Student Loan Pro, Judith Noh, Syed Faisal Gilani, and FNZA Marketing, LLC
Documents in this case
Case summary
On March 16, 2021, the Bureau filed a lawsuit against Student Loan Pro, a California sole proprietorship that telemarketed and provided debt-relief services focused on federal student-loan debt; Judith Noh, its owner; and Syed Gilani, its manager and owner-in-fact. The Bureau also named as a relief defendant FNZA Marketing, LLC (FNZA), a California company nominally owned by Noh and controlled by Gilani. The Bureau alleges that Student Loan Pro conducted a student-loan debt-relief business from 2015 through 2019 that charged about 3,300 consumers with federal student-loan debt approximately $3.5 million in illegal upfront fees in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), to file paperwork on their behalf to apply for programs that were available to them for free from the United States Department of Education. The Bureau alleges that Noh and Gilani are individually liable for and substantially assisted Student Loan Pro’s violations of the TSR. The Bureau also alleges that FNZA was the recipient of some portion of the unlawful advance fees obtained by Student Loan Pro without legitimate claim to the funds. In its complaint, the Bureau seeks redress to consumers, appropriate injunctive relief, and the imposition of civil money penalties against Student Loan Pro, Noh, and Gilani, and seeks to have FNZA disgorge the funds it received from Student Loan Pro.
On December 3, 2024, the Bureau filed a proposed stipulated judgment resolving the Bureau’s claims against Noh and Student Loan Pro, which the court entered on December 9, 2024, that permanently bars Noh and Student Loan Pro from offering or providing consumer financial products or services, doing business with Gilani, or using or selling any Student Loan Pro customer information. It also requires Noh to take the necessary steps to dissolve both Student Loan Pro and FNZA and requires Noh and Student Loan Pro to pay a civil money penalty of $2,000 based on a demonstrated inability to pay.
On December 18, 2024, the court approved the Bureau’s dismissal of its claims against relief defendant FNZA.
On January 6, 2025, the Bureau filed a motion to amend the judgment against Noh and Student Loan Pro to account for a larger amount of illegal upfront fees charged by Student Loan Pro. On January 23, 2025, the Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment against Gilani. Following a stay of the case, the parties refiled briefing on the motion to amend Noh’s stipulation and order and the Bureau’s motion for summary judgment as to Giliani. The two motions are fully briefed and remain pending.
Related document
Complaint
Stipulated Judgment and Order – Noh and Student Loan Pro
Dismissal – Relief Defendant FNZA Marketing, LLC
Press release
CFPB Takes Action Against Operators of An Unlawful Student Loan Debt-Relief Scheme
CFPB Bans Student Loan Pro and Owner for Fee Harvesting Scheme
Complaint ()
PDF of this document (16 pages)
Page 2
COMPLAINT MARY K. WARREN (NY Reg. #2557684) (Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending) Email: [email protected] Phone: (202) 435-7815 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 1700 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20552 Fax: (202) 435-7722 OWEN MARTIKAN, CA Bar #177104 - Local Counsel 301 Howard St., Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 844-9790 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Plaintiff, v.
Judith Noh d/b/a Student Loan Pro, Judith Noh as an individual, and Syed Faisal Gilani, Defendants, and FNZA Marketing, LLC, Relief Defendant.
Case No. 8:21-cv-00488 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, RESTITUTION, DISGORGEMENT, AND CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1
Page 3
COMPLAINT
Introduction 1.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“Bureau”) brings this action against Judith Noh d/b/a Student Loan Pro, Judith Noh as an individual, Syed Faisal Gilani, and FNZA Marketing, LLC under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6102(c), 6105(d); the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), 16 C.F.R. pt. 310; and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (“CFPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5536(a), 5564, 5565, in connection with the marketing and sale of debt-relief services by Judith Noh d/b/a Student Loan Pro (“Student Loan Pro”). This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because it is brought under federal consumer financial law, 12 U.S.C. § 5565(a)(1), presents a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and is brought by an agency of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1345. 2.
Defendants Student Loan Pro, Judith Noh, and Syed Faisal Gilani (the “Debt-Relief Defendants”) created and operated a student-loan debt-relief service that charged unlawful advance fees to consumers.
3.
Defendant FNZA Marketing, LLC (“FNZA”), which operated no business of its own, was the recipient of certain of the funds obtained by the Debt-Relief Defendants from charging unlawful advance fees.
4.
The Bureau brings this action to stop the Debt-Relief Defendants’ unlawful conduct, obtain relief for harmed consumers, and impose civil money penalties. Venue 5.
Venue is proper in this district because each Defendant is located, resides, or does business in this District. 12 U.S.C. § 5564(f). Parties 6.
The Bureau is an independent agency of the United States created by the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5491(a). It has independent litigating authority and may secure appropriate relief for violations of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5564(a)-(b), and for violations Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:2
Page 4
COMPLAINT
of the TSR with respect to consumer financial products or services subject to the CFPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6102(c), 6105(d).
7.
Student Loan Pro, a California sole proprietorship of Judith Noh, has operated out of 18001 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, CA, 92614. From 2015 until 2019, Student Loan Pro advertised, marketed, promoted, offered for sale, sold, and provided financial advisory services in the form of debt-settlement services, in particular federal student-loan debt-relief services, to consumers throughout the United States. 8.
Judith Noh is the sole proprietor and owner of Student Loan Pro. Noh resides in Anaheim, California.
9.
Syed Faisal Gilani was the manager and owner-in-fact of Student Loan Pro. Gilani resides in Irvine, California.
10.
FNZA is a California limited liability company of which Noh is the sole member but which is controlled in fact by Gilani. Student Loan Pro’s Business Practices 11.
Student Loan Pro is a federal student-loan document-preparation and debtrelief service that operated from 2015 to 2019. It prepared and submitted paperwork for consumers to the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”) in support of applications for loan consolidation, income-driven repayment plans, forgiveness programs, and other debt-relief options available to consumers with federal student loans. It also submitted recertification paperwork to ED, as applicable, after a consumer’s application for repayment programs was accepted.
12.
ED does not charge federal student-loan borrowers to submit applications for or to participate in loan consolidation, income-driven repayment plans, forgiveness programs, and other debt-relief programs or to submit recertification paperwork for those programs.
13.
Student Loan Pro was loosely organized into two units: the sales staff, who took consumer calls and signed up those consumers who agreed to purchase Student Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:3
Page 5
COMPLAINT
Loan Pro’s services, and the processing staff, who completed and submitted the loan modification paperwork for the consumer. Each unit had a manager who reported to Gilani.
14.
Student Loan Pro marketed its services through radio advertisements. When consumers called the phone number given in the advertisements, they were connected to one of the company’s sales staff.
15.
The salesperson would pitch Student Loan Pro’s services to the consumer and, if the consumer agreed to enroll, would email a contract to the consumer for electronic signature. The salesperson also took the consumer’s payment information and generated a schedule of payments that was attached to the contract, which the consumer was required to pre-authorize.
16.
The salesperson would then refer the consumer to the processing department, where a processor would read a “verification script” to the consumer and obtain the consumer’s oral confirmation of her payment method and the amounts to be paid.
17.
Student Loan Pro charged a $695 to $795 initial fee plus $39 per month. The company required customers to pay the $695 to $795 initial fee in three installments within the first three months after the customer signed the contract. The second and third installments of the initial fee were due 30 and 60 days, respectively, after the first payment was made. The company’s practice was to try to persuade the customer to begin paying the fee as soon as possible after signing up, including paying at the time of enrollment.
18.
Student Loan Pro’s script used by its sales staff states: “The purpose of the initial fee is for us to prepare and submit your application on your behalf to the Department of Education for its consolidation program.” The company’s practice was not to submit the customer’s loan consolidation or modification application to ED until the customer had paid at least the first installment of the initial fee. Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:4
Page 6
COMPLAINT
19.
The customer would pay $39 per month beginning one month after the third installment of the “initial fee” was paid. The $39 monthly fee was required as long as the customer remained with Student Loan Pro and was purportedly for the company’s services in monitoring the customer’s loan account and recertifying the customer’s eligibility for the loan modification that Student Loan Pro obtained for him or her. All customers paid the monthly fee, although recertification is not required for all loan modification programs, such as consolidation.
20.
After the contract was signed, Student Loan Pro automatically charged or debited the customer’s bankcard or debited the customer’s bank account for the three installments of the “initial fee” and the monthly $39 fee on the dates listed in the schedule attached to the contract.
21.
Student Loan Pro did not monitor whether or when the customer made a first payment on his or her consolidated or modified student loan debt. Student Loan Pro did not wait until the terms of a customer’s debt were altered, or until a customer had made his or her first payment on the altered debt, before requesting or receiving fees from the customer.
22.
From 2015 to 2019, Student Loan Pro enrolled more than 3,300 customers in multiple states. During that period, the company’s customers paid more than $3,500,000 in fees. Student Loan Pro ceased operations in November 2019. Role of Judith Noh 23.
Noh and Gilani organized Student Loan Pro’s corporate structure to conceal Gilani’s role as the company’s de facto owner and chief executive. 24.
In September 2015, Noh formed and registered Student Loan Pro as an Orange County sole proprietorship under the name “Judith Noh d/b/a/ Student Loan Pro.” Noh is the owner of Student Loan Pro and all of its assets and liabilities. 25.
Noh opened three bank accounts under the name of Judith Noh d/b/a Student Loan Pro and designated Gilani as a co-signer on them all. Noh opened merchant Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:5
Page 7
COMPLAINT
processing accounts and signed contracts with the payment processing companies for Student Loan Pro so that Student Loan Pro could accept credit and debit card payments from consumers. She designated Gilani as the contact person at Student Loan Pro for those accounts.
26.
Noh also opened an account with Debt Pay, Inc., so that her company could use its DebtPayPro customer relations management database to enter customer information and contracts, monitor customer payments, and record progress on consolidating or otherwise modifying customers’ student loan debt. Noh gave Gilani access to Student Loan Pro’s DebtPayPro database. 27.
Noh was listed as the owner and customer complaint contact for Student Loan Pro on the Better Business Bureau’s public website. 28.
Noh became involved in an investigation conducted by the Washington State Attorney General’s Office (“Washington AG”) concerning the fees charged by Student Loan Pro, among other aspects of Student Loan Pro’s operations. On April 21, 2017, a copy of the Washington AG’s civil investigative demand investigating Student Loan Pro for possible “unfair or deceptive acts or practices … associated with the consolidation or adjusting of student loan debt” was delivered to Noh’s home address. 29.
Student Loan Pro settled the investigation with the Washington AG by entering into an Assurance of Discontinuance that required the company to, among other things, provide restitution to customers residing in Washington State. On August 12, 2017, Noh wrote and signed the check to the Washington AG for restitution to Washington customers under the Assurance of Discontinuance. 30.
In 2013, Noh registered a California limited liability company called Quick Student Loan Solution, LLC. (“QSLS”), with herself as the sole member. According to consumer complaints, QSLS offered student-loan debt-relief services and it was managed by Syed Gilani. Noh cancelled the registration of QSLS in September 2015 around the time she registered Student Loan Pro.
Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:6
Page 8
COMPLAINT
Role of Syed Gilani 31.
Gilani ran all aspects of Student Loan Pro’s operations and used its earnings for his personal expenditures.
32.
Gilani was a signatory on the company’s bank accounts and had his own debit card for the main operating account. Gilani routinely wrote checks on or made withdrawals or transfers from the company’s accounts. 33.
Gilani supervised the managers of the company both in person at the company’s offices and by telephone and email. Gilani determined the fee to be paid by customers, including that fees were to be requested and received before the customer had made at least one payment on his or her altered debt. 34.
Gilani edited the scripts that Student Loan Pro’s sales staff used to sign up consumers and had the final say over their content. 35.
Gilani monitored the company’s DebtPayPro database on a daily basis to check on the status of customer payments and new enrollments. 36.
Gilani managed the company’s merchant processing accounts and was the primary contact person with the payment processors. 37.
Gilani was informed of customer complaints by emails to him from the company’s payment processors and the Better Business Bureau and by reports from his managers. On some occasions he spoke directly with the complaining customer. 38.
Gilani was personally involved in settling the Washington AG investigation and another investigation by the Minnesota Department of Commerce. After the state actions were settled, Gilani did not change Student Loan Pro’s practices with respect to advance fees, although the Minnesota investigation specifically addressed them. Role of FNZA 39.
Noh formed FNZA as a California limited liability company in September 2015, with herself as the sole member. Noh opened a bank account for FNZA soon Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:7
Page 9
COMPLAINT
thereafter and made Gilani a co-signer. Gilani obtained a debit card for the FNZA account.
40.
FNZA operated no business. FNZA provided no services to Student Loan Pro. FNZA made no loans to Student Loan Pro.
41.
Gilani transferred more than $400,000 from the operating account of Student Loan Pro to FNZA’s bank account. Gilani’s transfers from Student Loan Pro to FNZA consisted of advance fees illegally obtained from Student Loan Pro customers as a result of the Debt-Relief Defendants’ violations of the TSR and CFPA. 42.
Gilani withdrew the funds transferred from Student Loan Pro to FNZA for personal expenditures, including purchases at Bloomingdale’s and visits to nightclubs. The bulk of such expenditures were repeated “purchases” of $10,000 or $5,000 at California and Nevada casinos.
VIOLATIONS OF THE TSR BY THE DEBT-RELIEF DEFENDANTS 43.
The Bureau is authorized to enforce the Telemarketing Act and the TSR with respect to the offering or provision of a consumer financial product or service subject to the CFPA. 15 U.S.C. § 6105(d). Among other things, a consumer financial product or service is defined by the CFPA to include “providing financial advisory services … including … providing services to assist a consumer with debt management or debt settlement [or] modifying the terms of any extension of credit….” 12 U.S.C. § 5481(15)(viii)(II).
44.
The TSR defines “debt relief service” as “any program or service represented, directly or by implication, to renegotiate, settle, or in any way alter the terms of payment or other terms of the debt between a person and one or more unsecured creditors or debt collectors, including, but not limited to, a reduction in the balance, interest rate, or fees owed by a person to an unsecured creditor or debt collector.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(o).
Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:8
Page 10
COMPLAINT
45.
The TSR defines a “seller” as “any person who, in connection with a telemarketing transaction, provides, offers to provide, or arranges for others to provide goods or services to the customer in exchange for consideration.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(dd). 46.
The TSR defines “telemarketer” as “any person who, in connection with telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or from a customer….” 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(ff).
47.
The TSR defines “telemarketing” in relevant part as “a plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services … by use of one or more telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(gg).
48.
Student Loan Pro is a telemarketer within the meaning of the TSR that engaged in telemarketing of debt-relief services to consumers. Student Loan Pro’s marketing of its services was done via telephone by the company’s sales representatives. The use of the telephone was part of a “plan, program, or campaign” to sell Student Loan Pro’s services, and involved more than one phone and more than one interstate phone call. Consumers who spoke to sales representatives of Student Loan Pro resided in a number of different states outside of California, where Student Loan Pro is located. 49.
Student Loan Pro is a seller under the TSR because, in connection with its telemarketing, it offered to provide, and did provide, services related to federal studentloan debt in exchange for a fee. Those services were debt-relief services under the TSR because Student Loan Pro represented it would settle, renegotiate, or alter the terms of repayment or other terms of customers’ federal student-loan debt. Count I Violations of the TSR by the Debt-Relief Defendants (Requesting and Receiving Advance Fees) 50.
The Bureau re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-38 and 43-49.
Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:9
Page 11
COMPLAINT
51.
It is a violation of the TSR for any seller or telemarketer in connection with the sale of any debt-relief service to request or receive payment of any fee or consideration for any debt-relief service until and unless: (1) the seller or telemarketer has renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise altered the terms of at least one debt pursuant to a settlement agreement, debt-management plan, or other such valid contractual agreement executed by the customer; and (2) the customer has made at least one payment pursuant to that settlement agreement, debt-management plan, or other valid contractual agreement between the customer and the creditor or debt collector. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(5)(i).
52.
Student Loan Pro is a seller and telemarketer that provided, offered to provide, or arranged for others to provide debt-relief services. 53.
By the methods described above in paragraphs 11-22, Student Loan Pro requested and received fees from its customers before Student Loan Pro had renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise altered the terms of their debts pursuant to a settlement agreement, debt-management plan, or other such valid contractual agreement executed by the customers, and before its customers had made one payment pursuant to that settlement agreement, debt-management plan, or other valid contractual agreement between the customer and the creditor or debt collector. 54.
Gilani, as the controlling manager and de facto owner of Student Loan Pro, and as a signatory on its bank accounts, had the authority to control Student Loan Pro’s telemarketing and the manner and timing of its requests for and receipt of fees. 55.
Gilani established Student Loan Pro’s fee structure, and approved the timing of the fees, in particular that customers would be charged prior to any loan modification. 56.
Gilani knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that Student Loan Pro was engaged in telemarketing and that it was requesting and receiving fees from customers before the terms of their debts were altered and before they had made one payment on their altered debt.
Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:10
Page 12
COMPLAINT
57.
Noh, as the sole proprietor of Student Loan Pro, owns the assets and liabilities of Student Loan Pro.
58.
Noh, as the owner of Student Loan Pro, with signatory authority over its bank accounts and merchant-processing accounts, had control over when and how much the company charged customers for its services. Because Student Loan Pro was Noh’s sole proprietorship, Noh had the power to close those accounts at any time or to remove Gilani as the authorized signatory or contact, and she had the authority to cancel or modify contracts with customers, or to change the practices of the company. 59.
Noh knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that Student Loan Pro was engaged in telemarketing and taking advance fees from customers. She had access to the company’s bank records, merchant-processing accounts, and the DebtPayPro database, which would have provided this information.
60.
Noh recklessly disregarded indications that the company was engaged in illegal conduct. The Washington AG sent its civil investigative demand to her at her home, she signed Student Loan Pro’s check to compensate Washington State customers, and the Assurance of Discontinuance, reflecting the company’s violation of Washington state law, was a public document.
61.
In providing a corporate façade for Gilani by means of her sole proprietorship, Student Loan Pro, Noh recklessly disregarded, if not knew, that fraudulent or other unlawful conduct was occurring at her company. 62.
In addition, Noh’s prior establishment of QSLS, which Gilani operated even though Noh was the sole member of the company, shows that Noh knew or recklessly disregarded that Gilani was engaged in unlawful conduct. 63.
Therefore, Student Loan Pro, Gilani and Noh have engaged in abusive telemarketing acts or practices in violation of 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(5).
Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:11
Page 13
COMPLAINT
Count II Violations of the TSR by Gilani and Noh (Substantial Assistance to Student Loan Pro in its Violations of the TSR) 64.
The Bureau re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-38 and 43-49.
65.
The TSR prohibits any person from providing substantial assistance or support to any seller or telemarketer when that person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the seller or telemarketer is engaged in any act or practice that constitutes deceptive or abusive conduct under the TSR. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b). 66.
Student Loan Pro is a seller and telemarketer that provided, offered to provide, or arranged for others to provide debt-relief services. 67.
In the course of offering to provide or providing a debt-relief service to customers, Student Loan Pro requested and received fees before Student Loan Pro had renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise altered the terms of its customers’ debts pursuant to a settlement agreement, debt-management plan, or other such valid contractual agreement executed by the customers and before the customers had made one payment pursuant to that settlement agreement, debt-management plan, or other valid contractual agreement between the customers and the creditor or debt collector. Thus, Student Loan Pro engaged in abusive acts or practices in violation of the TSR. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(5).
68.
Gilani, as the controlling manager and de facto owner of Student Loan Pro, provided substantial assistance or support to Student Loan Pro by, among other things, overseeing the company’s managers and participating in the company’s day-to-day business operations. Gilani was a signatory on the company’s bank accounts, managed its relationships with its payment processors, and set the manner and timing of the company’s fee structure. Gilani managed the company’s radio advertising campaign. Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:12
Page 14
COMPLAINT
69.
Gilani knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that Student Loan Pro was engaged in telemarketing and it was requesting and receiving fees from customers before it altered the terms of those customers’ debt or they had made one payment on that altered debt.
70.
Noh provided substantial assistance to Student Loan Pro by, among other things, setting up its corporate structure, its bank accounts, its merchant-processing accounts, and the DebtPayPro database.
71.
Noh knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that Student Loan Pro was engaged in telemarketing and taking advance fees from customers. She had access to the bank records, merchant-processing accounts, and the DebtPayPro database, which would have provided this information.
72.
Noh recklessly disregarded indications that the company was engaged in illegal conduct. The Washington AG sent its civil investigative demand to her at her home, she signed Student Loan Pro’s check to compensate Washington State customers, and the Assurance of Discontinuance, reflecting the company’s violation of Washington state law, was a public document.
73.
In providing a corporate façade for Gilani, Noh recklessly disregarded, if not knew, that illegal conduct was underway.
74.
Therefore, Gilani and Noh have violated the TSR’s ban on assisting and facilitating others’ violations of that rule. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b). VIOLATIONS OF THE CFPA BY THE DEBT-RELIEF DEFENDANTS Count III Violations of the CFPA by the Debt-Relief Defendants (CFPA Violations Based on Violations of the TSR) 75.
The Bureau re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-38 and 43-49.
Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:13
Page 15
COMPLAINT
76.
Section 1036(a)(1)(A) of the CFPA provides that it is “unlawful for any covered person to offer or provide to a consumer a financial product or service not in conformity with Federal consumer financial law, or otherwise commit any act or omission in violation of a Federal consumer financial law.” 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(A). 77.
Student Loan Pro is a covered person because it offers or provides consumer financial products or services, namely financial advisory services to assist consumers with modifying the terms of any extension of credit, including by debt settlement. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5481(6), (15)(A)(viii)(II).
78.
Under the CFPA, a “related person” is a covered person. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(B). Gilani is a related person with respect to Student Loan Pro because he was an “employee … charged with managerial responsibility” for Student Loan Pro. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(C)(i). Noh is a related person because she is the controlling sole proprietor of Student Loan Pro. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(25)(C)(i). Both Gilani and Noh are thus covered persons. 12. U.S.C. § 5481(25)(B). 79.
Any act or omission in violation of a federal consumer financial law by a covered person is a violation of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(A). 80.
The TSR is a federal consumer financial law as defined by the CFPA. 12 U.S.C § 5481(14); 15 U.S.C § 6105(d).
81.
Therefore, the Debt-Relief Defendants’ violations of the TSR, described in Counts I and II, constitute violations of section 1036(a)(1)(A) of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(A).
DISGORGEMENT OR COMPENSATION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT BY RELIEF DEFENDANT
Count IV 82.
The Bureau re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-6, 10, and 39-42.
83.
FNZA has received cash transfers and other monetary transfers from Student Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:14
Page 16
COMPLAINT
Loan Pro that are traceable to funds obtained from consumers through violations of the CFPA and TSR, as alleged in Counts I through III of this Complaint. It has no legitimate claim to such funds and would be unjustly enriched if not required, as permitted by 12 U.S.C. § 5565(a)(2)(D), to disgorge or compensate consumers for the funds or the value of the benefits it received.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Bureau requests, under 12 U.S.C. § 5565, that the Court: a.
Impose appropriate injunctive relief against the Debt-Relief Defendants for their violations of the TSR and the CFPA; b.
grant additional injunctive relief as the Court may deem to be just and proper;
c.
award monetary relief against Defendants including but not limited to the refund of monies paid, restitution, disgorgement or compensation for unjust enrichment, and payment of damages;
d.
award the Bureau civil money penalties;
e.
award the Bureau the costs of bringing this action; and f.
award such other and additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper.
Dated: March 16, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Owen Martikan Owen Martikan Mary K. Warren (pro hac vice pending) Senior Litigation Counsel Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 1700 G St., NW Washington, DC 20552
Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:15
Page 17
COMPLAINT Telephone Martikan: (415) 844-9790 Telephone Warren: (202) 435-7815 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Case 8:21-cv-00488 Document 1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:16
Dismissal ()
PDF of this document (2 pages)
Page 18
ase 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document187 ~ Filed 12/18/24
#:2708
Page 1of2 PageID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
C0 WH NDB Nn BW NY
NO wo NO WN WN KN KN HR HH HB FF FF FP FF eRe NH nA BPW NY KF DO WAI DB na BPW NY KF CO
p) J
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Plaintiff, V.
Judith Noh d/b/a Student Loan Pro, Judith Noh as an individual, and Syed Faisal Gilani, Defendants, and FNZA Marketing, LLC,
Relief Defendant.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 8:21-cv-00488-JWH (ADSx)
ORDER DISMISSING RELIEF DEEENDANT FNZA MARKETING,
Page 19
wm F&F WwW Ne
Oo wo a DN
ry 2d
aT
(ase 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document187_ Filed 12/18/24 Page2of2 PageID
#:2709
The Court having considered the Parties’ Stipulation as to Dismissal of Relief Defendant FNZA Marketing LLC, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1 Relief Defendant FNZA Marketing LLC is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice.
ps Each party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees, if any, incurred in connection with Plaintiff's claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2024
VU
ThWNHon. John W. Holcomb Mested States Distnct ™dge
PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER AS TO DEFENDANTS JUDITH NOH AND STUDENT LOAN PRO
Judgment ()
PDF of this document (18 pages)
Page 20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDITH NOH d/b/a STUDENT LOAN PRO;
JUDITH NOH as an individual; and SYED FAISAL GILANI,
Defendants, and
FNZA MARKETING, LLC,
Relief Defendant.
Case No. 8:21-cv-00488-JWH (ADSx)
STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND ORDER AS TO DEFENDANTS JUDITH NOH AND STUDENT LOAN PRO Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:2685
Page 21
-2-
Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “Bureau”) commenced this civil action on or about March 16, 2021, with a Complaint to obtain injunctive and monetary relief and civil penalties from Defendants Judith Noh d/b/a Student Loan Pro (“Student Loan Pro”); Judith Noh as an individual (“Noh”); Syed Faisal Gilani (“Gilani”); and disgorgement from Relief Defendant FNZA Marketing, LLC (“FNZA”). The Complaint alleges violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 310, and of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (the “CFPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5536(a), 5564, & 5565, in connection with the telemarketing and sale of debtrelief services by Student Loan Pro. The Bureau and Defendants Noh and Student Loan Pro agree to the entry of this Stipulated Final Judgment and Order (the “Order”), without adjudication of any issue of fact or law, to settle and resolve all matters in dispute arising from the conduct alleged in the Complaint.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:
I. FINDINGS 1.
This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action, and venue is proper in this jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) & (c) and 12 U.S.C. § 5564(f).
2.
Defendant Noh is the sole proprietor of Student Loan Pro, a fictitious business name registered in Orange County, California. 3.
Defendants Noh and Student Loan Pro neither admit nor deny the allegations in the Complaint, except as specified in this Order. For purposes of this Order, Defendants Noh and Student Loan Pro admit the facts necessary to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over them and the subject matter of this action. 4.
The Complaint alleges claims upon which relief may be granted. 5.
The relief provided in this Order is appropriate and available pursuant to sections 1054 and 1055 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5564 and 5565. Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:2686
Page 22
-3- 6.
From September 2015 to November 6, 2019, in the course of telemarketing and providing, offering to provide, or arranging for others to provide a Debt-Relief Service, namely the consolidation and modification of consumers’ federal student loans, Defendant Student Loan Pro requested and received payment of fees or consideration from consumers before: a.
Student Loan Pro renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise altered the terms of one debt for the consumer pursuant to a settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other such valid contractual agreement executed by the consumer; and b.
the consumer made at least one payment pursuant to that agreement.
7.
Defendant Noh designated Defendant Gilani as a co-signatory on all of Defendant Student Loan Pro’s bank accounts and merchant accounts and allowed him to exercise financial and managerial authority over the business of Student Loan Pro, including setting the amount and timing of fees and withdrawing and transferring funds from Student Loan Pro’s bank accounts to Relief Defendant FNZA for Gilani’s personal use. 8.
The acts and practices of Defendants Noh and Student Loan Pro alleged in the Complaint resulted in harm to Affected Consumers equal to $3,437,251.40 in illegal advance fees paid to Student Loan Pro, after subtracting consumer chargebacks and refunds made by Student Loan Pro. 9.
Defendant Student Loan Pro ceased operations in November 2019, and it has no remaining funds or assets.
10.
Defendants Noh and Student Loan Pro waive all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge or contest the validity of this Order and any claim they may have under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, concerning the prosecution of this action to the date of this Order. Each Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:2687
Page 23
-4party agrees to bear its own costs and expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees.
11.
The entry of this Order is in the public interest. II. DEFINITIONS 12.
The following definitions apply to this Order: a.
“Affected Consumer” means a consumer who paid a fee to Student Loan Pro from September 1, 2015, to November 6, 2019. b.
“Assist[ing] Others” includes, but is not limited to, the following:
i.
consulting in any form whatsoever;
ii.
providing paralegal or administrative support services; iii.
performing customer service functions, including, but not limited to, receiving or responding to consumer complaints; iv.
formulating or providing, or arranging for the formulation or provision of, any advertising or marketing material, including, but not limited to, any telephone sales script, direct mail solicitation, or the text of any Internet website, email, or other electronic communication or advertisement; v.
formulating or providing, or arranging for the formulation or provision of, any marketing support material or service, including, but not limited to, web or Internet Protocol addresses or domain name registration for any Internet websites, affiliate marketing services, or media placement services; vi.
providing names of, or assisting in the generation of, potential customers;
vii.
performing marketing, billing, or payment services of any kind; and Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:2688
Page 24
-5viii.
acting or serving as an owner, officer, director, manager, or principal of any entity.
c.
