Fuentes v. Express Truss & Framing Systems 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
Jose Fuentes,
Plaintiff,
v.
Express Trust & Framing Systems LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV 24-01888 PHX CDB
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
to
TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE:
Plaintiff filed their Complaint on July 30, 2024, naming as Defendants Express
Trust & Framing Systems LLC, Express Truss LLC, William Keshishi, Linet
Mirzakanian, Caleb Riley, and Shannon O’Neil. Plaintiff agreed to the exercise of
magistrate judge jurisdiction over this matter (ECF No. 7), and all Defendants were
served (ECF Nos. 9-14). Defendants O’Neil and Riley answered the Complaint on
September 18, 2024, and consented to the exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF
Nos. 15 & 18). A scheduling order issued November 14, 2024, required discovery be
completed no later than October 24, 2025. (ECF No. 23).
On November 19, 2024, Plaintiff sought the entry of default against Express Truss
& Framing Systems LLC, Express Truss LLC, Keshishi, and Mirzakanian (ECF No. 24),
and these Defendants’ default was entered November 21, 2024 (ECF No. 25). None of
these Defendants appeared in this matter and, accordingly, the case is not in full consent
with regard to the exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction over the matter.
Case 2:24-cv-01888-SMM-CDB Document 40 Filed 03/12/26 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
On May 19, 2025, the Court allowed Plaintiff until May 30, 2025, to show cause
why the case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute their claims.
Plaintiff responded to the Order to Show Cause, and the parties sought referral of the
matter for a settlement conference. (ECF Nos. 29 & 31).
On December 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. (ECF No. 34). On
February 12, 2026, the Court issued an order to show cause (ECF No. 36) why the case
should not be dismissed as to all named Defendants, with prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure
to file a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to the notice of settlement at ECF No. 34, and
for Plaintiff’s failure to proceed with regard to Defendants Express Truss & Framing
Systems LLC, Express Truss LLC, Keshishi, and Mirzakanian. Plaintiff responded to the
Order to Show Cause, averring: “Plaintiff has not sought default judgment against the
Defaulted Defendants following the notice of settlement because Plaintiff intends to
dismiss this matter in its entirety against Defendants and Defaulted Defendants following
the finalizing and execution of the settlement agreement and related documents.” (ECF
No. 37).
On March 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to
all claims and Defendants, with all parties to bear their own “attorneys’ fees and costs
except as provided in the settlement agreement.” (ECF No. 39). Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that all of Plaintiff’s claims and all Defendants in this
action be dismissed with prejudice, with each party to its own costs and attorney fees
except as provided in the settlement agreement.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment.
Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall
have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within
which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have
fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to
Case 2:24-cv-01888-SMM-CDB Document 40 Filed 03/12/26 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
Rule 7.2(e)(3), Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed ten
(10) pages in length.
Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the
Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate
consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th
Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the
Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the
findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Dated this 12th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-01888-SMM-CDB Document 40 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 3