United States of America v. Action Security, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ACTION SECURITY, INC., and
SCOTT HENKE,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 40 is Plaintiff United States of America’s
(“United States”) Motion for Sanctions to Dissolve Action Security. 	Post-judgment
proceedings, 	including 	this 	motion, 	were 	referred 	to 	the 	Honorable 	United 	States
Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon at Docket 61. 	Judge Reardon issued his Report and
Recommendation at Docket 91, and recommended this Court grant the United States’
motion. Defendants Action Security, Inc. (“Action Security”), and Scott Henke objected
to the Report and Recommendation at Docket 94.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Defendants’ Objection,
Plaintiffs’ Reply, and the record, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation at
Docket 91.
Case 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR Document 97 Filed 03/20/24 Page 1 of 10

United States v. Action Security, Inc., et al. 	Case No. 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 2
I. 	BACKGROUND
In 2019, the United States filed this suit against Action Security, a locksmith
and security services business, and its owner, Scott Henke, alleging that, since 2014, they
failed to comply with federal employment and unemployment tax obligations owed as an
employer.1 The Complaint sought to enjoin Defendants from continuing to pay wages to
Action Security employees without also paying federal employment taxes.2 Although the
United States properly served Defendants, they did not file an Answer or otherwise
appear.3 Accordingly, the United States moved for entry of default, which the Clerk duly
entered, and, later, moved for a default judgment.4 However, before the Court could rule
on the default judgment, the parties filed a Stipulation for Entry of Permanent Injunction
and the United States withdrew its Motion for a Default Judgment.5
The Court issued a Judgment and Permanent Injunction against Defendants
on September 25, 2019, which included detailed terms, and retained jurisdiction for a five-
year period to ensure that the parties complied.6 	Over a year later, in October 2020, the
United States moved for an Order to Show Cause, alleging that Defendants had violated
the terms of the Court’s injunction.7 After Defendants failed to timely respond or appear
for a show cause hearing, the Court found that Defendants failed to comply with the
injunction in six ways, held them in contempt of court, and appointed a receiver to ensure
1 See generally Docket 1.
2 Id. at 6–7.
3 Docket 8; Docket 9 (text entry).
4 Docket 12; Docket 13; Docket 14; Docket 15; Docket 16.
5 Docket 17; Docket 18.
6 Docket 19.
7 Docket 20.
Case 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR Document 97 Filed 03/20/24 Page 2 of 10

United States v. Action Security, Inc., et al. 	Case No. 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 3
Defendants’ compliance with the injunction.8 The Receiver, Lisa Fink, filed three status
reports, which documented Defendants’ non-compliance with the injunction and refusal to
work with her.9 	In her third report, Ms. Fink gave notice of her resignation due to
Defendants’ refusal to communicate with her or her team as required by the Court.10
During 	the 	receivership, 	the 	United 	States 	moved 	the 	Court 	to 	hold
Defendants in contempt of its injunction and receivership orders and to dissolve Action
Security.11 Judge Reardon held an evidentiary hearing on this motion on February 28 and
March 	1, 	2023.12 	Judge 	Rearden 	then 	issued 	a 	Report 	and 	Recommendation
recommending that the Court grant the United States’ motion; enter a permanent injunction
against Defendants; require that Defendants cease accepting new clients within 30 days,
cease operating within 120 days, and conspicuously display notice of the injunction at
Action Security’s entrance; preclude Mr. Henke from directly or indirectly owning,
controlling, managing, operating, or serving as an officer or director of any business for a
specified period; and order Mr. Henke be incarcerated for one or more days if he violates
the injunction, with periods of incarceration increasing for successive violations based on
the serious of those violations.13 Defendants filed the objection at Docket 94.14
8 Docket 36; Docket 37.
9 Docket 39; Docket 48; Docket 73.
10 Docket 73.
11 Docket 40.
12 Docket 65.
13 Docket 91.
14 Docket 94.
Case 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR Document 97 Filed 03/20/24 Page 3 of 10

United States v. Action Security, Inc., et al. 	Case No. 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 4
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A district court must consider timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation and set aside any part of the order that clearly is erroneous or is
contrary to law.15 The district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.”16 “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”17
III. 	DISCUSSION
Defendants object to Judge Reardon’s Report and Recommendation, which
recommends that the Court grant the United States’ Motion for Sanctions to Dissolve
Defendant Action Security.18 	They protest that the injunctive relief he recommends
exceeds the scope of injunctive relief in similar cases, damages the public, and improperly
punishes Mr. Henke.19 	In response, the United States asserts that Defendants do not
properly present objections and instead rehash arguments that Judge Reardon considered
and rejected.20 Further, the United States argues that Defendants did not operate a lawful
15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
16 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); but see United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023)
(articulating that “the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each
objection.”).
17 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
18 Docket 91 at 1–2.
19 Docket 94 at 1.
20 Docket 95 at 1–2.
Case 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR Document 97 Filed 03/20/24 Page 4 of 10

