Opinion
CV-23-00195-PHX-JZB
12-05-2023
Zeferino Lopez, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ag West Logistics LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On November 9, 2023 the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court recommending that Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendants Ag West Logistics LLC and Rudy Mireles, (Doc. 30), be granted. (Doc. 31). On November 22, 2023 Plaintiffs filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 33). After considering the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiffs Objection, the Court now issues the following ruling.
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 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)' 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 Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on my behalf:
Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). However, the relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). Likewise, it is well-settled that “failure to object to a magistrate judge's factual findings waives the right to challenge those findings.” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012)).
The procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 31).
Plaintiffs timely filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 26). The scope of the objection is narrow and does not pertain to the Magistrate Judge's factual findings. As a result, the Court will not review the findings of the R&R that have not been objected to by Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs first request that the judgment contain the correct capitalization of Defendant Ag West Logistics LLC (“Ag West”). The Court observes that the recent filings and the Magistrate Judge's R&R contain the correct capitalization for Defendant Ag West.
Plaintiffs also ask that Defendants be required to report the amended W-2 forms and amounts to Plaintiffs' counsel as well as file the amended W-2s to the IRS. The Court agrees that Plaintiffs should receive the amended W-2 forms and amends the Magistrate Judge's recommendations to reflect this requested change.
III. CONCLUSION
Thus, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and Plaintiff's response/objections, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation with the amendments sought by Plaintiffs. For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, (Doc. 31).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Default as to Defendants Ag West Logistics LLC and Rudy Mireles, (Doc. 30).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiffs $35,500.00 in total statutory damages under the AWPA and IRC as set forth in the memorandum accompanying their Amended Motion for Default, (Doc. 30-1 at 24), and directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for each Plaintiff as follows:
1. Zeferino Lopez: $6,000.00
2. Juan A. Enriquez: $6,000.00
3. Jorge Delgado Marias: $6,000.00
4. Manuel de Jesus Gamez Bojorquez: $6,000.00
5. Florentino Galindo Vidal: $6,000.00
6. Ramiro Rocha: $5,500.00
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, of the $35,500.00 in total statutory damages, Defendants Mireles and Ag West be held jointly and severally liable for the $5,500.00 in cumulative statutory violations under the AWPA.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, of the $35,500.00 in total statutory damages, Defendant Ag West be held solely liable for the remaining $30,000.00 in statutory violations under the Internal Revenue Code.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court finds Defendants under-reported Plaintiffs' earnings the following amounts: Zeferino Lopez, $1,755.00; Juan Enriquez, $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).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court finds Plaintiffs' correct total wages from Defendant Ag West for the year 2021 as follows: Zeferino Lopez, $5,818.93; Juan Enriquez, $9,485.18; Jorge Delgado Marias, $4,629.18; Manuel Gamez Bojorquez, $4,973.37; Florentino Galindo Vidal, $6,154.39; Ramiro Rocha, $9,886.82.
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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the amended W-2 forms and amounts described above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs must file a motion for attorney fees no later than December 19, 2023.