Best Western International Incorporated v. Anderson Hospitality 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
Best Western International Incorporated,
Plaintiff,
v.
Anderson Hospitality LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-03077-PHX-SMM (MTM)
ORDER
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey. (Doc. 4). On
March 4, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this
Court.1 (Doc. 24). On March 5, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed an Amended Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 25). To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate
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-03077-SMM-MTM Document 26 Filed 03/20/26 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
Judge recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (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 Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs should be
granted based on the terms of the membership agreement. (Doc. 25). Further, the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s attorneys’ hourly rate and the amount of
time expended in this matter is reasonable. (Id.)
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (Doc. 25).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and
Costs. (Doc. 22).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff $3,525.00 in attorney fees and
$1,370.22 in costs, accruing post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, from
Case 2:25-cv-03077-SMM-MTM Document 26 Filed 03/20/26 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
the date of the entry of this judgment and until the judgment is paid in full.
Dated this 20th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-03077-SMM-MTM Document 26 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 3