A decision on whether Jason and Eunjung Cardiff are in contempt remains pending, but in the meantime several other motion decisions have gone against them.

The Cardiffs had challenged a preliminary injunction granted against them in 2018.

The injunction was granted as part of the
FTC’s consumer fraud case against them
.

According to the Cardiff’s, they’d discontinued sales to consumers prior to the FTC’s complaint. Thus the granted preliminary injunction should be dissolved, allowing them to continue as manufacturers.

The FTC essentially argues the claim Redwood Scientific Technologies had ceased selling to consumers is a lie.

In deciding the matter, the court ruled that whether the Redwood had or hadn’t stopped selling to consumers was

relevant to whether the PI should have issued in the first place, not whether the PI should now be dissolved.

The court also stated the Cardiffs’ claims with respect to not doing business were “not credible”.

Not withstanding if the Cardiffs weren’t lying, the court found in any event there was

enough evidence exists to satisfy the standard of a likelihood of recurrence.

Even if Defendants had stopped business operations prior to the filing of the Complaint, the presence of products, shipping boxes, labels, and receipt of an order demonstrates that Defendants were likely to engage in future business operations.

Various other minor arguments by the Cardiffs were also rejected.

Subsequently, the Cardiff’s motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction was denied on March 10th.

Another March 10th order approved the Receiver’s request to sell the Cardiff’s Upland, California family home.

Separately, on March 9th the court scheduled the Cardiff’s Redwood trial for July 14th.

A decision on the
FTC’s show cause contempt motion
remains pending, stay tuned…

🤖 Quick Answer

Who are Jason and Eunjung Cardiff and what is their legal situation?
Jason and Eunjung Cardiff are defendants in an FTC consumer fraud case who challenged a 2018 preliminary injunction against them. They claimed to have discontinued sales to consumers before the FTC complaint, seeking dissolution of the injunction to resume manufacturing operations. However, courts have ruled against their motions.

What is the central dispute between the Cardiffs and the FTC?
The dispute concerns whether Redwood Scientific Technologies ceased consumer sales prior to the FTC complaint. The Cardiffs assert discontinuation occurred, justifying injunction dissolution. The FTC contends this claim is false, maintaining the preliminary injunction remains necessary to prevent ongoing consumer fraud.

What was the court's decision regarding the preliminary injunction?
The court ruled that evidence of whether Redwood had stopped selling to consumers was relevant to the preliminary injunction determination. The

🔗 Related Articles

- Brandon Frye cops $600,000 DIS default judgment
- Cardiffs allege fraud occurred prior to preliminary injunction
- Iyovia collapses, MLM operations terminated
- Agreed preliminary injunction entered against Eric Pinkston
- Visalus securities fraud lawsuit partially dismissed, case not over