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

Filing 86

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendation 52 and, accordingly, GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion 6 for Preliminary Injunction and other Relief against Defendant 3 Eagles Research & Development LLC and ENJOINS Defen dant 3 Eagles Research & Development LLC from violating provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by offering, selling, or soliciting the offer or sale of any security issued by 3 Eagles or by any entity that 3 Eagles directly or indirectly controls. Signed on 10/23/2012 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (bb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
3 EAGLES RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
LLC, HARRY DEAN PROUDFOOT III,
MATTHEW DALE PROUDFOOT, LAURIE
ANNE VRVILO, DENNIS ASHLEY BUKANTIS,
Defendants.
____________________________________
DENNIS ASHLEY BUKANTIS,
Defendant/Cross-Claimant,
v.
3 EAGLES RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
LLC and HARRY DEAN PROUDFOOT III,
Cross-Defendants.

JOHN S. YUN
HEATHER MARLOW
U.S. Securities Exchange Commission
44 Montgomery St., Ste. 2800
San Francisco, CA 94104
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1 - ORDER

3:12-CV-01289-ST

ORDER

3 EAGLES RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LLC
c/o Harry Proudfoot
9 Fox Chase Dr.
Mt. Vernon, OH 43050
Pro Se Defendant/Cross-Defendant
HARRY DEAN PROUDFOOT, III
9 Fox Chase Dr.
Mt. Vernon, OH 43050
Pro se Defendant/Cross-Defendant
DAVID H. ANGELI
Angeli Law Group LLC
121 S.W. Morrison Street
Suite 400
Portland, OR 97205
503-954-2232
Attorney for Defendant Matthew Dale Proudfoot
ROBERT R. CALO
KRISTEN L. TRANETZKI
Lane Powell, PC
601 S.W. Second Avenue
Suite 2100
Portland, OR 97204-3158
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Laurie Anne Vrvilo
DENNIS ASHLEY BUKANTIS
8101 East Dartmouth Ave., House #7
Denver, CO 80231
[phone]
Pro Se Defendant/Cross-Claimant
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued a Findings and
Recommendation (#52) by Order on September 12, 2012, in which she
recommends the Court grant Plaintiff Securities & Exchange
2 - ORDER

Commission’s Motion (#6) for Preliminary Injunction and Other
Relief against Defendant 3 Eagles Research & Development LLC
for failure to timely respond to the Motion.

This matter is

before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).1

BACKGROUND
In its Motion Plaintiff seeks an order preliminarily
enjoining all Defendants from violating provisions of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
offering, selling, or soliciting the offer or sale of any
security issued by 3 Eagles or by any entity that 3 Eagles, Harry
Proudfoot, Matthew Proudfoot, or Laurie Vrvilo directly or
indirectly controls.

Plaintiff also requests an order directing

Defendants to provide an accounting of all investor funds,
directing Defendants to preserve all documents and other
materials in their possession or control, and authorizing
expedited discovery.
The record reflects Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and other Relief was served on Defendant 3 Eagles on
1

The Magistrate Judge also issued Findings and
Recommendation (#72) on September 25, 2012, recommending the
Court grant a Preliminary Injunction and other relief against
Defendant Harry Proudfoot, who filed an Objection to the Findings
and Recommendation on October 12, 2012. Those Findings and
Recommendation will be taken under advisement by this Court on
October 29, 2012.
3 - ORDER

July 24, 2012.

The record, however, does not reflect any timely

Objection by Defendant 3 Eagles.
Defendants Matthew Dale Proudfoot and Laurie Anne Vrvilo
entered into a Stipulation and Order of Preliminary Injunction
(#10) on July 25, 2012, which was signed by this Court.

STANDARDS
Because no objection to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation (#52) was timely filed by 3 Eagles, this Court is
relieved of its obligation to review the record against 3 Eagles
de novo.

See 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).

In light of the fact that

the Findings and Recommendation did not include any analysis,
however, the Court has reviewed the record and the underlying
legal principles de novo.

The Court does not find any error.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendation (#52) and, accordingly, GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion
(#6) for Preliminary Injunction and other Relief against
Defendant 3 Eagles Research & Development LLC and ENJOINS
Defendant 3 Eagles Research & Development LLC from violating

4 - ORDER

provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by offering, selling, or soliciting the
offer or sale of any security issued by 3 Eagles or by any entity
that 3 Eagles directly or indirectly controls.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of October, 2012.

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

5 - ORDER