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-SMM (JZB)
AMENDED ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 3). On
February 6, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this
Court.1 (Doc. 20). To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and
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 22 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 5

- 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
Costs (Doc. 18) with modifications. (Doc. 20). For the reasons set forth, the Court rejects
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
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 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no
Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby rejects the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 20).
The Court agrees with all the issues noted in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation with Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Id.) However, upon the
Court’s review of Plaintiff’s itemization of attorneys’ fees and costs, the Court found
additional entries of time for administrative tasks. Administrative tasks are not
compensable as attorney fees. See Neil v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 495 Fed.Appx. 845, 847
(9th Cir. 2012) (holding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to
award [ ] attorney’s fees for purely clerical tasks such as filing documents and preparing
and serving summons”); see also Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906, 921 (9th Cir. 2009)
(holding that clerical tasks such as filing and document organization “should have been
subsumed in firm overhead rather than billed at paralegal rates”). The Court finds that the
following tasks are not commensurable as attorney fees:
Case 2:25-cv-02009-SMM-JZB Document 22 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 5

- 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
• Send representation agreement (0.1 hours)
• Receive signed agreement, create file (0.1 hours)
• Send complaint to client for review and signature (0.1 hours)
• Receive signed complaint (0.1 hours)
• Finalize, file complaint (0.1 hours)
• Draft magistrate consent form, file (0.1 hours)
• Compile case documents; send to process server (0.2 hours)
• Email thread with process server re case (0.2 hours)
• Review party agreement to magistrate jurisdiction (0.1 hours)
• Email thread with process server re case (0.1 hours)
• Email thread with process server re service executed (0.1 hours)
• File service executed (0.1 hours)
• Finalize, file application for entry of default (0.1 hours)
• Send, receive signed declaration from client (0.1 hours)
• Finalize, file motion for default judgment (0.1 hours)
• Send motion to chambers (0.1 hours)
• Discuss Order with process server (0.2 hours)
• Finalize, file supplemental brief (0.3 hours)
• Finalize, file motion for attorneys’ fees & costs (0.1)
(Doc. 18-5 at 2-3). The Court has already informed Plaintiff’s counsel numerous times
that he is not entitled to attorneys’ fees for administrative tasks,2 yet Plaintiff’s counsel
continues to request them.3
Additionally, Plaintiff requested attorney fees for unreasonable time amounts. The
Court takes issue with the following entries:
2 See Fuehrer v. Edelweiss Phoenix Incorporated et al., No. CV-24-00178-PHX-SMM
(D. Ariz. October 3, 2024); see also Miles v. Thomas Suites Campus of Care LLC et al.,
2:24-cv-01286-SMM-JZB (D. Ariz. November 20, 2025); see also Quigley v. Soul
Surgery LLC et al., 2:24-cv-01050-SMM-ASB (D. Ariz January 14, 2026); see also
Rasmussen v. Dream Helpers LLC et al., 2:23-cv-01808-SMM-JZB (D. Ariz. February
24, 2025); see also Ramos v. Probuilds LLC et al., 2:23-cv-01111-SMM-DMF (D. Ariz.
March 12, 2024); see also Robinson v. Beyond Food LLC et al., 2:23-cv-00443-SMM-
CDB (D. Ariz. February 2, 2024); see also Shorty v. Day and Night Medical Trans
Incorporated et al., 2:23-cv-00084-SMM-ASB (D. Ariz. January 4, 2024); see also
Rodriguez v. D’Auto Boys LLC et al, 2:22-cv-01420-SMM-JZB (D. Ariz. April 29,
2024).
3 Plaintiff’s counsel is reminded of his obligation to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and that sanctions may result if counsel seeks relief that is not
permitted under the law. The Court has already reminded Plaintiff’s counsel of this
obligation. See e.g., Villa v. Express Truss & Framing Systems LLC, et al., No. CV 24-
01890-PHX-SMM-ASB (D. Ariz. July 24, 2025); see also Quigley v. Soul Surgery LLC,
et al., No. CV 24-01050-PHX-SMM-ASB (D. Ariz. January 14, 2026).
Case 2:25-cv-02009-SMM-JZB Document 22 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 5

