Lopez v. AG West Logistics LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Zeferino Lopez, et al., No. CV-23-00195-PHX-JZB 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 Ag West Logistics LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On November 9, 2023 the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation 16 with this Court recommending that Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgment as 17 to Defendants Ag West Logistics LLC and Rudy Mireles, (Doc. 30), be granted. (Doc. 18 31). On November 22, 2023 Plaintiffs filed an Objection to the Report and 19 Recommendation. (Doc. 33). After considering the Report and Recommendation and 20 Plaintiff=s Objection, the Court now issues the following ruling.1 21 1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have 22 consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the matter is before this Court 23 pursuant to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part: 24 When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been 25 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) 26 due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent 27 to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, 28 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee. 1 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation, this Court 3 Ashall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection 4 is made,@ and Amay accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 5 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C); see also 6 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). However, the relevant provision 7 of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require 8 any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 9 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 10 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is 11 made to the R & R.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 12 (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district 13 judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves 14 accept as correct.”). Likewise, it is well-settled that “failure to object to a magistrate 15 judge’s factual findings waives the right to challenge those findings.” Bastidas v. 16 Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 17 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012)). 18 II. DISCUSSION2 19 Plaintiffs timely filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 26). 20 The scope of the objection is narrow and does not pertain to the Magistrate Judge’s 21 factual findings. As a result, the Court will not review the findings of the R&R that have 22 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court 24 Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on 25 my behalf: 26 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee 27 2 The procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge=s Report 28 and Recommendation. (Doc. 31). 1 not been objected to by Plaintiffs. 2 Plaintiffs first request that the judgment contain the correct capitalization of 3 Defendant Ag West Logistics LLC (“Ag West”). The Court observes that the recent 4 filings and the Magistrate Judge’s R&R contain the correct capitalization for Defendant 5 Ag West. 6 Plaintiffs also ask that Defendants be required to report the amended W-2 forms 7 and amounts to Plaintiffs’ counsel as well as file the amended W-2s to the IRS. The 8 Court agrees that Plaintiffs should receive the amended W-2 forms and amends the 9 Magistrate Judge’s recommendations to reflect this requested change. 10 III. CONCLUSION 11 Thus, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 12 and Plaintiff’s response/objections, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the 13 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation with the amendments sought by 14 Plaintiffs. For the reasons set forth above, 15 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 16 Judge, (Doc. 31). 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default 18 as to Defendants Ag West Logistics LLC and Rudy Mireles, (Doc. 30). 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiffs $35,500.00 in total statutory 20 damages under the AWPA and IRC as set forth in the memorandum accompanying their 21 Amended Motion for Default, (Doc. 30-1 at 24), and directing the Clerk of Court to enter 22 judgment for each Plaintiff as follows: 23 1. Zeferino Lopez: $6,000.00 24 2. Juan A. Enriquez: $6,000.00 25 3. Jorge Delgado Marias: $6,000.00 26 4. Manuel de Jesus Gamez Bojorquez: $6,000.00 27 5. Florentino Galindo Vidal: $6,000.00 28 6. Ramiro Rocha: $5,500.00 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, of the $35,500.00 in total statutory damages, 2|| Defendants Mireles and Ag West be held jointly and severally liable for the $5,500.00 in 3 || cumulative statutory violations under the AWPA. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, of the $35,500.00 in total statutory damages, 5|| Defendant Ag West be held solely liable for the remaining $30,000.00 in statutory 6 || violations under the Internal Revenue Code. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court finds Defendants under-reported || Plaintiffs’ earnings the following amounts: Zeferino Lopez, $1,755.00; Juan Enriquez, 9|| $2,909.07; Jorge Delgado Marias, $776.36; Manuel Gamez Bojorquez, $1,400.00; || Florentino Galindo Vidal, $2,496.26; and Ramiro Rocha, $530.08. (Doc. 30-1 at 24). 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court finds Plaintiffs’ correct total wages 12|| from Defendant Ag West for the year 2021 as follows: Zeferino Lopez, $5,818.93; Juan 13) Enriquez, $9,485.18; Jorge Delgado Marias, $4,629.18; Manuel Gamez Bojorquez, 14|| $4,973.37; Florentino Galindo Vidal, $6,154.39; Ramiro Rocha, $9,886.82. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants file amended W-2 forms for all Plaintiffs setting forth the true amount of their total earnings as set forth above by Friday, || March 1, 2024. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with || the amended W-2 forms and amounts described above. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs must file a motion for attorney fees no later than December 19, 2023. 22 Dated this 5th day of December, 2023. 23 24 Ligle.- WV, veer, 5 Hdhorable Stephen M. McNamee 46 Senior United States District Judge 27 28 -4-