The FTC has moved for summary judgment against all counts filed against Jason and Eunjung Cardiff.

Default judgment has also been sought against their company Redwood Scientific Technologies.

In support of their August 6th filed motion, the FTC claims

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact with respect to the liability of Jason Cardiff and Eunjung Cardiff.

That is to state, despite there being 440 filings on the case docket as I write this, that the Cardiffs have failed to counter allegations of fraud the FTC leveled against them.

The FTC’s motion is supported by a sixty-eight page memorandum, and three hundred and eight pages of “uncontroverted facts and conclusions of law”.

Through summary judgment, the FTC seeks

to prevent (the Cardiffs) from deceiving consumers in the future through means such as false or unsubstantiated claims about product efficacy, false claims about scientific proof, false money-back guarantee claims, false “Made in the USA” claims, deceptive and unfair claims about enrollment in autoship programs, not providing appropriate means to stop recurring charges, false claims about likely earnings potential, charging consumers without their consent, and initiating or causing the initiation of robocalls to induce the sale of goods or services.

This will be put in place through a permanent injunction. The penalty component of the sought judgment comes to $18.2 million.

The FTC note the Cardiffs have signaled to them their intent to oppose the motion.

In related news the FTC has also filed for default judgment against the Redwood Scientific corporate defendants.

If granted, the motion will see Redwood Scientific hit with a similar permanent injunction and monetary judgment.

Pending a decision on both motions, stay tuned…

Update 1st July 2021 – 
Despite having summary judgment granted against them last October,
the Cardiffs will face no monetary penalty
 for their FTC Act violations.

🤖 Quick Answer

What legal action has the FTC taken against Jason and Eunjung Cardiff?
The FTC filed a motion for summary judgment against Jason and Eunjung Cardiff on all counts, along with seeking default judgment against their company Redwood Scientific Technologies. The FTC argues no genuine dispute exists regarding their liability for fraud allegations, supported by extensive documentation totaling over 376 pages of evidence and legal arguments.

What evidence supports the FTC's summary judgment motion?
The FTC's motion is backed by a sixty-eight page memorandum and three hundred eight pages of documented uncontroverted facts and conclusions of law. The Cardiffs have failed to present counter-evidence to the fraud allegations leveled against them across 440 case docket filings.

What is the FTC's primary objective in this legal proceeding?
The FTC seeks to prevent Jason and Eunjung Cardiff from deceiving consumers through

🔗 Related Articles

- Michael Force “uncooperative”, unpaid attorneys want out ($90,000+)
- Eddy Alexandre consents to EminiFX preliminary injunction
- Mike Sims consents to Yas Castellum Ponzi injunction
- Brandon Frye cops $600,000 DIS default judgment
- Cardiffs allege fraud occurred prior to preliminary injunction