The FTC isn’t happy about the Cardiffs’ latest attempt to stall regulatory proceedings against them.

Eunjung and Jason Cardiff have disregarded this Court’s Orders since the day they were served with the Temporary Restraining Order.

They now seek to have the Court stay or set aside three of its Orders, all of which were issued after extensive briefing and voluminous factual presentations, including thousands of pages of exhibits, numerous declarations, four expert reports, four Receiver’s affidavits of non-compliance, a preliminary injunction hearing at which Eunjung and Jason Cardiff personally appeared and addressed the Court, and a four-day contempt hearing at which they both testified under oath and were found to have “lied” and perpetuated a “fraud on the Court.”


The FTC’s response to the Cardiffs’ request for a stay pending their contempt appeal, is the result of alleged misrepresentations made prior to filing.

Prior to filing,

the Cardiffs’ counsel told counsel for the FTC (and subsequently confirmed by email) that the Cardiffs’ motion and proposed order for a stay pending appeal would be “limited to the sale of the house”.

What the Cardiffs ended up filing is a request for a blanket stay on proceedings.

One component of the stay order pertains to the Receiver selling the Cardiffs family home, which they’ve since withdrawn the appeal for.

In the contempt component of their appeal, the Cardiffs

they were not afforded due process and that the Court “prejudged the facts,” “failed to compartmentalize [its] feelings toward the Cardiffs,” and evidenced a “closed mind to any motion filed by the Cardiffs.”

The FTC claims these arguments are a mis-characterization of proceedings, and do

a disservice to the legal and factual analysis explicated in the Court’s detailed opinion.

The Court has repeatedly and explicitly cautioned the Cardiffs about compliance with the PI since they appeared personally at the PI hearing on November 7, 2018, but they have brazenly defied its Orders at every turn; the latest Order that they purge themselves of their ongoing contempt – and once again giving them extra time to come into compliance before facing civil contempt sanctions – is neither appropriate for reconsideration nor should it be “stayed.”

The FTC’s objection cites non-compliance with the granted injunction, at recent as April 14th.

And the contempt continues, including a brand new instance by Eunjung Cardiff on April 13, 2020, when she deposited $4,500 USD in cash into the FCCU Account – money that was immediately used to pay for unapproved expenses charged to the Cardiffs’ credit cards – instead of turning the money over to the Receiver, which she had been ordered to do just two weeks earlier, as well as by the TRO, PI, and first Purge Contempt Order.

The FTC subsequently requests the Cardiff’s motion for a stay be denied. They are joined in opposition by the court-appointed Redwood Receiver.

Pending a decision on the Cardiff’s stay motion, stay tuned…