IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

LA WREN CE P. CIUFFITELLI, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, et al., 

Defendants. 

MOSMAN,J., 

No. 3:16-cv-00580-AC 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On August 1, 2018, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and 

Recommendation ("F&R") [340] recommending DENYING the Motion to Dismiss filed by TD 

Ameritrade, Inc. [275] and the Joint Motion to Dismiss [278] filed by Duff & Phelps, LLC, 

Sidley Austin LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., Deloitte & Touche LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, 

EisnerAmper LLP, and Integrity Bank & Trust and GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 

the individual motions to dismiss filed by Deloitte & Touche LLP [277], Sidley Austin LLP 

[272], and Duff & Phelps, LLC [269]. Judge Acosta also GRANTED Deloitte & Touche LLP's 

Motion for Judicial Notice [280]. 

Defendants Sidley Austin LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Duff & Phelps, LLC filed 

objections, and Plaintiffs responded to the objections. Defendants Deloitte & Touche LLP, 

EisnerAmper LLP, Integrity Bank & Trust, and Tonk.on Torp LLP did not file objections. 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 368 Filed 09/21/18 Page 1 of 3
DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendations as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the 

court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are 

addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny with which I am required to review 

the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to 

accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). 

Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendations and ADOPT the 

Findings and Recommendation [340] as my own opinion. I confirm Judge Acosta's grant of 

Deliotte & Touche LLP's Request for Judicial Notice [280] and I: 

(1) DENY Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss [278]; 

(2) GRANT Deloitte & Touche LLP's Motion to Dismiss [277] in part as to Plaintiffs' 

Claims against Deloitte for sales occurring before November 30, 2013, specifically Second 

Amended Complaint (SAC) iii! 196(a), 197 (first sentence only), 198(a), 199(b), 200(a), and 

20l(a) and (b) and DENY the Motion on all other grounds; 

(3) GRANT Sidley Austin LLP's Motion to Dismiss [272] in part as to claims against 

Sidley for sales occurring before April 5, 2013, specifically the SAC iii! 197 (first sentence only), 

198(a), 199(b), 200(a), and 201(a) and DENY the Motion on all other grounds; 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 368 Filed 09/21/18 Page 2 of 3
(4) GRANT Duff & Phelps, LLC's Motion to Dismiss [269] in part as to claims against 

Duff for sales occurring before February 2014, specifically SAC iii! 196(a), 197 (first sentence 

only), 198(a), 199(b), 200(a), and 201(a) and (b) and as to claims against Duff for sales of 

securities other than ACOF and ACF, specifically SAC iii! 196(c), 198(d), 199(c), and 202(a) and 

(b); I allow Plaintiffs leave to re-plead their non-ACOF and non-ACF claims; and DENY the 

Motion on all other grounds; 

(5) DENY TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss [275]. 

I further adopt Judge Acosta's recommendation that no further motions to dismiss be 

allowed. Any further issues concerning the sufficiency of the claims presented in the SAC or in 

any Third Amended Complaint will be addressed on class certification (if appropriate) or 

summary judgment (if appropriate). 

This matter is referred back to Judge Acosta for the issuance of an appropriate scheduling 

order, including a deadline for filing of a Third Amended Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED thisU day of September, 2018. 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:16-cv-00580-AC Document 368 Filed 09/21/18 Page 3 of 3