Prosisat SA de CV v. FAMA Energy Resources LLC

D. Arizona

Prosisat SA de CV v. FAMA Energy Resources LLC

DecidedMay 3, 2024

Docket4:23-cv-00054

StatusUnknown

This text of Prosisat SA de CV v. FAMA Energy Resources LLC (Prosisat SA de CV v. FAMA Energy Resources LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prosisat SA de CV v. FAMA Energy Resources LLC, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Prosisat SA de CV, ) No. CV 23-54-TUC-JAS (LCK) ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ) 11 vs. ) ) 12 ) FAMA Energy Resouces LLC, ) 13 ) Defendant. ) 14 ) ) 15 16 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States 17 Magistrate Judge Kimmins. A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any 18 objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. 19 As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence. 20 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Kimmins’ 21 recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 22 Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 23 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 25 (1) Magistrate Judge Kimmins’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted and 26 adopted. 27 (2) The motion for default judgment (Doc. 18) is granted and judgment is entered in 28 Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $276,092.18 in damages; prejudgment interest (on the 1 || damages of $276,092.18) at a rate of $75.64 per day from January 19, 2022, to the date of 2 || judgment; $21,533.50 in attorneys’ fees; $1017.88 in costs; and post-judgment interest at the 3 || published federal rate. 4 || (3) The Clerk of the Court shall enter a separate judgment in accordance with this Order. 6 Dated this 2nd day of May, 2024. 8 of eo Aico Honorable James A. Soto 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Prosisat SA de CV, ) No. CV 23-54-TUC-JAS (LCK) ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ) 11 vs. ) ) 12 ) FAMA Energy Resouces LLC, ) 13 ) Defendant. ) 14 ) ) 15 16 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States 17 Magistrate Judge Kimmins. A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any 18 objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. 19 As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence. 20 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Kimmins’ 21 recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 22 Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 23 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 25 (1) Magistrate Judge Kimmins’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted and 26 adopted. 27 (2) The motion for default judgment (Doc. 18) is granted and judgment is entered in 28 Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $276,092.18 in damages; prejudgment interest (on the 1 || damages of $276,092.18) at a rate of $75.64 per day from January 19, 2022, to the date of 2 || judgment; $21,533.50 in attorneys’ fees; $1017.88 in costs; and post-judgment interest at the 3 || published federal rate. 4 || (3) The Clerk of the Court shall enter a separate judgment in accordance with this Order. 6 Dated this 2nd day of May, 2024. 8 of eo Aico Honorable James A. Soto 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Prosisat SA de CV v. FAMA Energy Resources LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prosisat-sa-de-cv-v-fama-energy-resources-llc-azd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack