United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2025

Sanchez v. El Tiburon LLC

Sanchez v. El Tiburon LLC
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided April 22, 2025
Sanchez v. El Tiburon LLC

Trial Court Opinion

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

9 Everardo Duran Sanchez, No. CV-23-01474-PHX-ESW 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. El Tiburon LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett. (Doc. 3). On February 14, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court,1 (Doc. 38), recommending that Defendants Jose Diaz and Jane Doe Diaz be dismissed from this action without prejudice. The Magistrate Judge subsequently filed a 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 22 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) 23 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 25 Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.

26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on 27 my behalf: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M.

McNamee second Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 40), recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. 39), be granted. To date, no objections to either Report and Recommendation have been filed.

4 STANDARD OF REVIEW 5 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. 15 DISCUSSION 16 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendations 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 Recommendations. (Docs. 38, 40).

19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 21 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 38, 40).

23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice Defendants Jose Diaz and Jane Doe Diaz, each to bear their own fees and costs.

25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.

26 (Doc. 39).

27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants El Tiburon LLC, Mariscos El Tiburon LLC, Cruz Raquel Diaz, and || John Doe Diaz as follows: 2 A. For unpaid overtime in the amount of $5,280.00 for which Defendants El 3 Tiburon LLC, Mariscos El Tiburon LLC, Cruz Raquel Diaz, and John Doe 4 Diaz shall be jointly and severally liable; 5 B. For liquidated damages on Plaintiff's unpaid overtime in the amount of an 6 additional $5,280.00 for which Defendants El Tiburon LLC, Mariscos El 7 Tiburon LLC, Cruz Raquel Diaz, and John Doe Diaz shall be jointly and 8 severally liable; 9 C. For post-judgment interest on the above amounts at the federal rate from the 10 date of Judgment until paid.

11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment || accordingly.

13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has no later than May 2, 2025 to file an application for attorney fees and costs.

15 Dated this 21st day of April, 2025.

Ligh ia one 18 Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge -3-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.