Torres v. ARL Construction 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
Raul Rojas Torres,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARL Construction LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02251-PHX-ASB
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus. (Doc. 3). On
February 23, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this
Court.1 (Doc. 16). To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and award
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-02251-SMM-ASB Document 17 Filed 03/09/26 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
Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of $7,319.00 against all Defendants. (Id.)
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, the Eitel factors
weigh in favor of granting default judgment and Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages
in the amount of $7,319.00 against all Defendants. (Doc. 16).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 16).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment
against Defendants ARL Construction, LLC, Jose A. Amaya, and Antonia Schmidt
Bermudez. (Doc. 15).
///
///
///
Case 2:25-cv-02251-SMM-ASB Document 17 Filed 03/09/26 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 awarding Plaintiff statutory damages in the
amount of $7,319.00, accruing post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961,
against Defendants ARL Construction, LLC, Jose A. Amaya, and Antonia Schmidt
Bermudez, jointly and severally.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a motion for attorneys’ fees
and costs on or before March 23, 2026.2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment
accordingly and terminate this case.
Dated this 9th day of March, 2026.
2 Plaintiff’s counsel is reminded, given his history of requesting fees for
disallowed tasks in other matters before this Court, that any motion for attorneys’ fees
and costs shall not contain any requests for fees that are barred under controlling case
law, such as clerical tasks, and that all billing entries shall be specific as to what precise
tasks were performed.
Case 2:25-cv-02251-SMM-ASB Document 17 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 3