Opinion
CV-22-00960-PHX-ESW
07-20-2022
Odalis D Castro Torres, Plaintiff, v. Southwest Auto Sales and Finance LLC, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
Eileen S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge
TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pending before the Court is a “Stipulation of Dismissal of Defendants Southwest Auto Sales & Finance LLC and Jose B. Lopez Verdin Only with Prejudice” (Doc. 18). The parties have stipulated to dismiss all claims set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) as to Defendants Lopez Verdin and Southwest Auto Sales and Finance LLC, each side to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. Consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction has not been filed by all parties. Therefore, this Report and Recommendation is submitted to the District Judge for consideration. The Magistrate Judge will recommend that Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed with prejudice as to Defendants Lopez Verdin and Southwest Auto Sales and Finance LLC, each side to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. The Magistrate Judge will further quash the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 17) issued July 19, 2022 as to Defendant Southwest Auto Sales and Finance LLC.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed with prejudice as to Defendants Jose G. Lopez Verdin and Southwest Auto Sales and Finance LLC, each side to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.
IT IS ORDERED quashing the Order issued July 19, 2022 requiring Defendant Southwest Auto Sales and Finance LLC to show cause why it should not be sanctioned pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401 for failing to comply with Rule 3.7(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 17).
This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143,1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).