“Consumer Financial Product or Service” is synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the definition of the term, as of the Effective Date, in section 1002(5) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5481(5), and, subject to applicable restrictions contained in the CFPA, includes, but is not limited to:
i.
engaging in deposit-taking activities, transmitting or exchanging funds, or otherwise acting as a custodian of funds or any financial instrument for use by or on behalf of a consumer; ii.
providing payments or other financial data processing products or services to a consumer by any technological means, including processing or storing financial or banking data for any payment instrument, or through any payments systems or network used for processing payments data, including payments made through an online banking system or mobile telecommunications network; or iii.
providing financial advisory services to consumers on individual financial matters or relating to proprietary financial products or services, including providing credit counseling to any consumer or providing services to assist a consumer with debt management or debt settlement, modifying the terms of any extension of credit, or avoiding foreclosure. d.
“Debt-Relief Service” means any program or service represented, directly or by implication, to renegotiate, settle, or in any way alter the terms of payment or other terms of the debt or obligation, including, but not limited to, a reduction in the balance, interest rate, or fees owed by a consumer to an unsecured creditor or debt collector. Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:2689
Page 25
-6e.
“Effective Date” means the date on which this Order is entered by the Court.
f.
“Enforcement Director” means the Assistant Director of the Office of Enforcement for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or their delegate.
g.
“Noh” means Defendant Judith Noh and any other names by which she might be known.
h.
“Noh Defendants” means Defendant Noh and Defendant Student Loan Pro, individually or collectively. i.
“Person” means an individual, partnership, company, corporation, association (incorporated or unincorporated), trust, estate, cooperative organization, or other entity. j.
“Related Consumer Action” means a private action by or on behalf of one or more consumers or an enforcement action by another governmental agency brought against the Noh Defendants based on substantially the same facts as described in the Complaint. k.
“Relief Defendant FNZA” means Relief Defendant FNZA Marketing, LLC, a California limited liability corporation of which the sole member is Noh.
l.
“Student Loan Pro” means Defendant Judith Noh d/b/a Student Loan Pro and its successors and assigns. III. CONDUCT PROVISIONS A.
Permanent Ban on Consumer Financial Products or Services 13.
The Noh Defendants, whether acting directly or indirectly, are permanently restrained and enjoined from: a.
Advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, selling, offering or providing any Consumer Financial Product or Service; Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:2690
Page 26
-7b.
Assisting Others in advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, selling, offering or providing any Consumer Financial Product or Service; or c.
Receiving any remuneration or other consideration from, holding any ownership interest in, providing services to, or working in any capacity for any Person that is engaged in offering or providing any Consumer Financial Product or Service.
Nothing in this Order shall be read as an exception to this Paragraph 13. B.
Injunction Concerning Collecting Payments from Consumers 14.
The Noh Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other Persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, are permanently restrained and enjoined from causing any charges to be made to, or collecting, attempting to collect, causing collection or attempts to collect, selling, assigning, or otherwise transferring any right to collect, payment from any Affected Consumer.
C.
Prohibition on Business Ventures with Defendant Gilani 15.
The Noh Defendants, whether acting directly or indirectly, such as through any company owned or controlled by Defendant Noh, are permanently restrained and enjoined from investing in, providing services to, working for, serving as an officer of, or being otherwise engaged in any business venture or project involving Defendant Gilani, including allowing Defendant Gilani to utilize their bank accounts.
D.
Prohibited Use of Consumer Information 16.
The Noh Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other Persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, may not:
Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #:2691
Page 27
-8a.
disclose, use, or benefit from customer information, including names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, other identifying information, or any data that enables access to a customer’s account (including a credit card, bank account, or other financial account), that the Noh Defendants obtained before the Effective Date in connection with offering or providing Debt-Relief Services; or b.
attempt to collect, sell, assign, or otherwise transfer any right to collect payment from any consumer who purchased or agreed to purchase Debt-Relief Services from Defendant Student Loan Pro. However, customer information may be disclosed if requested by a government agency or required by law, regulation, or court order. E.
Affirmative Requirements 17.
Under §§ 1053 and 1055 of the CFPA, Defendant Noh must: a.
within 30 days after the Effective Date, file a statement of abandonment of the fictitious business name Student Loan Pro with the Office of the Orange County Clerk-Recorder, pay any associated fee for such abandonment, and comply with any other requirements of the Office of the Orange County Clerk-Recorder for such abandonment; b.
within 30 days after the Effective Date, submit a request for cancellation or dissolution of Relief Defendant FNZA to the State of California and commence compliance with any other California requirements for such cancellation or dissolution; and c.
within 180 days after the Effective Date, take all necessary steps to complete the cancellation or dissolution of Relief Defendant FNZA.
Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #:2692
Page 28
-9- 18.
Defendant Noh must provide the Bureau with evidence of compliance with Paragraph 17 within 14 days of completion of each of the affirmative requirements in subparts a, b, and c. IV. MONETARY PROVISIONS A.
Order to Pay Civil Money Penalty 19.
Under section 1055(c) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5565(c), by reason of the violations of law alleged in the Complaint, and taking into account these Defendants’ inability to pay, the Noh Defendants must jointly pay a civil money penalty of $2,000.00 to the Bureau.
20.
Within 10 days of the Effective Date, the Noh Defendants must pay the civil money penalty by wire transfer to the Bureau or to the Bureau’s agent in compliance with the Bureau’s wiring instructions. 21.
The civil money penalties paid under this Order will be deposited in the Civil Penalty Fund of the Bureau as required by section 1017(d) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5497(d).
22.
The Noh Defendants must treat the civil money penalty paid under this Order as a penalty paid to the government for all purposes. Regardless of how the Bureau ultimately uses those funds, the Noh Defendants may not: a.
Claim, assert, or apply for a tax deduction, tax credit, or any other tax benefit for any civil money penalty paid under this Order; or b.
Seek or accept, directly or indirectly, reimbursement or indemnification from any source, including but not limited to payment made under any insurance policy, with regard to any civil money penalty paid under this Order.
23.
The Noh Defendants agree that the civil penalty imposed by the Order represents a civil penalty owed to the United States Government, is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, and, thus, as to Defendant Noh, it is not subject to discharge under the Bankruptcy Code under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #:2693
Page 29
-10- 24.
