Goldovsky v. Rauld

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

ALEX GOLDOVSKY, et al. § Plaintiffs § § § v. § CASE NO. 6:24-CV-00159 § MAURICIO J. RAULD, et al. § Defendants. § §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Derek Gilliland. ECF No. 103. The report contains recommendations for Defendants Timothy B. Gertz and PV Advisors, PLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 25), and Defendant Wells Fargo, NA’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 28). The report ultimately recommended that Gertz and PV Advisors’ motion (ECF No. 25) be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART and Defendant Wells Fargo’s (ECF No. 28) motion be DENIED. The report and recommendation was filed on May 28, 2025. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). The Wells Fargo defendants filed objections on June 10, 2025. ECF No. 104. Defendants Timothy B. Gertz and PV Advisors, PLC d/b/a Provision and d/b/a Provision Wealth Strategist also filed objections on June 11, 2025. ECF No. 105. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the motion, the responses, the report and recommendation, the objections to the report and recommendation, and the applicable laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation should be adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Derek Gilliland, ECF No. 103, is ADOPTED. IT IS ORDRED THAT Defendants Gertz and PV Advisors’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ statutory fraud claims against Gertz and PV Advisors for failure to state a claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Defendants’ Motion as to the following claims against Gertz and PV Advisors: (1) Primary liability under the Texas Securities Act; (2) Secondary liability under the Texas Securities Act; (3) Common-law fraud; (4) Negligent misrepresentation; and (5) Knowing participation in breach of fiduciary duty is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Wells Fargo’s motion as to Plaintiffs’ secondary liability claim under the Texas Securities Act against Wells Fargo (ECF No. 28) is DENIED. SIGNED this 16" day of June 2025. a serves —————_}-——— UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG