SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
v.
THE MOVIE STUDIO, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses. Defendants failed to timely respond to the motion. The Magistrate Judge recommend…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Extension Of Time cases and more on FLexlaw
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
Df
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)