In the event of any default on the Noh Defendants’ obligations to make payment under this Order, interest, computed under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, as amended, will accrue on any outstanding amounts not paid from the date of entry of judgment to the date of payment, and will immediately become due and payable.
25.
The Noh Defendants relinquish all dominion, control, and title to the funds paid under this Order to the fullest extent permitted by law and no part of the funds may be returned to these Defendants. 26.
The facts alleged in the Complaint will be taken as true and be given collateral estoppel effect, without further proof, in any proceeding based on the entry of the Order, or in any subsequent civil litigation by or on behalf of the Bureau, including in a proceeding to enforce its rights to any payment or monetary judgment under this Order.
27.
Defendant Noh acknowledges that her Taxpayer Identification Number (Social Security Number or Employer Identification Number), which Defendant Noh previously submitted to the Bureau, may be used for collecting and reporting on any delinquent amount arising out of this Order, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 7701.
28.
Within 30 days of the entry of a final judgment, order, or settlement in a Related Consumer Action, the Noh Defendants must notify the Enforcement Director of the final judgment, order, or settlement in writing. That notification must indicate the amount of redress, if any, that the Noh Defendants paid or are required to pay to consumers and describe the consumers or classes of consumers to whom that redress has been or will be paid. To preserve the deterrent effect of the civil money penalty in any Related Consumer Action, the Noh Defendants may not argue that they are entitled to, nor may the Noh Defendants benefit by, any offset or reduction of any monetary remedies imposed in the Related Consumer Action because of the civil money Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #:2694
Page 30
-11penalty paid in this action or because of any payment that the Bureau makes from the Civil Penalty Fund. If the court in any Related Consumer Action offsets or otherwise reduces the amount of compensatory monetary remedies imposed against the Noh Defendants based on the civil money penalty paid in this action or based on any payment that the Bureau makes from the Civil Penalty Fund, the Noh Defendants must, within 30 days after entry of a final order granting such offset or reduction, notify the Bureau and pay the amount of the offset or reduction to the U.S. Treasury. Such a payment will not be considered an additional civil money penalty and will not change the amount of the civil money penalty imposed in this action. B.
Effect of Misrepresentation or Omission Regarding Financial Condition 29.
The civil money penalty imposed in Section IV.A. is expressly premised on the truthfulness, accuracy, and completeness of the Noh Defendants’ sworn financial statements and supporting documents submitted to the Bureau, which Defendant Noh asserts are truthful, accurate, and complete, and which include:
a.
Financial Disclosure Statement of Defendant Noh, including the attachments, signed on September 5, 2024, and submitted to the Bureau on or about September 5, 2024;
b.
Defendant Noh’s oral testimony provided on February 23, 2023;
c.
Defendant Student Loan Pro’s oral testimony provided on February 22, 2023; and d.
Defendant Noh’s affidavit provided to the Bureau on November 12, 2024.
30.
If upon motion by the Bureau, the Court determines that the Noh Defendants have failed to disclose any material asset or that any of their financial Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 11 of 18 Page ID #:2695
Page 31
-12statements, including material assets under the control of Relief Defendant FNZA, or oral testimony contain any material misrepresentation or omission, including materially misstating the value of any asset, then, by reason of the violations of law described in Section I of this Order, and taking into account the factors in 12 U.S.C. § 5565(c)(3), the Noh Defendants will be required to pay an additional civil money penalty of $998,000 which is the amount of the discount provided to account for the Noh Defendants’ inability to pay a greater amount in determining the civil money penalty imposed in Section IV.A. Provided, however, that in all other respects this Order shall remain in full force and effect unless otherwise ordered by the Court; and, provided further, that proceedings instituted under this provision would be in addition to, and not in lieu of any other civil or criminal remedies as may be provided by law, including any other proceedings that the Bureau may initiate to enforce this Order. V. COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS A.
Reporting Requirements 31.
The Noh Defendants must notify the Bureau of any development that may affect compliance obligations arising under this Order, including but not limited to, a dissolution, assignment, sale, merger, or other action that would result in the emergence of a successor company; the creation or dissolution of a subsidiary, parent, or affiliate that engages in any acts or practices subject to this Order; the filing of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding by or against a Defendant; or a change in a Defendant’s name or address. The Noh Defendants must provide this notice at least 30 days before the development or as soon as practicable after learning about the development, but in any case, no longer than 14 days after the development.
32.
Within 7 days of the Effective Date, the Noh Defendants must: Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #:2696
Page 32
-13a.
Designate at least one telephone number and email, physical, and postal addresses as points of contact that the Bureau may use to communicate with the Noh Defendants;
b.
Identify all businesses for which any of the Noh Defendants is the majority owner, or that any of the Noh Defendants directly or indirectly controls, by all of their names, telephone numbers, and physical, postal, email, and Internet addresses; c.
Describe the activities of each such business, including the products and services offered, and the means of advertising, marketing, and sales.
d.
Identify Defendant Noh’s telephone numbers and all email, Internet, physical, and postal addresses, including all residences; e.
Describe in detail Defendant Noh’s involvement in any business for which she performs services in any capacity or which she wholly or partially owns, including her title, role, responsibilities, participation, authority, control, and ownership. 33.
The Noh Defendants must report any change in the information required to be submitted under Paragraph 32 at least 30 days before the change or as soon as practicable after learning about the change, whichever is sooner. 34.
One year after the Effective Date, the Noh Defendants must submit to the Enforcement Director an accurate written compliance progress report (Compliance Report), the accuracy of which is sworn to under penalty of perjury, and which, at a minimum:
a.
Describes in detail whether and how each of the Noh Defendants has complied with each applicable paragraph and subparagraph of the Order, including the manner of verification of such compliance and any corrective actions taken to remedy potential non- Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 13 of 18 Page ID #:2697
Page 33
-14compliance with the applicable requirement, paragraph, or subparagraph; and b.
Attaches a copy of each Order Acknowledgment obtained under Section V.B., unless previously submitted to the Bureau. B.
Order Distribution and Acknowledgment 35.
Within 7 days of the Effective Date, each of the Noh Defendants must submit to the Enforcement Director an acknowledgment of receipt of this Order, sworn under penalty of perjury.
36.
