`
`
`
`Entry Of Proposed Stipulated Order For Permanent Injunction And Monetary Judgment And For
`
`The Court To Retain Jurisdiction To Enforce and attachment with the Clerk of the Court using
`
`CM/ECF. I caused a copy of the same to be served by electronic mail to the following counsel
`
`for Defendants who has agreed to accept electronic service:
`
`Ari N. Rothman, Esq.
`Venable LLP
`600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, District of Columbia 20001
`Tel: (202) 344-4220
`Fax: (202) 344-8300
`anrothman@venable.com
`
`Attorney for Defendants
`Wellco, Inc. and George M. Moscone
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 12, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael Ostheimer
`MICHAEL OSTHEIMER
`Federal Trade Commission
`Division of Advertising Practices
`600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
`Suite CC-10603
`Washington, D.C. 20580
`Tel: (202) 326-2699
`Fax: (202) 326-3259
`Email: mostheimer@ftc.gov
`
`
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`