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

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: September 12, 2024
• Docket: 0:21-cv-61686
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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. 155]. On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission filed its Motion to Strike Defendants’ Amended Affirmative Defenses (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 109]. Defendants The Movie Studio, Inc. and Gordon Scott Venters filed their response to the Motion on February 17, 2024. [ECF No. 119]. On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed its reply. [ECF No. 131]. 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. 155]. On August 9, 2024, Defendants filed their Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that Certain Affirmative Defenses be Stricken. [ECF No. 159]. 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) Defendants’ Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that Certain Affirmative Defenses be Stricken, [ECF No. 159], is OVERRULED; (2) Magistrate Judge Strauss’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 155], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference;

and (3) Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Amended Affirmative Defenses, [ECF No. 109], is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part as follows: a. GRANTED as to Defendants’ Affirmative Defense Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13– 17, 20, 23–34, 37, 39, 41–49, 51–58, and 60–68; b. DENIED as to Defendants’ Affirmative Defense Nos. 5, 7, 9, 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 35, 36, 38, 40, 50, and 59 (except to the extent they rely on an estoppel or statute-of-limitations defense); and (4) Affirmative Defense Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13-17, 20, 23-34, 37, 39, 41-49, 51-58, and 60-68 of Defendants The Movie Studio, Inc. and Gordon Scott Venters’ Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses, [ECF No. 100], are hereby STRICKEN. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 12th day of September, 2024. of DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE