Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_23-cv-00234/USCOURTS-azd-4_23-cv-00234-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Derek Quen Wong,

Plaintiff,

v. 

White Rock Phlebotomy LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-23-00234-TUC-EJM

ORDER 

On November 14, 2024, Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich issued a Report and 

Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended the District Judge enter an order 

(1) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Derek Quen Wong’s Motion for 

Attorneys[’] Fees and Costs (Doc. 16); (2) awarding $10,400.63 in attorneys’ fees and 

$700.54 in costs to Plaintiff, and (3) finding Defendants jointly and severally liable for 

the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 21 at 17.) This matter was referred to the 

undersigned pursuant to General Order 21-25. (Id. at 1.) Judge Markovich notified the 

parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to file any objections. (Id. at 

17.) No objections have been filed. 

If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s R&R, the District Court is not 

required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified standard of 

review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the statute for review of a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not preclude further review by the district 

judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” 

Case 4:23-cv-00234-EJM Document 22 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. 

The Court has reviewed the Complaint (Doc. 1), the Motion for Attorney’s Fees 

(Doc. 16), and Magistrate Judge Markovich’s R&R (Doc. 21). The Court finds the R&R 

well-reasoned and agrees with Judge Markovich’s conclusions. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1) Magistrate Judge Markovich’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 

21.) 

2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART. (Doc. 16.)

3) Plaintiff is awarded $10,400.63 in attorneys’ fees and $700.54 in costs. 

Dated this 2nd day of December, 2024.

Case 4:23-cv-00234-EJM Document 22 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 2