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. 156]. On December 28, 2023, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 107]. Defendants The Movie Studio, Inc. and Gordon Scott Venters filed their response to the Motion on February 21, 2024. [ECF No. 125]. On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed its reply. [ECF No. 139]. 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, in part, and deny, in part, Plaintiff’s Motion. [ECF No. 156]. On August 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Limited Objections to the report and recommendation on the Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 167], to which Defendants filed a response, [ECF No. 172]. Defendants also filed their own Amended Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be Granted as to Count I of the Complaint on August 26, 2024. [ECF No. 171].

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, in part, and denied, in part.

Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s Limited Objections to the report and recommendation on the Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 167], are OVERRULED; (2) Defendants’ Amended Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be Granted as to Count I of the Complaint, [ECF No. 171], is OVERRULED; (3) Magistrate Judge Strauss’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 156], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference; (4) Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 107], is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part as follows: a. GRANTED as to Count I of the Complaint; and b. DENIED as to Counts II-IX of the Complaint.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 17th day of September, 2024.

Df DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE