Schnitzer Properties LLC v. Xmplar LLC

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Schnitzer Properties LLC, No. CV-24-00431-PHX-MTM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Xmplar LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey. On December 20, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc.

17 25). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgement. (Doc. 17). Further, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court to award Plaintiff $643,097 plus pre-judgement interest and post-judgement interest at the 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: 22 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 23 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 24 to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, 25 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 27 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 applicable statutory rate against Defendants. To date, no objections have been filed.

2 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 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. 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 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.

17 /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 II. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgement. (Doc. 17).

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff be awarded $643,097 plus pre- || judgment interest and post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate against 6|| Defendants. Any future recites made from the use or rental of the property during the □□ unexpired contract period will be deducted from the outstanding judgement owed by || Defendants.

9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than February 28, 2025, Plaintiff shall file an application for attorneys’ fees.

11 Dated this 5th day of February, 2025.

13 Ais.) at 14 Stephen M. McNamee 5 Senior United States District Judge -3-