Azucena Ortiz, et al. v. Lucero AG Services, Inc., et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AZUCENA ORTIZ, et al., ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-1319 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS TO 13 v. ) (1) GRANT IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION ) FOR SANCTIONS; (2) STRIKE LUCERO AG SERVICES, INC., et al., ) ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RICARDO ) ULICES LUCERO-AMBROSIO; (3) ENTER 15 Defendants. ) DEFAULT AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT; ) (4) GRANT PLAINTIFFS PERMISSION TO 16 ) MOVE FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT ) AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT; AND (5) 17 ) AWARD PLAINTIFFS $1,597.50 IN ) ATTORNEY’S FEES 18 ) ) (Doc. 103) 19 ) 20 Azucena Ortiz, Gustavo Meza, and Dominga Espinoza filed this putative class action on September 5, 2023, mostly alleging violations of California state labor laws. (See generally Doc. 1.)

22 On October 28, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations to grant, in part, Plaintiffs’ motion requesting sanctions because of Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio’s failure to comply with the Court’s June 23, 2025 order requiring him to produce discovery. (Doc 103.) The magistrate judge recommended: (1) Defendant Lucero’s answer be stricken; (2) the Clerk of Court be directed to enter a default against Defendant Lucero; (3) Plaintiffs be granted permission to move for default judgment against Defendant Lucero; and (4) Plaintiffs be awarded $1,597.50 in attorney’s fees.

28 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties, including upon Lucero at || his last known address, and notified them that any objections were due within 14 days. (/d. at 8.)

2 || The Court also advised the parties that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may || result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d. (Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) No party filed objections.

5 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 28, 2025 (Doc. 103) are 9 ADOPTED in full.

10 2. The Answer of Defendant Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio is STRICKEN. (Doc. 47 11 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter a default as to Defendant Ricardo Ulices 12 Lucero-Ambrosio and administratively terminate him as an active defendant on the 13 docket.

14 4. Plaintiffs are GRANTED permission to move for default judgment against Defendant 15 Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio.

16 5. Defendant Ricardo Ulices Lucero-Ambrosio is ORDERED to pay $1,597.50 in 17 attorney’s fees in addition to the $950 in attorney’s fees that he was previously ordere: 18 to pay.

19 6. Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is DENIED as to all other requested sanctions.

20 7. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve this order on Defendant Ricardo Ulices 21 Lucero-Ambrosio at both of the following addresses: (1) 529 South D Street, Madera, 22 CA 93638; and (2) 3573 Rocky Bottom Street, Madera, CA 93637.

24 IS SO ORDERED.

25 |! Dated: _ November 14, 2025 ( LAW pA LU. wan 26 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE