Luis Enrique Ramos Perez v. Evolet's Painting Service LLC, et al.

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

9 Luis Enrique Ramos Perez, NO. CV-25-01886-PHX-ASB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Evolet's Painting Service LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus. (Doc. 6). On December 15, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 12) and award damages for unpaid and overtime wages against all Defendants. (Doc. 13).1 To date, 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 no objections have been filed.

2 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. DISCUSSION2 Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, Plaintiff’s Motion and supporting affidavits, and no Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. The Court finds that entry of default judgment and a statutory damages award totaling $529.203 is appropriate in this matter. (Doc. 13).

CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 13).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. 12).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Luis Enrique Ramos Perez is entitled to judgement in the amount of $529.20 against all Defendants, in which they shall be jointly and severally liable. This amount shall be subject to post-judgment interest at the applicable 2 The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13).

28 3 This is a trebled amount under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”), which engulfs Plaintiff’s wage damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). federal rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).

2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court enter judgement accordingly.

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Plaintiff to file a motion for attorney fees || and costs on or before February 3, 2026 pursuant to LRCiv 54.2.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this action.

7 Dated this 20th day of January, 2026.

9 oe - Stephen M. McNamee 10 Senior United States District Judge _3-