Within 30 days of the Effective Date, the Noh Defendants, for any business for which they are the majority owner or which they directly or indirectly control, must deliver a copy of the Complaint and this Order to each of its board members and executive officers, as well as to any managers, employees, service providers, or other agents and representatives who have responsibilities related to the subject matter of the Order. 37.
For 10 years from the Effective Date, the Noh Defendants, for any business for which they are the majority owner or which they directly or indirectly control, must deliver a copy of the Complaint and this Order to any business entity resulting from any change in structure referred to in Section V.A., any future board members and executive officers, as well as to any managers, employees, service providers, or other agents and representatives who will have responsibilities related to the subject matter of the Order before they assume their responsibilities.
38.
The Noh Defendants must secure a signed and dated statement acknowledging receipt of a copy of this Order, ensuring that any electronic signatures comply with the requirements of the E-Sign Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7001- 7006, within 30 days of delivery, from all persons receiving a copy of this Order under this Section.
Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #:2698
Page 34
-15- 39.
Within 90 days after the Effective Date, the Noh Defendants must provide the Bureau with a list of all persons and their titles to whom this Order was delivered through that date under Paragraphs 36 and 37 and a copy of all signed and dated statements acknowledging of receipt of this Order under Paragraph 38.
C.
Recordkeeping 40.
Defendant Noh must create, for at least 10 years from the Effective Date, the following business records and for any business for which Defendant Noh, individually or collectively with any other Defendant, is a majority owner or which they directly or indirectly control: all documents and records necessary to demonstrate full compliance with each provision of this Order, including all submissions to the Bureau. Defendant Noh must retain these documents for at least 10 years after creation and make them available to the Bureau upon the Bureau’s request.
41.
To the extent that they possess or control the following documents and information, Defendant Noh must maintain, for at least 10 years from the Effective Date or 10 years after creation, whichever is longer: a.
For each individual Affected Consumer and their enrollment with Defendant Student Loan Pro: the consumer’s name, address, phone number, email address; amount paid, description of the service purchased, the date on which the service was purchased, a copy of any promotional or welcome materials provided, and, if applicable, the date and reason consumer left the program;
b.
For Defendant Student Loan Pro’s services, accounting records showing the gross and net revenues generated by the services; c.
All consumer complaints and refund requests (whether received directly or indirectly, such as through a third party), and any responses to those complaints or requests;
Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 15 of 18 Page ID #:2699
Page 35
-16d.
Records showing, for each employee employed by Defendant Student Loan Pro, that person’s: name; telephone number; email, physical, and postal address; job title or position; dates of service; and, if applicable, the reason for termination;
e.
Records showing, for each service provider providing services to Defendant Student Loan Pro, the name of a point of contact, and that person’s telephone number; email, physical, and postal address; job title or position; dates of service; and, if applicable, the reason for termination.
42.
All documents and records must be maintained in their original electronic format. Data should be centralized, and maintained in such a way that access, retrieval, auditing, and production are not hindered. 43.
Defendant Noh must make the documents identified in Paragraphs 40 and 41 available to the Bureau upon the Bureau’s request. D.
Notices 44.
Unless otherwise directed in writing by the Bureau, Defendant Noh must provide all submissions, requests, communications, or other documents relating to this Order in writing, with the subject line, “CFPB v. Noh, Case No. 8:21-cv-00488 (C.D. Cal.),” and send them by email to [email protected] and, contemporaneously, by overnight courier or first-class mail to the below address: Assistant Director for Enforcement Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ATTENTION: Office of Enforcement 1700 G Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20552 Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 16 of 18 Page ID #:2700
Page 36
-17- E.
Cooperation with the Bureau 45.
The Noh Defendants must cooperate fully to help the Bureau determine the identity and location of, and the amount of injury sustained by, each Affected Consumer. The Noh Defendants must provide such information in their or their agents’ possession or control within 14 days of receiving a written request from the Bureau.
46.
The Noh Defendants must cooperate fully with the Bureau in this matter and in any investigation or litigation relating to or associated with the conduct described in the Complaint. The Noh Defendants must provide truthful and complete information, evidence, and testimony. Defendant Noh must appear, and the Noh Defendants must cause their officers, employees, representatives, or agents to appear, for interviews, discovery, hearings, trials, and any other proceedings that the Bureau may reasonably request upon 10 days written notice, or other reasonable notice, at such places and times as the Bureau may designate, without the service of compulsory process. F.
Compliance Monitoring 47.
Within 14 days of receipt of a written request from the Bureau, the Noh Defendants must submit additional compliance reports or other requested information, which must be sworn under penalty of perjury; provide sworn testimony; or produce documents.
48.
For purposes of this Section, the Bureau may communicate directly with the Noh Defendants, unless they retain counsel related to these communications.
49.
The Noh Defendants must permit Bureau representatives to interview any employee or other person affiliated with them who has agreed to such an interview regarding:
a.
this matter;
Case 8:21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document 185 Filed 12/09/24 Page 17 of 18 Page ID #:2701
Page 37
Case q
So mo N DA WwW KR BW NH
BNRRRRRNSRSESTREBARS
'21-cv-00488-JWH-ADS Document185 Filed 12/09/24 Page18of18 Page
ID #:2702 b. anything related to or associated with the conduct described the Complaint; or c. compliance with this Order.
The person interviewed may have counsel present.
50. Nothing in this Order will limit the Bureau’s lawful use of compulsory process, under 12 C.F.R. § 1080.6. G. Transfer or Assignment of Operations
51. Should the Noh Defendants seek to transfer or assign all or part of their operations that are subject to this Order, the Noh Defendants must, as a condition of sale, obtain the written agreement of the transferee or assignee to comply with all applicable provisions of this Order. H. Retention of Jurisdiction
52. All pending motions relating to the Noh Defendants are hereby DENIED as moot.
53. The Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing this Order.
I. Service
54. This Order may be served upon all Defendants by electronic mail, certified mail, or United Parcel Service, either by the United States Marshal, the
Clerk of the Court, or any representative or agent of the Bureau.
IT ISSO ORDERED.
Dated: | December 9, 2024 _ MY, WG p—— Holcomb
SNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-18-