On June 11, 2026 Ideal Living’s lawyers told a magistrate judge that its five entities share one database, keep their documents by brand, and run a system audited annually by an independent accountant; in July its opposition said its chief financial officer’s declaration reconciled the figures to audited financial statements. Lonni’s lawyer named an FTC order against Spiegel and a whistleblower before the judge stopped him. Spiegel and Helen Christoni were deposed on the filter dispute; the excerpts went in with a sealing request.
In a Los Angeles courtroom on June 11, 2026, Ideal Living’s lawyers described the company’s records to Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. Ashly Sands: one shared database across the entities under common control, with “nothing that exists outside of that,” and a system “annually audited by an independent accountant.” Danielle Futterman: “all of them and the affiliates in the shared databases maintain all of their documents at a brand level.” In July the company’s opposition said its chief financial officer’s declaration had reconciled the figures it produced “to CCDs’ audited financial statements.” Two months after that, the same company’s other lawyers wrote to Reckless Ben that none of its money has ever gone to the sect. The books that could answer the question exist, are audited every year, and have now been described under a federal judge’s order, in a dispute about replacement filters that never asks it. The same hearing holds the other side’s answer to who else might: “We have a whistleblower who would testify,” Lonni’s lawyer began, before the judge cut him off.
This site has followed the case since the company tried and failed to block Myra Nishizaki’s deposition in it last September. Six filings from this summer, from the court’s electronic file, add the company’s description of its own books, an order reaching five of its entities, the line the judge stopped, and the depositions of Spiegel and Christoni.
The company’s lawyers, Ashly Sands and Danielle Futterman, on where the records live.
And it would - I mean, honestly in practice or in the end, it would reach to other entities under the common control anyway, because it’s a shared database and there’s nothing that exists outside of that.
In the ordinary course of business our clients, and I mean all of them and the affiliates in the shared databases maintain all of their documents at a brand level. In order to pull any sort of financial at a filter model level, our client may engage the CFO of the company and he used their internal ERP system, which is audited annually and he was able to input the date range at issue in this lawsuit and the filter model number, the AD 3000, and that is how he produced the updated financials.
And also frankly, if we were hiding profits, we certainly wouldn’t have produced what we produced because it shows millions of dollars in profits.
The five entities were agreed on the record that morning and written into the order a week later: Ideal Living Management, Ideal Living LLC, Ideal Living Holdings, and Ideal Living Intermediate I and II. Ideal Living Intermediate II is the borrower under the July 2025 credit agreement that pledged every trademark and patent the family of companies owns to JPMorgan Chase, and was formed sixteen days before it was signed. Lonni’s lawyer said he had shown the judge an email from the company’s own counsel “saying they have urgently had to amend to bring them in as plaintiffs,” and that “then suddenly that went away.” Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar ruled from the bench that affiliate discovery would be “limited to the five Ideal Living entities,” and her written order of June 18 says the company “must produce records regarding the five (5) Ideal Living entities,” with a declaration confirming its searches. The order also requires “a detailed declaration(s)” on how its financial summaries were prepared, and that the chief financial officer or another representative be made available to meet the other side. From the bench she also asked that whoever prepared the figures, or the independent auditor, explain how the annual audit checks them. In July the company’s opposition described the declaration.
As confirmed by the Declaration of Gene Boyarsky, CCDs’ CFO, the declaration the June 18 MTC Order directed, AD3000 revenue and product costs are tracked by SKU and were filtered to the AD3000 SKU family; brand-level operating expenses were allocated to the AD3000 filters through a documented, consistently applied methodology; and the figures were reconciled to CCDs’ audited financial statements, such that the calculation covers only AD3000 filter products and does not include any products associated with the AD3500 air purifier.
So, in the company’s own account: five entities, one database, documents kept by brand, a chief financial officer who can isolate a product line from the system, an independent accountant who audits it every year, and audited financial statements that the figures reconcile to. That is the ledger that could answer the question this site has carried since August, whether any of the company’s money reached the sect, and the question its lawyers answered last month in a single sentence. Nothing in this case asks it. The filter dispute reaches the AD3000’s sales and costs and stops there. A footnote in the same opposition answers a label from the counterclaims’ caption, which this site repeated in September: they named Response Products, LLC as doing business as Ideal Living Direct, and the company replies, “There is, however, no entity registered as Ideal Living Direct.”
The other side’s lawyer, Kevin O’Connor, and the judge who stopped him.
