Garcia v. Jade Health and Wellness 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
Kathleen Garcia,
Plaintiff,
v.
Jade Health and Wellness LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
NO. CV-25-02010-PHX-MTM
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey. (Doc. 6). On
October 30, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) with
this Court granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc. 13) and
awarding damages for unpaid wages and overtime wages against Defendants. (Doc. 14).1
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-02010-SMM-MTM Document 15 Filed 11/17/25 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
To date, no objections have been filed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court modifies
the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. (Doc. 14).
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.
DISCUSSION2
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 for a default judgment and that Plaintiff’s unpaid minimum
wage damages of $31,1523 are proper, however, the Court disagrees with the total damages
awarded. (Doc. 14).
Plaintiff’s Motion and the R&R calculated a total damage award of $42,912 by
adding Plaintiff’s trebled unpaid minimum wages and doubled unpaid overtime. (Id. at 9).
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 her affidavit that her regular rate of
pay was $500 per week for eight (8) weeks, during which she worked 90 hours each week.
2 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14).
3 This is a trebled amount under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”), minus late
payments, which engulfs Plaintiff’s wage damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) and Arizona Wage Act (“AWA”).
Case 2:25-cv-02010-SMM-MTM Document 15 Filed 11/17/25 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
(Doc. 13-1 at 2). The Court identified a discrepancy on Page 3 of Plaintiff’s Motion (Id. at
3) and Page 9 of the R&R (Doc. 14 at 9), indicating that Plaintiff’s unpaid overtime wages
are $5,880, calculated using a federal wage rate of $7.35. The federal minimum wage is
$7.25 per hour. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C). In this case, the overtime damages are
determined by multiplying the federal wage rate ($7.25) by one and one-half (1.5) times
the total number of overtime hours, which in this instance is 400 hours, totaling $4,350. 29
U.S.C. § 207(a)(1); (Id.). Further, under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, Plaintiff is entitled to
liquidated (double) damages of unpaid overtime. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). This would
entitle Plaintiff to overtime damages of $8,700, not the $11,760 requested in Plaintiff’s
Motion and stated in the R&R. Therefore, the Court will award $39,852 in damages.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED modifying the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 14.).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.
(Doc. 13).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Kathleen Garcia is entitled to
judgement in the amount of $39,852 against all Defendants, 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 the Clerk of Court enter judgement
accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Plaintiff to file a motion for attorney fees
and costs on or before December 8, 2025 pursuant to LRCiv 54.2.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this case.
Dated this 17th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-02010-SMM-MTM Document 15 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 3