Opinion
CV-23-00592-PHX-(JZB)
07-16-2024
Pritikin ICR LLC, Plaintiff, v. Apricus Health MSO LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge
This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 4). On July 1, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 22). The Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees be granted in-part. To date, no objections have been filed.
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
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
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 as modified below.
The Magistrate Judge has recommended granting in-part Plaintiff's motion for fees because some of Plaintiff's requested fees are not reasonable. (Doc. 22 at 5-7). The Court finds that further reductions of Plaintiff's requested fees are necessary because the time entries submitted by indicate that Plaintiff seeks fees for redacted time entries. (Doc. 21-1). The Court will not award fees for time entries which have been redacted to the extent that the redactions prevent the Court from assessing the reasonableness of the requested fees. See Advanced Reimbursement Sols. v. Spring Excellence Surgical Hosp. LLC, No. CV-17-01688-PHX-DWL, 2020 WL 2768699, at *5-6 (D. Ariz. May 28, 2020). The Court exercises its discretion to strike the following entries:
• 1/17/23 Conference call with T. Rogers and R. Hicks regarding Apricus [redacted] MSLAY .50 [hours] [$]310.00;
• 1/17/23 [redacted] MSLAY .30 [hours] [$]186.00;
• 4/10/23 Multiple correspondences with T. Rogers concerning [redacted] .50 [hours] [$]310.00;
• 4/11/23 Multiple correspondences with M. Gastaminsa concerning [redacted] .50 [hours] [$]310.00;
• 4/21/23 [redacted] 1.1 [hours] [$]682.00.
The stricken entries total $1,798.00. Factoring in the 15% discount applied to the invoices, the stricken entries total $1,528.30. Accordingly, the Court decreases the Magistrate Judge's recommended attorney fee award by $1,528.30, for a total fee award of $40,460.61.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, IT IS ORDERED adopting as modified the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 22).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in-part Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, (Doc. 21), and awarding Plaintiff $40,460.61 in attorney fees and $981.55 in costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants will be jointly and severally liable for payment of the attorney fees and costs.