Because we - our clients allege and we will show they did no serious testing for their product. The principal owner of these companies is Peter Spiegel. He has been governmental agency scrutiny, he has been the subject of a FTC order. We have a whistleblower who would testify that he engaged in all sorts of -
The Court: All right. Let’s focus on what’s in the record.
They’re all one big conglomerate, right. So they produced some agreements between the three entities and they’re all circular, they all point the finger at each other and say you own this, you own that.
The FTC order on the public record against Spiegel is the 1997 consent order over the AbFlex, set out in The machine. Lonni’s lawyer told the court that AirDoctor advertises its filters without serious testing, is “doing exactly what the FTC had barred from Mr. Spiegel from doing in the past,” and sells under an “Ultra HEPA” label that is “a fiction”; those are the opponent’s allegations, which the company is contesting, and no court has decided them. Who the whistleblower is, the transcript does not say. The same defendants served a subpoena on Nishizaki on September 2, 2025 for testimony on the company’s corporate and financial relationships and on her complaint’s paragraphs about the founders’ religious organization, and the company failed to stop it. Whether she was deposed is not in the public file.
Spiegel for under thirty minutes; Christoni on July 14.
The opposition, written to resist a reopening of discovery, lists who was deposed and when. Michael Pedersen, the company’s designated witness, sat a second time on June 25, 2026. Jeremy Sweet, the designee who last year could not name the company’s new investor, Gene Boyarsky, the chief financial officer, a third employee, and Peter Spiegel were deposed between June 29 and July 1. Of the seven hours allowed, Lonni’s lawyers used “under thirty minutes with Mr. Spiegel.” Helen Christoni, whose 911 call is in Spiegel’s declaration, was deposed on July 14, 2026, both for herself and as the company’s witness. Two orders confined the questions to the AD3000 filter and its overlap with the AD3500; the June 26 order permits questions on the two filter lines’ shared advertising, testing, sales and expenses and bars “questions that pertain solely to the AD3500 filter.” The opposition’s cover calls it the redacted version of a document proposed to be filed under seal, and the docket shows a sealed declaration filed the same day. Spiegel has now testified under oath in a federal case, and what he said is held by the parties and the court.
The magistrate judge’s order reversed in part, and the summary judgment motion taken off the calendar.
June 11, 2026. The discovery hearing before Magistrate Judge Sagar.
June 18. Her order: no separate AD3500 discovery; records on the five Ideal Living entities; a declaration on the financial summaries.
June 26. Her further order on what the witnesses may be asked.
June 29 to July 1. Sweet, Boyarsky, Spiegel and a fourth witness deposed.
July 2. Lonni moves for review of the June 18 order.
July 14. Christoni deposed.
July 16. The company’s opposition, with a sealing request for its declaration.
July 28. The company moves for summary judgment.
August 6. Judge George H. Wu adopts his tentative ruling, grants Lonni’s motion, overrules the magistrate judge “to the extent set forth in the Court’s ruling,” and takes the summary judgment motion off the calendar.
When the opposition was filed the pretrial conference was set for December 3, 2026 and trial for December 15. Orders followed on September 14, 23, 24 and 30, on the public docket.
Sources. AirDoctor, LLC v. Lonni, Inc., C.D. Cal. No. 2:23-cv-00353-GW-AS, docket on CourtListener: the transcript of the June 11, 2026 hearing (Dkt. 313, filed June 18; the docket set its restriction to lift on September 16), the order of June 18 (Dkt. 315), the order of June 26 (Dkt. 331), the motion for review of July 2 (Dkt. 333), the opposition of July 16 (Dkt. 337, public copy) and the civil minutes of August 6 (Dkt. 365), all linked above; the docket entries of July 16 (the sealing request and sealed declaration), July 28 (the summary judgment motion) and September 14, 23, 24 and 30. The ex parte application and ruling of September 2025 and the July 11, 2025 credit agreement at the protective-order report; the 1997 FTC consent order at The machine; Spiegel’s declaration at his sworn account; the lawyers’ letter at the company’s reply.
The JKP Map · Prakashanand Saraswati is the only person on this site convicted of a crime.
Donate to The JKP Map
Curiosity is free, but court filings aren’t.
Filing fees, record pulls and hosting come out of pocket. A tip keeps the archive public and ad-free.
Who is behind The JKP Map? A private citizen, reporting from the public record. The site carries no byline.
Found something wrong? The correction and right-of-reply form takes a correction or a reply. Any grade that changes is logged and dated on the corrections page.
Is there a tip line? No email address and no tip line. A note left with a donation reaches the site.
Any ads? None, ever.
How is it sourced? Every claim is graded and linked to its source, so the record can be checked without trusting the site.