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
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)
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 3). On March
26, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1
(Doc. 24). To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge recommends that
this Court grant Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees with modifications. (Id.)
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 25 Filed 04/10/26 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
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 incorporates and
adopts 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	Report 	and 	Recommendation. 	Moreover, 	Plaintiff’s
counsel billed additional unreasonable time entries and ignored this Court’s prior orders
finding that a $495 hourly rate is unreasonable under applicable law.2 Accordingly, the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and reduces Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees
accordingly.
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 adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 24).
2 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 25 Filed 04/10/26 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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting with modifications Plaintiff’s Renewed
Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Against All Defendants. (Doc. 23).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff $5,651.50 in attorneys’ fees
and $577.80 in out-of-pocket costs, from the date of the entry of this judgment and until
the judgment is paid in full, against Defendants Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC,
Eduardo Marquez, and Becky Jimenez, in which they shall be jointly and severally liable.
Dated this 10th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02009-SMM-JZB Document 25 Filed 04/10/26 Page 3 of 3