From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sec. & Exch. Comission v. Aequitas Mgmt., LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Apr 20, 2017
No. 3:16-cv-00438-PK (D. Or. Apr. 20, 2017)

Opinion

No. 3:16-cv-00438-PK

04-20-2017

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMISSION, Plaintiff, v. AEQUITAS MANAGEMENT, LLC; AEQUITAS HOLDINGS, LLC; AEQUITAS COMMERCIAL FINANCE, LLC; AEQUITAS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC.; AEQUITAS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC; ROBERT J. JESENIK; BRIAN A. OLIVER; and N. SCOTT GILLIS, Defendants.


ORDER :

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [336] on January 9, 2017, in which he recommends that the Court deny Defendant Gillis's Motion to Dismiss [172].

Because neither party timely filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings & Recommendation [336]. Accordingly, Defendant Gillis's Motion to Dismiss [172] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 20 day of April, 2017.

/s/_________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Sec. & Exch. Comission v. Aequitas Mgmt., LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Apr 20, 2017
No. 3:16-cv-00438-PK (D. Or. Apr. 20, 2017)
Case details for

Sec. & Exch. Comission v. Aequitas Mgmt., LLC

Case Details

Full title:SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMISSION, Plaintiff, v. AEQUITAS MANAGEMENT, LLC…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Apr 20, 2017

Citations

No. 3:16-cv-00438-PK (D. Or. Apr. 20, 2017)

Citing Cases

Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Morgan

Moreover, the cases cited by the SEC in support of their claim of a fraudulent scheme are factually…