Wong v. White Rock Phlebotomy LLC

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 1, 2024
Docket4:23-cv-00234
StatusUnknown

This text of Wong v. White Rock Phlebotomy LLC (Wong v. White Rock Phlebotomy 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
Wong v. White Rock Phlebotomy LLC, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

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

9 Derek Quen Wong, No. CV-23-00234-TUC-EJM

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 White Rock Phlebotomy LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On February 13, 2024, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich issued a Report and 16 Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended the Court enter an order granting 17 Plaintiff Derek Quen Wong's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendants. 18 (Doc. 13.) Judge Markovich notified the parties that they had fourteen (14) days from the 19 date of the R&R to file any objections. (Id. at 18.) No objections were filed. 20 If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s R&R, the District Court is not 21 required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified standard of 22 review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the statute for review of a 23 magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not preclude further review by the district 24 judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” 25 Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. 26 The Court has reviewed the Complaint (Doc. 1), Motion for Default Judgment 27 (Doc. 12), and Judge Markovich's R&R (Doc. 13). It finds Judge Markovich's 28 conclusions thorough and well-reasoned. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the 1 recommendation. 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 3 1) Magistrate Judge Markovich's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 4 13.) 5 2) Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. 12.) 6 3) Plaintiff shall be awarded damages as follows: 7 a. On his Arizona Wage Act Claim against Defendant White Rock 8 Phlebotomy: 9 i. $31,249.98 in unpaid wages; 10 ii. an additional $62,499.96 as treble damages on the unpaid wages; 11 iii. pre-judgment interest of 10% per annum on the unpaid wages from 12 March 1, 2023, to the date of entry of default judgment;1 and 13 iv. post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded. 14 b. On his Arizona Minimum Wage Act Claim against Defendant Caroline Anne Lebiecki: 15 i. $6,906.40 in minimum wages due; 16 ii. an additional $13,812.80 as treble damages; 17 iii. pre-judgment interest of 10% per annum on the unpaid wages from 18 March 1, 2023, to the date of entry of default judgment; and 19 iv. post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded. 20 c. On his Breach of Contract Claim against Defendant White Rock 21 Phlebotomy and Defendant Caroline Anne Lebiecki, joint and severally: 22 i. $834.30 for unreimbursed expenses; 23 ii. pre-judgment interest of 10% per annum on the unreimbursed 24 expenses from March 1, 2023, to the date of entry of default 25 judgment; and 26 iii. post-judgment interest. 27

28 1 The Court calculates monthly interest of $260.31 ($31,249.98 x 0.00833). The total interest owed would be $3,123.72 ($260.31 x 12 months). 2 4) Plaintiff shall be allowed to file a fee application within fourteen (14) days of the 3 date of entry of default judgment. 4 Dated this 29th day of February, 2024. 5 6 UD 8 □ Uf Honorable Raner ©. Collins 9 merior United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-

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

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wong v. White Rock Phlebotomy LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wong-v-white-rock-phlebotomy-llc-azd-2024.