Order adopting Report and Recommendation, American Steel, Inc. v. Vensure Employer Services, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-03087 (D. Ariz.), Doc. 45 (July 22, 2026)

Summary

An Order adopting a Report and Recommendation, Document 45 filed July 22, 2026 in the District of Arizona (Case 2:25-cv-03087-DJH, No. CV-25-03087-PHX-DJH), American Steel Incorporated v. Vensure Employer Services Incorporated, et al., signed by the Honorable Diane J. Humetewa. Defendants moved on November 17, 2025 to dismiss the Class Action Complaint, and Avitus, Inc. moved to intervene the same day. Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus issued a report and recommendation on March 6, 2026, recommending dismissal with leave to amend and denial of the intervention motion as moot, and the plaintiff raised no specific objection to the dismissal recommendation. The court adopts it, grants the motion to dismiss, gives fourteen days to file an amended complaint, and denies intervention as moot.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

     Case 2:25-cv-03087-DJH         Document 45    Filed 07/22/26    Page 1 of 2



 1   WO
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6                      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 7                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
 8
 9   American Steel Incorporated,                      No. CV-25-03087-PHX-DJH
10                  Plaintiff,                         ORDER
11   v.
12   Vensure Employer Services Incorporated, et
     al.,
13
                    Defendants.
14
15          On November 17, 2025, Defendants Vensure Employer Services Inc. and
16   VensureHR, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Class Action

17   Complaint (Doc. 22). That same day, Avitus, Inc. (“Avitus”) filed a Motion to Intervene
18   (Doc. 19) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) and (b). The Court then referred this matter to

19   Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus “for all pretrial matters.” (See Doc. 23). Plaintiff

20   American Steel Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response in Opposition to both Motions (see Docs.
21   29, 31), and Defendants and Avitus each filed a Reply to their respective Motions. (See
22   Docs. 38–39). Because the present Motions are within the province of the Court, Judge

23   Bachus submitted a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on the Motion to Dismiss and

24   the Motion to Intervene. Judge Bachus issued her R&R on March 6, 2026. (Doc. 41). The

25   R&R recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with leave to

26   amend. (Id. at 23). She further recommends that the Court deny the Motion to Intervene
27   as moot. (Id.) However, in the event that the Court determines that the Motion to Dismiss
28   should be denied, Judge Bachus would recommend that Avitus’s Motion to Intervene be
     Case 2:25-cv-03087-DJH        Document 45      Filed 07/22/26    Page 2 of 2



 1   granted.
 2          Judge Bachus advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to
 3   the R&R, and fourteen days thereafter to file any response to the objections. (Id. at 24).
 4   Plaintiff filed an Objection as to Judge Bachus’s conclusion that the Motion to Intervene
 5   should be granted if the Motion to Dismiss is denied. (Doc. 42). Without raising any
 6   specific objections, Plaintiff stated that it disagreed that the Motion to Dismiss should be
 7   granted but recognized that, if it was granted, the Motion to Intervene could be properly
 8   denied as moot. (Id. at 2 n.1). Defendants and Avitus both noted in their Responses to the
 9   Objection that Plaintiff does not raise any argument regarding the R&R’s conclusion on
10   the Motion to Dismiss (see Doc. 43 at 2; Doc. 44 at 3). The Court agrees with Defendants
11   and Avitus that it need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation
12   to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.
13   2005). Reviewing the R&R in light of the Objection and Responses, the Court finds that
14   the R&R should be accepted and will adopt it as the Order of the Court.
15          Accordingly,
16          IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 41) is adopted as a
17   Court Order.
18          IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Class Action
19   Complaint (Doc. 22) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within
20   fourteen (14) days of this Order.
21          IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Avitus’s Motion to Intervene (Doc. 19) is
22   DENIED as moot.
23          Dated this 22nd day of July, 2026.
24
25                                                Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
26                                                United States District Judge

27
28


                                                 -2-


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.azd.1455375.45.0.pdf

Size

133,808 bytes

SHA-256

c9a4608082a76e526204a89f7178e691593148ceb9cd7eb04293559341a6619f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.azd.1455375.45.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com