Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Kern

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 18, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA KERN, et al., Defendants.

          CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General ETHAN P. DAVIS Deputy Assistant Attorney General GUSTAV W. EYLER Acting Director, Consumer Protection Branch JILL P. FURMAN Deputy Director JACQUELINE BLAESI-FREED Trial Attorney Consumer Protection Branch U.S. Department of Justice DAYLE ELIESON United States Attorney TROY K. FLAKE Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for the United States

          DAYLE ELIESON United States Attorney

          TROY K. FLAKE Assistant United States Attorney

          CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division

          ETHAN P. DAVIS Deputy Assistant Attorney General

          GUSTAV W. EYLER Acting Director Consumer Protection Branch

          JILL P. FURMAN Deputy Director JACQUELINE BLAESI-FREED Trial Attorney

          ANDDRA BURROW CRANE M. POMERANTZ, ESQ. Attorneys for Andre Burrow

          STIPULATED CONSENT DECREE AND FINAL JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 28]

          Jennifer A. Dorsey, U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff, the United States of America, brought this action against Patricia Kern; Advanced Allocation System, Inc.; Distribution Reporting Center, Inc.; Global Data Funding, Inc.; Marketing Image Direct, Inc.; Montgomery Marketing, Inc. LLC.; North American Disbursement Agency, Inc.; Pacific Allocation Systems, Inc.; Special Money Managers, Inc.; All American Awards, Inc.; Golden Products Service, Inc.; Edgar Del Rio; NSD Products, Inc.; Sean O'Connor; Epifanio Castro; New Generation Graphics, Inc.; Andrea Burrow; Stephen Fennell; and Neptune Data Services, Inc., by filing a complaint pursuant to the Fraud Injunction Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1345. This Court granted the Plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order on February 20, 2018, finding that (1) it could likely succeed in proving defendants are violating or are about to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1349 by executing a scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent representations with the intent to defraud using the U.S. Mail; (2) the equities weigh in favor of an injunction; and (3) an injunction is in the public's interest. Finding good cause to do so, on March 2, 2018, the Court extended the temporary restraining order until April 24, 2018.

         Plaintiff and defendant Andrea Burrow (hereinafter the “Settling Defendant”) stipulate to entry of this Consent Decree and Final Judgment (“Consent Decree”) to resolve all matters in dispute in this action between them. IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED as follows:

         FINDINGS

         1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties.

         2. The Complaint charges defendants violated, are violating, or are about to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1349 by executing schemes and artifices to defraud or for obtaining money or property my means of false or fraudulent representations with the intent to defraud, and, in so doing, use the United States Mail.

         3. Settling Defendant neither admits nor denies any allegations in the Complaint, except as specifically stated in this Order, and wishes to settle this action without further litigation, including adjudication of any issue of fact or law. The parties agree that this Stipulated Consent Decree, and its contents, are inadmissible in any future proceeding, civil or criminal, that arises from the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint, save for any action under federal law for violation of this Consent Decree. Only for purposes of this action, Settling Defendant admits the facts necessary to establish jurisdiction.

         4. Plaintiff and Settling Defendant stipulate and agree that entry of this Order shall constitute a full, complete, and final settlement of this action.

         DEFINITIONS

         1. “Caging Services” refers to opening mail; entering or inputting data about such mail into a database or forwarding such data; handling, forwarding, or depositing payments received in such mail, including currency, bank checks, certified checks, money ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.