Ninth Circuit Rules on FTC's Judgment Collection Efforts

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its long-standing efforts to collect a judgment against Benjamin Hoskins and his wife, Leanne Rodgers. The court's decision, filed on August 4, 2026, reverses a lower court ruling that had blocked the FTC's attempts to enforce a judgment stemming from a telemarketing scam that defrauded consumers of over $130 million. This ruling is significant as it impacts how federal agencies can enforce financial judgments against individuals involved in fraudulent activities.

The FTC had initially obtained a money judgment of more than $130 million against Hoskins and about $1.5 million against Rodgers in 2013 after they were found liable for operating a fraudulent telemarketing scheme. The court's ruling allows the FTC to proceed with its collection efforts, which include seizing assets to compensate victims of the scam.

The case originated from a telemarketing scheme that began in 2007, where Hoskins and his co-defendants sold worthless business coaching services to consumers, promising them significant income. The FTC's investigation revealed that the defendants used deceptive practices to prevent consumers from obtaining refunds and funneled money to various shell companies to evade accountability. After years of legal battles, the FTC sought to collect on the judgments but faced obstacles, including a lower court's decision that cited state law limitations.

In the appeal, the Ninth Circuit addressed two main issues: the applicability of Nevada's statute of limitations and the FTC's authority under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act (FDCPA). The district court had ruled that the FTC could not enforce the judgment against Rodgers due to Nevada's six-year statute of limitations and that the agency needed to file a separate action to establish that the trust holding their house was Rodgers's alter ego.

The Ninth Circuit, however, found that the district court erred in its interpretation of the FDCPA. The court stated, "The FDCPA has no time limit for collecting debts owed to the federal government by writ of execution, preempting state statutes of limitations for enforcement of judgments." This ruling clarifies that federal law supersedes state law in matters concerning the collection of debts owed to the government.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the FTC did not need to prove that the trust holding the house was Rodgers's alter ego to levy on the property. The judges emphasized that the FTC could levy any property in which Hoskins and Rodgers had a substantial nonexempt interest, allowing the agency to proceed with its collection efforts on the Corona Vista property in Las Vegas.

The ruling has significant implications for the FTC and similar federal agencies seeking to enforce financial judgments. It reinforces the idea that federal laws can take precedence over state statutes when it comes to collecting debts owed to the government. This decision may also serve as a precedent for future cases involving federal debt collection efforts.

The court's ruling is particularly relevant for consumers who have been victims of fraudulent schemes, as it ensures that agencies like the FTC can effectively pursue restitution for those harmed by such activities. The decision also highlights the challenges that defendants may face when attempting to shield their assets from collection efforts.

As for what lies ahead, it remains to be seen whether Hoskins and Rodgers will seek further appeals in this case. The Ninth Circuit's ruling has opened the door for the FTC to continue its collection efforts, potentially leading to the recovery of funds for the victims of the telemarketing scam. The case underscores the importance of robust enforcement mechanisms for federal agencies tasked with protecting consumers from fraud.