Securities and Exchange Commission v. 3 Eagles Research & Development LLC et al

Filing 233

ORDER: The Court DENIES as moot Defendant Proudfoots Motion 229 for Extension of Time, DENIES Defendant Proudfoot's Motion 230 for Extension of Time to Respond and DENIES Defendant Proudfoots Motion 231 for Extension of Time and Dismissal of Allegations and Charges by the SEC. The Court also ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation 221 . Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion 159 for Summary Judgment. Signed on 03/26/2014 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See attached 5 page Order for full text. (bb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

3:12-CV-01289-ST
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
3 EAGLES RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
LLC, HARRY DEAN PROUDFOOT III,
MATTHEW DALE PROUDFOOT, LAURIE
ANNE VRVILO, and DENNIS ASHLEY
BUKANTIS,
Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued Findings and
Recommendation (#221) on January 31, 2014, in which she
recommends this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion (#159) for Summary
Judgment.
On February 18, 2014, Defendant Harry Dean Proudfoot filed a
Motion for Extension of Time to File an Objection to the Finding
and Recommendation.
1 - ORDER

On March 3, 2014, the Court entered an Order

granting Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time and granting
Defendant until March 18, 2014, to file objections to the
Findings and Recommendation.

At some point Defendant Proudfoot

requested by telephone an additional extension of time to file
his objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
not object to Defendant’s request.

Plaintiff did

The Court, therefore, entered

an Order on March 19, 2014, granting Defendant’s oral Motion for
Extension and granting Defendant Proudfoot until 2:00 p.m.,
March 24, 2014, to file any objections to the Findings and
Recommendation.

Also on March 19, 2014, the Court’s March 19,

2014, Order was mailed to Defendant Proudfoot and Defendant was
advised by telephone of the 2:00 p.m., March 24, 2014, deadline
to file any objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

On

March 24, 2014, Defendant Proudfoot filed a Motion (#229) for
Extension of Time requesting until March 24, 2014, to file
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations.

In light of the fact that the Court had already

granted this extension to Defendant, the Court denies Motion #229
as moot.
On March 24, 2014, Defendant Proudfoot filed a Motion (#230)
for Extension of Time to Respond and a Motion (#231) for
Extension of Time and Dismissal of Allegations and Charges by the
SEC.

In Defendant’s Motion (#230) he seeks until November 10,

2014, to file objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

2 - ORDER

In

Defendant’s Motion (#231) he seeks until November 15, 2014, to
provide the Court with “data and information regarding the
lateness of the issue of our 506/PPM through our defense
attorneys at that time.”

The Court notes Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment was filed on May 23, 2013.

Magistrate Judge

Stewart granted Defendant Proudfoot two extensions of time to
respond to Plaintiff’s Motion, and Defendant Proudfoot did not
file a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment until
October 16, 2013.

On November 7, 2013, the Magistrate Judge

entered an Order in which she granted Defendant Proudfoot’s
request to file a surreply to respond to “evidentiary objections
raised in Plaintiff’s Reply” no later than November 18, 2013.
The Magistrate Judge then granted Defendant Proudfoot an
extension of time to December 20, 2013, to file his surreply.
Defendant Proudfoot did not file a surreply by December 20, 2013,
and instead on December 23, 2013, he filed a Motion for Extension
of time to file his surreply.

On January 14, 2014, the

Magistrate Judge denied Defendant Proudfoot’s Motion for
Extension of time and took Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment under advisement.
As noted, the Court granted Defendant Proudfoot two
extensions of time to file objections to the Findings and
Recommendation.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment has been

pending for over ten months.

3 - ORDER

The Court finds Defendant Proudfoot

has had more than enough time to sufficiently address
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and to file objections to
the Findings and Recommendation.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Defendant Proudfoot’s Motion (#230) for Extension of Time to
Respond and his Motion (#231) for Extension of Time and Dismissal
of Allegations and Charges by the SEC.

The matter is now before

this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is
relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo.

See

also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009);
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.
2003)(en banc).

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo,

the Court does not find any error.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court DENIES as moot Defendant
Proudfoot’s Motion (#229) for Extension of Time, DENIES Defendant
Proudfoot's Motion (#230) for Extension of Time to Respond and
DENIES Defendant Proudfoot’s Motion (#231) for Extension of Time
and Dismissal of Allegations and Charges by the SEC.
The Court also ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings
and Recommendation (#221).
4 - ORDER

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s Motion (#159) for Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 26th day of March, 2014.

/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

5 - ORDER