Federal Trade Commission v. Lucas

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, No. 10-56985
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00770-DOC-AN
and
MEMORANDUM *
ROBB EVANS & ASSOCIATES LLC,
Receiver - Appellee,
v.
PAUL JEFFREY LUCAS,
Defendant - Appellant,
LUCASLAWCENTER
“INCORPORATED”, a corporation, DBA
Lucas Law Center; et al.,
Defendants,
and
ELECTRONIC CASH SYSTEMS, INC.,
Creditor.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Paul Jeffrey Lucas, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment for the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in its action alleging that
Lucas and other defendants engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of
15 U.S.C. § 45(a) of the FTC Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo the grant of summary judgment. FTC v. Gill, 265 F.3d 944,
954 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the FTC’s claim
that Lucas violated § 45(a) by falsely promising customers a full refund if he failed
to obtain a mortgage loan modification for them, because Lucas failed to establish
a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he made material representations
and whether they were likely to secure and mislead customers. See id. at 950 (an
act or practice is deceptive if there is a material representation that is likely to
mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances); see also FTC v.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 10-56985
Cyberspace.com, LLC, 453 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A misleading
impression created by a solicitation is material if it involves information that is
important to consumers and, hence, likely to affect their choice of, or conduct
regarding, a product.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lucas’s motion for
reconsideration because Lucas failed to show grounds warranting reconsideration.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting in part the
Receiver’s motion to wind up the estate, including approving the Receiver’s Final
Report and Accounting. See SEC v. Hardy, 803 F.2d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 1986)
(reviewing for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decisions involving its
supervision of an equitable receivership).
Lucas’s contentions concerning his remaining post-judgment motions, his
allegedly ineffective assistance of counsel in the district court, and alleged
misconduct by the FTC, the State Bar of California, and the Better Business
Bureau are unpersuasive.
3 10-56985
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
4 10-56985