United States v. Action Security, Inc., et al. 	Case No. 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 5
business, that their conduct justifies the relief requested, and that Judge Reardon’s
recommendation is supported by law, among other things.21
A. 	The Relief Recommended is Supported by Case Law
Defendants insist that the cases Judge Reardon relied upon are inapt, and the
injunctive relief recommended inappropriate because they are not engaged in an unlawful
business.22 The United States replies that Defendants do not operate a lawful business, as
they have failed to obey federal tax law since 2014.23
Defendants’ 	business 	does 	not 	operate 	lawfully. 	As 	Judge 	Reardon
exhaustively documented, and Defendants do not contest, they have failed to comply with
federal tax law, as well as this Court’s orders, for years. 	While Defendants identify a
factual difference between the cases upon which Judge Reardon relied, which involve
businesses whose services are themselves illegal, and this matter, which involves unlawful
business practices, they do not specify why this distinction is material.24 	In this Court’s
view, Defendants’ repeated violations of tax federal law are sufficiently similar to the
violations of law in the cases Judge Rearden cites to render those cases persuasive
authority.
Moreover, even assuming the cases Judge Rearden cited were factually
distinguishable from the present matter, it would be of no moment, as Judge Rearden
correctly applied the standard for permanent injunctions upon which those cases relied.
21 Id. at 2–6.
22 Docket 94 at 2–4.
23 Docket 95 at 2.
24 See United States v. Harkins, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1175, 1181 (D. Or. 2004); United States
v. Raymond, 228 F.3d 804, 814 (7th Cir. 2000).
Case 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR Document 97 Filed 03/20/24 Page 5 of 10

United States v. Action Security, Inc., et al. 	Case No. 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 6
District courts may impose injunctions when they determine, in their discretion, a
defendant is reasonably likely to violate internal revenue laws again and are guided by five
factors.25 Judge Rearden carefully applied this five-factor analysis and concluded all five
factors weighed in favor of an injunction.26 	Judge Rearden also weighed the traditional
equitable factors for a permanent injunction and concluded all four weighed in favor of an
injunction as well.27 Given Judge Reardon’s extensive, fact-bound analysis, the purported
distinctions between this case and others do not provide a persuasive basis to second guess
Judge Rearden’s recommendation.
Additionally, Defendants point out that, in past cases, injunctions have been
limited to enjoin future unlawful business practices.28 And they suggest that “less severe
remedies” should have been considered and that there is no evidence that Defendants are
continuing to fail to withhold and pay payroll taxes.29
Judge Rearden expressly considered the extraordinary nature of the remedy
and addressed the propriety of other sanctions.30 	The Court’s prior injunction enjoined
Defendants from engaging in future unlawful activity in detailed terms.31 	Nonetheless,
Defendants violated the injunction, and refused to work with the Receiver appointed to
ensure their compliance. 	As a result, Judge Reardon saw no feasible lesser remedy than
25 Harkins, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 1180–81 (citing United States v. Raymond, 228 F.3d 804,
813 (7th Cir. 2000)).
26 Docket 91 at 28–41.
27 Id. at 41–42.
28 Docket 94 at 3–4.
29 Id. at 6–7.
30 Docket 91 at 43–47.
31 Docket 19.
Case 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR Document 97 Filed 03/20/24 Page 6 of 10

United States v. Action Security, Inc., et al. 	Case No. 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 7
the recommended injunction.32 And, although Defendants insist that they are not currently
violating federal law, their repeated refusal to follow tax law and this Court’s orders, as
well as their failure to recognize their own culpability, supports the conclusion that future
violations are likely.
B. 	The 	Public 	Interest 	in 	Recommended 	Relief 	Outweighs 	its 	Impacts 	on
Defendants’ Creditors
Without citation, Defendants assert that the Report and Recommendation
“side-steps” normal bankruptcy rules, improperly prejudices other creditors, and harms
current consumers, vendors, and Action Security’s landlord.33 The United States responds
that the public interest in enforcing tax law outweighs these interests in the injunction
analysis and that the injunction does not “side-step” the bankruptcy code.34
In 	his 	Report 	and 	Recommendation, 	Judge 	Rearden 	considered 	the
traditional factors for a permanent injunction, including whether “the public interest would
not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”35 The Court reviews this analysis de novo.
As Judge Rearden discussed, “[p]ermanent injunctive relief advances the significant public
interest in collecting and recovering tax obligations, or, in this case, imposing appropriate
sanctions where Defendants have flagrantly disregarded their duty to address these
obligations.”36 This Court agrees and further concludes that, in the public interest analysis,
the interest in enforcing federal tax law outweighs the impacts to Defendants’ creditors,
32 Docket 91 at 43–47.
33 Docket 94 at 5.
34 Docket 95 at 8–9.
35 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006); Docket 91 at 41–42.
36 Docket 91 at 41–42.
Case 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR Document 97 Filed 03/20/24 Page 7 of 10

