Best Western International Incorporated v. Anderson Hospitality LLC, et al.

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Best Western International Incorporated, No. CV-25-03077-PHX-MTM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Anderson Hospitality LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey. (Doc. 4). On January 15, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 18). To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 17) for 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 the requested amount of $161,053.04. Further, the Eitel factors weigh in favor of entering default judgment against Defendants and Plaintiff’s requested relief accurately calculates the damages it is entitled to and is supported by Plaintiff’s declaration. (Doc. 18).

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 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. (Doc. 18). Moreover, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment because the Eitel factors weigh in favor of entering default judgment against Defendants and Plaintiff’s requested relief accurately calculates the damages it is entitled to and is supported by Plaintiff’s declaration. (Doc. 17).

23 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 24 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 18).

26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Best Western International, Inc., and against Defendants Anderson Hospitality LLC, Ankit Panchal, and Nikita Panchal, in the amount of $161,053.04, accruing pre-judgment || interest at the rate of 1.5% per month, from July 1, 2025, until the date of the entry of this 2|| judgment, and accruing post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, from the || date of entry of this judgment until the judgment is paid in full.

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an application for attorneys’ || fees and costs on or before February 20, 2026.

6 Dated this 29th day of January, 2026.

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