- 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
• Begin drafting Application for Entry of Default (0.5 hours)
• Begin drafting Motion for Default Judgment (1 hour)
• Draft declaration in support (0.5 hours)
• Begin drafting motion for attorneys’ fees & costs (2 hours)
• Continue drafting motion for attorneys’ fees & costs (1 hour)
• Continue drafting motion for attorneys’ fees & costs (1 hour)
(Doc. 18-5 at 2-3). It is unreasonable for Plaintiff’s Counsel to bill 0.5 hours for drafting
the application for entry of default. (See Doc. 10). The application is only two sentences
and states the following:
Plaintiff, Alonso Alexander Guardado Lopez (“Plaintiff”), requests that the
Clerk of Court enter default against Defendants, Air Pro Heating & Cooling
LLC and Eduardo Marquez and Becky Jimenez (“Defendants”), pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). In support of this request, Plaintiff relies on the
record in this case and the affidavit submitted as “Exhibit A.”
(Id.) Also, the affidavit submitted as Exhibit A is identical, except for the change of the
Defendants’ names and the date, to the affidavit submitted to this Court in Plaintiff’s
counsel’s other cases before this Court. (See Doc. 10-1). Plaintiff’s counsel also has not
demonstrated how the motion for default judgment took one hour, the draft declaration
took 0.5 hours, and the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs took four hours to complete
when all the motions are nearly identical to those Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted to this
Court in other cases.
Further, the Court has already informed Plaintiff’s counsel numerous times
regarding issues with his templates, including in this case. This Court noted in its prior
order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment that it included numerous errors in
the damage calculations. (Doc. 16 at 3). Also, the Magistrate Judge noted Plaintiff’s
counsel’s “woeful calculation” issues in his Report & Recommendation. (Doc. 20 at 10,
n.7).
Additionally, the Court disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
that Plaintiff should receive $850 in anticipated collection costs. (Doc. 20 at 10). Plaintiff
submitted a letter and check for $850 that he allegedly paid to Parker Law Firm PLLC
(“Parker Law”) in 2024 as part of a retainer in a different case. (Doc. 18-10). However,
Case 2:25-cv-02009-SMM-JZB Document 22 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
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
Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that it paid Parker Law a retainer in this matter.
Thus, the request is speculative, and Plaintiff is not entitled to the cost of the retainer. See
Ramirez v. Unique Transitional Homes Staffing LLC, No. CV-23-01882-PHX-DCG,
2024 WL 3345205, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 8, 2024) (declining to award $25,821.90 in
collection costs because costs were too speculative). Further, this Court has already
informed Plaintiff’s counsel in numerous orders that he is not entitled to anticipated
collection costs.4
CONCLUSION
Counsel has been repeatedly cautioned about the numerous deficiencies in his
motions for attorneys’ fees and costs. This Court expects counsel to submit a correct fee
application without relying on the Court to be his auditor in chief.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,
IT IS ORDERED rejecting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 20).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
and Costs without prejudice. (Doc. 18).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for
attorneys’ fees and costs on or before March 6, 2026.
Dated this 25th day of February, 2026.
4 See Fuehrer v. Edelweiss Phoenix Incorporated et al., No. CV-24-00178-PHX-SMM
(D. Ariz. October 3, 2024); see also Miles v. Thomas Suites Campus of Care LLC et al.,
2:24-cv-01286-SMM-JZB (D. Ariz. November 20, 2025); see also Quigley v. Soul
Surgery LLC et al., 2:24-cv-01050-SMM-ASB (D. Ariz. January 14, 2026); see also
Rasmussen v. Dream Helpers LLC et al., 2:23-cv-01808-SMM-JZB (D. Ariz. February
24, 2025); see also Ramos v. Probuilds LLC et al., 2:23-cv-01111-SMM-DMF (D. Ariz.
March 12, 2024); see also Robinson v. Beyond Food LLC et al., 2:23-cv-00443-SMM-
CDB (D. Ariz. February 2, 2024); see also Shorty v. Day and Night Medical Trans
Incorporated et al., 2:23-cv-00084-SMM-ASB (D. Ariz. January 4, 2024); see also
Rodriguez v. D’Auto Boys LLC et al, 2:22-cv-01420-SMM-JZB (D. Ariz. April 29,
2024).
Case 2:25-cv-02009-SMM-JZB Document 22 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 5