Neora moves to dismiss or transfer, FTC opposes

Neora is fighting hard to kill the FTC's pyramid scheme lawsuit, but federal regulators aren't backing down.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the FTC's case filed in New Jersey, claiming it duplicates a lawsuit Neora itself filed first in Illinois. As a fallback, Neora wants the case moved to either Illinois or Texas. On December 23rd, the FTC fired back with a response rejecting both arguments.

The core dispute centers on jurisdiction and timing. Neora argues its Illinois lawsuit should take priority under the "first-filed rule"—a legal principle that typically favors whichever case reaches court first. But the FTC says that rule doesn't apply here because the cases aren't actually duplicates. The agency also contends that New Jersey is the proper venue because two Neora subsidiaries, Signum Bioscience and Signum Nutralogix, operate out of the state.

The FTC's complaint heavily references these Signum companies in connection with unsubstantiated health claims. Since they're based in New Jersey, the FTC argues, the case belongs there. The agency also notes that Neora has no offices or facilities in Illinois, and founder Jeff Olson lives in Florida—further undermining Neora's jurisdictional arguments.

What emerges from the FTC's filings is a company that played hardball when it had the chance to settle. The FTC began investigating Neora in 2016, and by October, settlement talks were underway. During negotiations, Neora's attorneys warned FTC Commissioners that public filing of the complaint would have "catastrophic consequences" for its business. The FTC managed to reach a settlement with Signum, but talks with Neora went nowhere.

On October 29th, the FTC's Commissioners voted unanimously to file the lawsuit. In an unusual gesture, they notified Neora of the vote in advance and agreed to delay filing for up to a week to give the company another shot at settling. Neora used that time differently. Instead of negotiating, it raced to Illinois court to file its own lawsuit against the FTC.

The FTC sees this as a transparent attempt to game the system. By filing first, Neora hoped its declaratory judgment action would shield the company from federal enforcement. The FTC argues this strategy is something courts regularly reject. "Neora's lawsuit was merely an attempt to preempt the filing of the second case," the agency wrote in its response.

The scope of Neora's alleged misconduct extends far beyond any single jurisdiction. The FTC states that Neora's misrepresentations occurred across every federal district in the country and in at least a dozen foreign countries. That geographic spread, regulators argue, makes it impossible to claim any single district is the proper venue based on where the fraud occurred.

The case now hinges on whether a judge accepts the FTC's arguments or sides with Neora's jurisdictional maneuver. The company's aggressive courtroom tactics—combined with its failed settlement negotiations—paint a picture of a business determined to avoid accountability.

🤖 Quick Answer

What is the core dispute between Neora and the FTC regarding jurisdiction?

What motions has Neora filed to challenge the FTC lawsuit?
Neora filed a motion to dismiss the FTC's case in New Jersey, arguing it duplicates the company's Illinois lawsuit. Alternatively, Neora requested the case be transferred to either Illinois or Texas based on jurisdictional grounds.

How did the FTC respond to Neora's dismissal and transfer motions?
On December 23rd, the FTC rejected both arguments in its response filing. The agency disputed that the cases are duplicates and asserted

🔗 Related Articles

- Agreed preliminary injunction entered against Eric Pinkston
- APLGO commission delays, on the verge of collapse?
- OmegaPro securities fraud warning from Nicaragua
- Intimidation used in Redwood contempt proceedings
- Mining City lying about Philippine SEC registration?