Joyce Faye Miles v. Thomas Suites Campus of Care LLC, et al.

D. Arizona

Joyce Faye Miles v. Thomas Suites Campus of Care LLC, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided November 20, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01286·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Joyce Faye Miles, No. CV-24-01286-PHX-SMM (JZB)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Thomas Suites Campus of Care LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 6). On 16 November 03, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 17 with this Court. (Doc. 21).1 The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion 18 for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. 19) be granted with modifications. (Id.). Plaintiff filed 19 1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have 20 consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the matter is before this Court pursuant to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part: 21 When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been 22 assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) 23 due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, 24 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and 25 Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on 27 my behalf: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee 1 Objections (Doc. 22) to the R&R. After considering the R&R and the arguments raised in 2 Plaintiff’s Objections thereto, the Court modifies the R&R. (Doc. 21). 3 STANDARD OF REVIEW 4 When reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, this Court “shall 5 make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is 6 made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 7 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also 8 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). However, the relevant provision 9 of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any 10 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 11 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) 12 (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the 13 R & R.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 14 (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 15 review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 16 correct.”). Likewise, it is well-settled that “failure to object to a magistrate judge’s factual 17 findings waives the right to challenge those findings.” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 18 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012)). 19 DISCUSSION2 20 Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Clifford Bendau II, requests a total of $17,990.71 in attorney 21 fees and costs, comprising of $9,434.00 in attorney fees at an hourly rate of $445 for 21.2 22 hours of work, $678.57 in out-of-pocket costs, and $7,878.14 in anticipated collection 23 costs. (Doc. 19). The Court agrees with the R&R that Mr. Bendau’s hourly rate of $445 is 24 reasonable and commensurate with Mr. Bendau’s litigation experience. (Doc. 21 at 7). 25 Further, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s $687.57 out-of-pocket costs comprising of the 26 $405.00 filing fee and $273.57 service expenses are both reasonable and recoverable. (Id.

27 2The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge=s 28 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21). 1 at 9-10). However, the Court finds Mr.Bendau’s attorney fees and Plaintiff’s anticipated 2 collection costs are not reasonable. 3 The R&R recommended that the Court reduce Mr. Bendau’s hours billed by 2.3, as 4 several time entries are not recoverable as attorneys’ fees. (Id. at 5-6). Mr. Benadu’s 5 timesheet includes 72 task entries, of which the R&R has recommended that 16 of those 6 entries are administrative tasks. (Ibid.); (see Doc. 19-4 at 2–3.) “It simply is not reasonable 7 for a lawyer to bill, at [his] regular hourly rate, for tasks that a non-attorney employed by 8 [him] could perform at a much lower cost.” Davis v. City of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 9 1543 (9th Cir. 1992), opinion vacated in part on other grounds on denial of reh'g, 984 F.2d 10 345 (9th Cir. 1993). “Attorneys’ fees should not be given for the performance of 11 administrative tasks which could and should be performed by secretarial or paralegal staff.” 12 Gary v. Carbon Cycle Ariz. LLC, 398 F. Supp. 3d 468, 487 (D. Ariz. 2019). The Court 13 agrees that the administrative task entries should be excised from the total hours billed, 14 which warrants a reasonable modification to Mr. Bendau’s attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 21 at 5- 15 8). Further, the Court finds an additional task entry that falls squarely under administrative 16 or clerical tasks. “Send docket to client (0.3 hours)[.]” (Doc. 19-4 at 2–3). Therefore, the 17 Court finds a reasonable attorney’s fees award of $8,277.00. 18 Plaintiff seeks $7,878.14 in “costs to be incurred in potential collection efforts[.]” 19 (Doc. 19 at 6). Plaintiff states that Plaintiff’s counsel has generally engaged the services of 20 an outside law firm to assist with collection efforts and pays the outside law firm a $850 21 retainer and a 25% contingency fee on all amounts recovered. (Id. at 16). In Plaintiff’s 22 Motion, Plaintiff included Exhibit I, which is the counsel’s Client Representation 23 Agreement and a $850 retainer check. (See Doc. 19-8); (see also Doc. 19-9). The R&R 24 recommended that the Court deny the $7,878.14 advance award of anticipated collection 25 costs because it is inappropriate and speculative, however, the Court should award $850 in 26 expended collection costs. (Doc. 21 at 9-10). Plaintiff clarifies to the Court that Exhibit I 27 is exemplary only and no retainer has been paid in this matter. (See Doc. 22). 28 Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and the □□ objections having been made by Plaintiff thereto, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge 2|| adequately addressed all of Plaintiff's arguments. Therefore, the Court hereby incorporates and modifies the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 21). 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED modifying the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 6|| (Doc. 21). 7 IT IS ORDERED granting in-part Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys’ || Fees and Costs Against All Defendants. (Doc. 19). 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff $8,277.00 in attorneys’ fees and $687.57 in costs for a total of $8,964.57 against all Defendants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Joyce Faye Miles, No. CV-24-01286-PHX-SMM (JZB)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Thomas Suites Campus of Care LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 6). On 16 November 03, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 17 with this Court. (Doc. 21).1 The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion 18 for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. 19) be granted with modifications. (Id.). Plaintiff filed 19 1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have 20 consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the matter is before this Court pursuant to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part: 21 When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been 22 assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) 23 due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, 24 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and 25 Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on 27 my behalf: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee 1 Objections (Doc. 22) to the R&R. After considering the R&R and the arguments raised in 2 Plaintiff’s Objections thereto, the Court modifies the R&R. (Doc. 21). 3 STANDARD OF REVIEW 4 When reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, this Court “shall 5 make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is 6 made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 7 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also 8 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). However, the relevant provision 9 of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any 10 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 11 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) 12 (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the 13 R & R.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 14 (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 15 review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 16 correct.”). Likewise, it is well-settled that “failure to object to a magistrate judge’s factual 17 findings waives the right to challenge those findings.” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 18 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012)). 19 DISCUSSION2 20 Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Clifford Bendau II, requests a total of $17,990.71 in attorney 21 fees and costs, comprising of $9,434.00 in attorney fees at an hourly rate of $445 for 21.2 22 hours of work, $678.57 in out-of-pocket costs, and $7,878.14 in anticipated collection 23 costs. (Doc. 19). The Court agrees with the R&R that Mr. Bendau’s hourly rate of $445 is 24 reasonable and commensurate with Mr. Bendau’s litigation experience. (Doc. 21 at 7). 25 Further, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s $687.57 out-of-pocket costs comprising of the 26 $405.00 filing fee and $273.57 service expenses are both reasonable and recoverable. (Id.

27 2The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge=s 28 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21). 1 at 9-10). However, the Court finds Mr.Bendau’s attorney fees and Plaintiff’s anticipated 2 collection costs are not reasonable. 3 The R&R recommended that the Court reduce Mr. Bendau’s hours billed by 2.3, as 4 several time entries are not recoverable as attorneys’ fees. (Id. at 5-6). Mr. Benadu’s 5 timesheet includes 72 task entries, of which the R&R has recommended that 16 of those 6 entries are administrative tasks. (Ibid.); (see Doc. 19-4 at 2–3.) “It simply is not reasonable 7 for a lawyer to bill, at [his] regular hourly rate, for tasks that a non-attorney employed by 8 [him] could perform at a much lower cost.” Davis v. City of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 9 1543 (9th Cir. 1992), opinion vacated in part on other grounds on denial of reh'g, 984 F.2d 10 345 (9th Cir. 1993). “Attorneys’ fees should not be given for the performance of 11 administrative tasks which could and should be performed by secretarial or paralegal staff.” 12 Gary v. Carbon Cycle Ariz. LLC, 398 F. Supp. 3d 468, 487 (D. Ariz. 2019). The Court 13 agrees that the administrative task entries should be excised from the total hours billed, 14 which warrants a reasonable modification to Mr. Bendau’s attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 21 at 5- 15 8). Further, the Court finds an additional task entry that falls squarely under administrative 16 or clerical tasks. “Send docket to client (0.3 hours)[.]” (Doc. 19-4 at 2–3). Therefore, the 17 Court finds a reasonable attorney’s fees award of $8,277.00. 18 Plaintiff seeks $7,878.14 in “costs to be incurred in potential collection efforts[.]” 19 (Doc. 19 at 6). Plaintiff states that Plaintiff’s counsel has generally engaged the services of 20 an outside law firm to assist with collection efforts and pays the outside law firm a $850 21 retainer and a 25% contingency fee on all amounts recovered. (Id. at 16). In Plaintiff’s 22 Motion, Plaintiff included Exhibit I, which is the counsel’s Client Representation 23 Agreement and a $850 retainer check. (See Doc. 19-8); (see also Doc. 19-9). The R&R 24 recommended that the Court deny the $7,878.14 advance award of anticipated collection 25 costs because it is inappropriate and speculative, however, the Court should award $850 in 26 expended collection costs. (Doc. 21 at 9-10). Plaintiff clarifies to the Court that Exhibit I 27 is exemplary only and no retainer has been paid in this matter. (See Doc. 22). 28 Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and the □□ objections having been made by Plaintiff thereto, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge 2|| adequately addressed all of Plaintiff's arguments. Therefore, the Court hereby incorporates and modifies the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 21). 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED modifying the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 6|| (Doc. 21). 7 IT IS ORDERED granting in-part Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys’ || Fees and Costs Against All Defendants. (Doc. 19). 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff $8,277.00 in attorneys’ fees and $687.57 in costs for a total of $8,964.57 against all Defendants. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment || accordingly. 13 Dated this 19th day of November, 2025. 14 15 — Lig Vom Stephen M. McNamee 16 Senior United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-

Joyce Faye Miles v. Thomas Suites Campus of Care LLC, et al., (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Joyce Faye Miles v. Thomas Suites Campus of Care LLC, et al. (Joyce Faye Miles v. Thomas Suites Campus of Care LLC, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related