Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02037/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02037-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 04-CV-2037W

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 04-CV-2037 W (LSP)

ORDER APPROVING THE

RECEIVER’S OBJECTIONS

TO STACY SMITH’S

CLAIMS

v.

LEARN WATERHOUSE, INC.,

RANDALL T. TREADWELL, RICK

D. SLUDER, LARRY C. SATURDAY,

and ARNULFO M. ACOSTA,

Defendants.

On April 13, 2005 this Court granted Thomas F. Lennon’s (“Receiver”)

motion requesting approval of summary proceedings for the administration of claims,

resolution of claim disputes and ancillary actions. As part of that order, the Court

set a claims bar date and ruled that investor claims would only encompass the

principal invested, not any promised return thereon. The claim forms the Receiver

used notified investors of both the claims bar date as well as the fact that their claims

Case 3:04-cv-02037-W-DHB Document 424 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 04-CV-2037W

would be limited to the principal they invested.

On May 9, 2006 the Receiver filed his omnibus claim objections. A number of

investors responded to the Receiver’s claim objections, including Stacy Smith

(“Smith”). On July 11, 2006 the Court partially granted the Receiver’s omnibus

claim objections. However, because the Receiver had not submitted evidence

substantiating his claims regarding Smith’s cash card withdrawals, and Smith had not

been afforded a formal opportunity to respond to the Receiver’s proposed reduction

of her claim based on her cash card withdrawals, the Court declined to rule on the

Receiver’s objections to Smith’s claim. (Doc. No. 403.) Instead, the Court ordered

the Receiver to submit evidence documenting Smith’s cash card withdrawals by no

later than August 11, 2006. (Id.) Smith’s response, if any, was due August 31, 2006. 

(Id.) 

On August 10, 2006 the Receiver submitted the additional evidence required

by this Court’s July 11, 2006 order. To date, Smith has not responded or requested

additional time in which to do so. Having reviewed the Receiver’s most recent

submission, the Receiver’s original claim objections and Smith’s response, the Court

finds that the Receiver’s proposed claim amounts for Smith are appropriate. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY APPROVES the Receiver’s objections to Smith’s

claims. Claim 1402 is reduced to $0.00 and claim 1403 is reduced to $37,714.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12, 2006

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02037-W-DHB Document 424 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 2