Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management v. Federal Trade Commission, 593 U.S. 67 (2021), holding that Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not allow for equitable monetary relief, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the rejection of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to vacate a stipulated judgment for payment of equitable monetary relief that was entered before the AMG decision was issued. See FTC v. Elite IT Partners, — F. 4th —, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1473 (10th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024).

Elite Stipulates to a $13.5M Judgment and Then Seeks to Vacate It

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued James Martinos and Elite IT Partners (collectively, Elite) alleging Elite engaged in a fraudulent scheme to sell unnecessary services. Id. at * 1. Elite and the FTC stipulated to a judgment under which Elite would pay the FTC $13.5 million in equitable monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the act. Id. at *1, *4. Elite also “waive[d] all rights to … challenge or contest the validity of” the stipulated judgment. Id. at * 2.