Tamara Wareka v. Priscilla Tovar LLC, et al.

D. Arizona

Tamara Wareka v. Priscilla Tovar LLC, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided May 15, 2026·No. 4:25-cv-00323·Unknown

Opinion

Tamara Wareka, No. CV-25-00323-TUC-AMM (MSA)

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Priscilla Tovar LLC, et al.,

Defendants. On April 16, 2026, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. 29.) Judge Aguilera notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days to file any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation. (Id. at 7.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed. A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition. A district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 The Court has reviewed Judge Aguilera’s R&R, the Motion for Default Judgment, and the record. The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the findings and recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 29.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. 26.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED entering default judgment against Defendants 10) Priscilla Tovar LLC and Priscilla Tovar jointly and severally in the amount of $25,910.00 (comprised of $21,900.00 in statutory damages, $1,085.00 in costs, and $2,925.00 in attorney’s fees). Plaintiff is also awarded post-judgment interest at the current rate. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Dated this 14th day of May, 2026.

Honorable Angela M. Martinez United States District Judge

-2-

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

Tamara Wareka, No. CV-25-00323-TUC-AMM (MSA)

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Priscilla Tovar LLC, et al.,

Defendants. On April 16, 2026, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. 29.) Judge Aguilera notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days to file any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation. (Id. at 7.) Neither party filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed. A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Addition. A district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 The Court has reviewed Judge Aguilera’s R&R, the Motion for Default Judgment, and the record. The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the findings and recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 29.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. 26.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED entering default judgment against Defendants 10) Priscilla Tovar LLC and Priscilla Tovar jointly and severally in the amount of $25,910.00 (comprised of $21,900.00 in statutory damages, $1,085.00 in costs, and $2,925.00 in attorney’s fees). Plaintiff is also awarded post-judgment interest at the current rate. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Dated this 14th day of May, 2026.

Honorable Angela M. Martinez United States District Judge

-2-

Tamara Wareka v. Priscilla Tovar LLC, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Pincite

Tamara Wareka v. Priscilla Tovar LLC, et al. (Tamara Wareka v. Priscilla Tovar LLC, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related