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-SMM (ASB)
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus. (Doc. 3). On May
7, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc.
23). To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Court grant in-part Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 22). (Doc. 23).
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 24 Filed 05/22/26 Page 1 of 4

- 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
modifies the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 23).
The Court agrees with all the issues noted in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation with Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Id.) However,
upon the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s itemization of attorneys’ fees and costs, the Court
found an additional entry of time for an administrative task. 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 task is not commensurable as attorney fees:
• 	10/1/25: Finalize, file application for entry of default (0.1 hours)
Case 2:25-cv-02251-SMM-ASB Document 24 Filed 05/22/26 Page 2 of 4

- 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. 22-1 at 2). This 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:
• 	10/1/25: Begin drafting Application for Entry of Default (0.3 hours)
• 	10/2/25: Review Clerk’s Entry of Default (0.1 hours)
• 	12/15/25: Review Order to Show Cause (0.1 hours)
• 	12/19/25: Begin Drafting Motion for Default Judgment (1 hour)
• 	12/19/25: Draft Declaration in Support (0.3 hours)
• 	3/21/26: Begin Drafting Motion for Attorneys’ Fees & Costs (1 hour)
• 	3/23/26: Continue Drafting Motion for Attorneys’ Fees & Costs (1 hour)
• 	4/17/26: Draft Renewed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees & Costs (1 hour)
It 	is 	unreasonable 	for 	Plaintiff’s 	counsel 	to 	bill 	0.3 	hours 	for 	drafting 	the
application for entry of default. (See Doc. 12). The application is only two sentences and
states the following:
Plaintiff, Raúl Rojas Torres (“Plaintiff”), requests that the Clerk of Court enter
default against Defendants, ARL Construction LLC and Jose A. Amaya and
Antonia Schmidt Bermudez (husband and wife) (“Defendants”), pursuant to Fed.
2 See e.g., 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-02251-SMM-ASB Document 24 Filed 05/22/26 Page 3 of 4

- 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
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. (See Doc. 12-1). Plaintiff’s counsel also has not demonstrated how
the motion for default judgment took one hour, the draft declaration took 0.3 hours, and
the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs took two hours, and the renewed motion for
attorneys’ fees and costs took one hour to complete when all the motions are nearly
identical to those Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted to this Court in other cases. Also, the
Court finds it unreasonable for Plaintiff’s counsel to request attorneys’ fees for reviewing
the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. 14) for failure to prosecute and, thus, will not
award attorneys’ fees associated with reviewing the Order.
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 modifying the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 23).
IT FURTHER ORDERED granting in-part Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees. (Doc. 22).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff $3,278.50 in attorneys’ fees
and $717.54 in costs for a total of $3,996.04, against ARL Construction, LLC, Jose A.
Amaya, and Antonia Schmidt Bermudez, jointly and severally.
Dated this 22nd day of May, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02251-SMM-ASB Document 24 Filed 05/22/26 Page 4 of 4