Raul Rojas Torres v. ARL Construction LLC, et al.

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Raul Rojas Torres, No. CV-25-02251-PHX-ASB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 ARL Construction LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus. (Doc. 3). On 16 February 23, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this 17 Court.1 (Doc. 16). To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge 18 recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and award 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 Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of $7,319.00 against all Defendants. (Id.) 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 4 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 5 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the 6 service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific 7 written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to 8 object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo 9 review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those 10 findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to 11 object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the 12 propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 15 Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 16 adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Moreover, the Eitel factors 17 weigh in favor of granting default judgment and Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages 18 in the amount of $7,319.00 against all Defendants. (Doc. 16). 19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 21 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 22 Judge. (Doc. 16). 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment 24 against Defendants ARL Construction, LLC, Jose A. Amaya, and Antonia Schmidt 25 Bermudez. (Doc. 15). 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff statutory damages in the 2|| amount of $7,319.00, accruing post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, 3|| against Defendants ARL Construction, LLC, Jose A. Amaya, and Antonia Schmidt Bermudez, jointly and severally. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a motion for attorneys’ fees 6|| and costs on or before March 23, 2026.” 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment 8 || accordingly and terminate this case. 9 Dated this 9th day of March, 2026. 10

Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 oa 2 Plaintiff's counsel is reminded, given his history of requesting fees for || disallowed tasks in other matters before this Court, that any motion for attorneys’ fees 27|| and costs shall not contain any requests for fees that are barred under controlling case law, such as clerical tasks, and that all billing entries shall be specific as to what precise 28]| tasks were performed.

_3-