Securities and Exchange Commission v. The Movie Studio, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 0:21-CV-61686-DPG SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. THE MOVIE STUDIO, INC. and GORDON SCOTT VENTERS, Defendants. ___________________________/ ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”). [ECF No. 82]. On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission filed its Motion to Strike Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 76]. Defendants were required to file a response on October 20, 2023 and failed to do so.

On October 22, 2023, Judge Strauss issued an Order noting Defendants failure to timely respond and informing Defendants that if they were to fail to respond by October 25, 2023, the Motion may be granted by default. [ECF No. 81]. On July 31, 2023, the case was referred to Judge Strauss, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a report and recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 65]. Judge Strauss’ Report recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion. [ECF No. 82]. On November 13, 2023, Defendants filed their combined Objections to Magistrate Report and Recommendation of 10/27/2023 on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (DE 76) and Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses.1 [ECF No. 87]. On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed its response. [ECF No. 91].

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

This Court, having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Strauss’ well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the Motion must be granted.

Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate Report and Recommendation of 10/27/2023 on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (DE 76) and Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses, [ECF No. 87], are OVERRULED; (2) Magistrate Judge Strauss’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 82], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference; and

1 The Court notes that Defendants improperly raised its Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses within its obje ctions. Defendants should have sought such relief in a separate filing. Thus, the Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses will not be considered. (3) Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses, [ECF No. 76], is GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 4th day of December, 2023.

Df DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE