Lopez v. Air Pro Heating & Cooling 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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Alonso Alexander Guardado Lopez,
Plaintiff,
v.
Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02009-PHX-JZB
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 3). On October
23, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) with this
Court granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc. 12) and awarding
damages for unpaid wages and overtime wages against Defendants.1 (Doc. 15). To date,
1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have
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:
When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been
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)
due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent
to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and
Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court
Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on
my behalf:
Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M.
McNamee
Case 2:25-cv-02009-SMM-JZB Document 16 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 4

- 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
no objections have been filed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court modifies the
Magistrate Judge’s R&R. (Doc. 15).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v.
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the
service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific
written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to
object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo
review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those
findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to
object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the
propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id.
DISCUSSION
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, Plaintiff’s Motion, and supporting
affidavit, the Court hereby modifies the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. The Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that entry of default judgment is proper, however, the Court
disagrees with the total damages awarded. (Doc. 15).
The Court need not simply accept the amount of damages Plaintiff requests in
granting default judgment. See Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th
Cir. 1977). Instead, there must be some evidentiary basis for the damages sought by
Plaintiff. See Avila v. JBL Cleaning Servs. LLC, No. CV-23-00398-PHX-DJH, 2024 WL
863710, at *5 (D. Ariz. 2024). The Court may, however, enter default judgment without a
damages hearing where, as here, “the amount claimed is a liquidated sum or capable of
mathematical calculation.” Million v. Pindernation Holdings LLC, No. CV-23-00072-
PHX-MTL, 2023 WL 2813684, at *5 (D. Ariz. 2023); see also, Elektra Ent. Grp., Inc. v.
Bryant, No. CV 03-6381GAF(JTLX), 2024 WL 783123, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2004)
(explaining that the plaintiff's “burden in ‘proving up’ damages is relatively lenient” and
the “court can rely on the declarations submitted by the plaintiff”).
Case 2:25-cv-02009-SMM-JZB Document 16 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 4

- 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
Additionally, “[a] default judgment must not differ in kind, or exceed in amount,
what is demanded in the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c); see Fong v. United States, 300
F.2d 400, 413 (9th Cir. 1962) (stating that a default judgment may not be different in kind
from or exceed in amount that prayed for in the complaint). Under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”), an employer must pay an employee overtime “at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.” 29 U.S.C. § 207
(a)(1). Plaintiff stated in his affidavit that his regular rate of pay was $19 per hour. (Doc.
12-1). Thus, the overtime calculation should be the regular hourly rate ($19) times one
and one-half (1.5) times the total hours of overtime, which in this case is three (3) hours
of overtime. Therefore, the total amount of overtime damages is $114. Also, Plaintiff is
entitled to liquidated (double) damages for unpaid overtime and should be entitled to
$228 under the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). However, Plaintiff only requested $57 in
overtime damages. (Doc. 12 at 10). Since a damages award in default judgment cannot
“exceed in amount[] what is demanded in the pleadings”, Plaintiff can only receive $57
in overtime damages. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c); see Fong, 300 F.2d at 413.
The Court also noticed an error on page 11 of the Motion (Doc. 12 at 11) and page
9 of the R&R (Doc. 15 at 9) that Plaintiff should be awarded $2,508 against Defendant
Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC and $1,953.30 against all Defendants. Under the
Arizona Wage Act (“AWA”) Plaintiff can only recover regular wage damages against the
employer, whereas the Arizona Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”) allows recovery from
an “employer or other person”. See A.R.S. § 23-355(A); compare A.R.S. § 23-364.
Accordingly, subtracting the $2,451 trebled regular wage damages from the $1,896.30
trebled minimum wage damages leaves the employer Defendant Air Pro Heating &
Cooling LLC liable for $497.70 in trebled regular wage damages. (Doc. 12 at 10).
Therefore, the Court will award statutory damages of $497.70 against Defendant Air Pro
Heating & Cooling LLC for unpaid regular wage damages. (Id.); A.R.S. § 23-355(A).
Case 2:25-cv-02009-SMM-JZB Document 16 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
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
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED modifying the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 15).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.
(Doc. 12).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Alonso Alexander Guardado Lopez
is entitled to judgment in the amount of $497.70 against Defendant Air Pro Heating &
Cooling LLC. This amount shall be subject to post-judgment interest at the applicable
federal rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Alonso Alexander Guardado Lopez
is entitled to judgment in the amount of $1,953.30 against Defendants Air Pro Heating &
Cooling LLC, Eduardo Marquez, and Becky Jiminez, in which they shall be jointly and
severally liable. This amount shall be subject to post-judgment interest at the applicable
federal rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Plaintiff to file a motion for attorney
fees and costs on or before November 26, 2025 pursuant to LRCiv 54.2.
Dated this 12th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-02009-SMM-JZB Document 16 Filed 11/13/25 Page 4 of 4