Griffith v. AZ's Finest Towing LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Matthew Todd Griffith,
Plaintiff,
v.
AZ’s Finest Towing LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-03092-PHX-DMF
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, SENIOR UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE:
This matter is before the Court on the stipulation for dismissal filed by
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Griffith and Defendant/Counterclaimant Hayes (Doc. 45).
While Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Griffith and Defendant/Counterclaimant Hayes
consented (Docs. 9, 18), the remaining defendants1 have not appeared in this matter let
alone consented. Before appearances and consent of all defendants, there is not full consent
for a Magistrate Judge to enter dispositive orders. See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th
Cir. 2017). Thus, pursuant to General Order 21-25, this Report and Recommendation is
made to Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee.
By way of background, on August 18, 2025, a settlement conference with
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Griffith and Defendant/Counterclaimant Hayes was conducted
1 The other active defendants are AZ’s Finest Towing, LLC (“Defendant AZ’s Finest”) and
Alex Phillips (“Defendant Phillips”).
Case 2:24-cv-03092-DMF Document 52 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
by Magistrate Judge Macdonald (Doc. 38). The corresponding minute entry minute entry
states, “Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, Matthew Todd Griffith, and Defendant/Counter
Claimant, Flyn Hayes, have resolved their claims and will file a dismissal stipulation as
appropriate” (Id.).
On September 22, 2025, the Court ordered “that dismissal paperwork as to
Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, Matthew Todd Griffith, and Defendant/Counter Claimant,
Flyn Hayes’ claims shall be filed on or before October 14, 2025” (Doc. 39). On request of
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Griffith and Defendant/Counterclaimant Hayes, the Court
extended time to file the dismissal paperwork to December 12, 2025 (Doc. 41).
On December 12, 2025, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Griffith and
Defendant/Counterclaimant Hayes filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of Defendant Flyn
Hayes Only With Prejudice (Doc. 45). The stipulation states, “Plaintiff and Defendant
Flyn Hayes hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this action with prejudice as to Fly[n] Hayes
only, each party to bear its own fees and costs” (Id.).
The other active defendants, Defendant AZ’s Finest and Defendant Phillips, have
not appeared in this action and did not participate in the settlement conference (Doc. 38).
Therefore, dismissal based on the settlement between Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Griffith
and Defendant/Counterclaimant Hayes should be limited to the claims between them.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Stipulation of Dismissal of
Defendant Flyn Hayes Only With Prejudice (Doc. 45) be granted and adopted as
recommended herein.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the claims between
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Griffith and Defendant/Counterclaimant Hayes in this action be
dismissed with prejudice, with Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Griffith and
Defendant/Counterclaimant Hayes bearing their own fees and costs as to such claims
between them.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court be directed to
Case 2:24-cv-03092-DMF Document 52 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
terminate Defendant/Counterclaimant Hayes from this action.
The above recommendations are not orders that are immediately appealable to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s
judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this
recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. The parties shall have fourteen days within which
to file responses to any objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and
Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-
Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual
determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to
appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. In addition, LRCiv 7.2(e)(3)
provides that “[u]nless otherwise permitted by the Court, an objection to a Report and
Recommendation issued by a Magistrate Judge shall not exceed ten (10) pages.”
Dated this 20th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-03092-DMF Document 52 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 3