United States v. Action Security, Inc., et al. 	Case No. 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 8
consumers, and landlord. Furthermore, permanent injunctive relief does not side-step the
bankruptcy process. First, there is no bankruptcy process to speak of. And, second, even
if a bankruptcy process were underway, it would not allow other creditors to receive
payment as Defendants could not discharge their tax debts.37
C. 	The Relief Recommended is Not Improperly Punitive
Next, Defendants object that Judge Rearden’s recommended injunction is
improperly punitive.38 They further argue that there is no basis for the Court to conclude
the injunction is warranted to prevent future violations, as there is no evidence that they
have failed to withhold and pay payroll taxes since March 2022.39 	The United States
responds that the injunction is warranted to prevent future violations.40 And it clarifies that
the Receiver reported Defendants’ September 2022 failure to withhold and pay taxes and
that the Receiver could not determine whether Defendants had done so thereafter, as
Mr. Henke refused to give the Receiver access to the system they used to deposit payroll
taxes.41
As 	Judge 	Rearden’s 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	makes 	clear, 	the
recommended injunction does not serve to punish Defendants, but rather to ensure that they
do not violate the law in the future. The Report and Recommendation documents evidence
that demonstrates a likelihood of future violations, including Defendants’ nearly $2 million
in unpaid taxes, their past conduct of knowingly and continuous violating federal tax law
37 See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1).
38 Docket 94 at 6.
39 Id.
40 Docket 95 at 4.
41 Id. at 3 (citing Docket 48-1 at 1).
Case 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR Document 97 Filed 03/20/24 Page 8 of 10

United States v. Action Security, Inc., et al. 	Case No. 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 9
(despite numerous warnings), their refusal to comply with this Court’s orders, and their
refusal to acknowledge the illegality of their conduct.42 	Furthermore, Defendants’
assertion that they have not violated the law since March 2022 is untrue, as the Receiver
recorded violations months later, in September 2022.43 And even if the Court considered
that there have been no proven violations since September 2022, it also would need to
consider the fact that this lack of evidence is attributable to Defendants’ refusal to work
with the Receiver, in violation of this Court’s order.44 	This Court concludes that the
recommended permanent injunction is warranted to prevent likely, future violations of law
and is not improperly punitive.
D. 	Defendants have Waived Their Argument Regarding Constitutionality
Defendants 	charge 	that 	Judge 	Reardon’s 	recommendation 	would
“unconstitutionally violate Scott Henke’s right to engage in gainful, lawful employment.”45
This single phrase constitutes the entirety of their discussion of the constitutionality of the
recommended relief. Accordingly, the Court will treat this argument as waived.46
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	Court 	ADOPTS 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation at Docket 91. 	It will enter a permanent injunction that requires
42 Docket 91 at 40.
43 See Docket 48-1 at 1–2.
44 Docket 48 at 1.
45 Docket 94 at 2.
46 E.g., Maldonado v. Morales, 556 F.3d 1037, 1048 n.4 (9th Cir. 2009) (arguments made
in passing and inadequately briefed are waived); see also Ramos, 65 F.4th at 434 (articulating that
“the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection.”).
Case 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR Document 97 Filed 03/20/24 Page 9 of 10

United States v. Action Security, Inc., et al. 	Case No. 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 10
Defendants to cease accepting new clients within 30 days, cease operating within 120 days,
and conspicuously display at Action Security’s entrance notice of the injunction; that
precludes Mr. Henke from directly or indirectly owning, controlling, managing, operating,
or serving as an officer or director of any business until the earlier of (1) his successful
petition for relief if certain conditions are met after one year from the injunction; or (2) ten
(10) years; and requires that Mr. Henke be incarcerated for one or more days if he violates
the injunction, with periods of incarceration increasing for successive violations, based on
the seriousness of those violations.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of March 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
Case 3:19-cv-00134-JMK-KFR Document 97 Filed 03/20/24 Page 10 of 10