Securities and Exchange Commission v. Loomis et al, No. 2:2010cv00458 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/14/10 ORDERING that the Proposed FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 8/24/10 23 are ADOPTED; Plaintiff's MOTION for Default Judgment against defendants Loomis Wealth Solutions, LLC, and Lismar Financial Services, LLC 20 is DENIED without prejudice. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Loomis et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, No. 2:10-cv-00458-MCE-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. ORDER 14 LAWRENCE “LEE” LOOMIS, et al., 15 16 Defendants. __________________________________/ 17 On August 24, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 18 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 19 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 20 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 21 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 22 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 23 1983). 24 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 25 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed August 24, 2010, are ADOPTED; 3 4 5 6 and 2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendants Loomis Wealth Solutions, LLC, and Lismar Financial Services, LLC, is denied without prejudice. Dated: September 14, 2010 7 8 9 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
