Alonso Alexander Guardado Lopez v. Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC, et al.

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Alonso Alexander Guardado Lopez, No. CV-25-02009-PHX-SMM (JZB) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 3). On March 26, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court.1 (Doc. 24). To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees with modifications. (Id.) 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 1 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 12 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, Plaintiff’s counsel billed additional unreasonable time entries and ignored this Court’s prior orders finding that a $495 hourly rate is unreasonable under applicable law.2 Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and reduces Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees accordingly.

19 CONCLUSION Counsel has been repeatedly cautioned about the numerous deficiencies in his motions for attorneys’ fees and costs. This Court expects counsel to submit a correct fee application without relying on the Court to be his auditor in chief.

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

26 2 Plaintiff’s counsel is reminded of his obligation to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that sanctions may result if counsel seeks relief that is not permitted under the law. The Court has already reminded Plaintiff’s counsel of this obligation. See e.g., Villa v. Express Truss & Framing Systems LLC, et al., No. CV 24- 01890-PHX-SMM-ASB (D. Ariz. July 24, 2025); see also Quigley v. Soul Surgery LLC, et al., No. CV 24-01050-PHX-SMM-ASB (D. Ariz. January 14, 2026).

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting with modifications Plaintiff's Renewed 2|| Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Against All Defendants. (Doc. 23).

3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff $5,651.50 in attorneys’ fees 4|| and $577.80 in out-of-pocket costs, from the date of the entry of this judgment and until || the judgment is paid in full, against Defendants Air Pro Heating & Cooling LLC, || Eduardo Marquez, and Becky Jimenez, in which they shall be jointly and severally liable.

7 Dated this 10th day of April, 2026.

10 Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge

_3-