Ted Kubala, Jr. v. Setpoint Integrated Solutions, Inc.

Opinion

Southern District of Texas - ENTERED June 15, 2026 Nathan Och , Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT aan □□□□□□□ □□□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

TED KUBALA, JR., § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00108 § ~ SETPOINT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS, § INC., § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORAN DUM. & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 40). The M&R recommends that the Court grant in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and issuance of court-authorized notice. (D.E. 22). Specifically, Judge Libby recommends that the Court conditionally certify the following class: All hourly Setpoint employees who worked at the Corpus Christi shop as pressure relief valve technicians I or II during the last three years through final resolution of this Action. (D.E. 40, p. 12-13). Judge Libby further recommends that the Court approve notice to the class via regular mail, email, and text, with one reminder notice using the same delivery methods. Id. at 13. To finalize such notice, Judge Libby recommends that Court order the parties to confer and file a joint motion for approval of notice forms and procedures. Id. Plaintiff filed objections to Judge Libby’s M&R. (D.E. 42). Defendant responded, (D.E. 43), and Plaintiff replied, (D.E. 44).

1/3

When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of ‘a magistrate judge, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Pelko v. Perales, No. 23-CV-00339, 2024 WL 1972896, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2024) (Ramos, J.). Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will not be considered. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[f]rivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 842 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to expeditiously adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (5th Cir. 1994) (permitting a district court to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation one day after receiving it and before objections were filed), the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts. to adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Megmt., Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court’s two-sentence order adopting a magistrate’s recommendation for summary judgment).!

' Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that “because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the recommendation].” Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. The Court finds that the principles animating ‘the Fifth Circuit’s decision apply with equal force here: (1) “the record was available to the district court a full 20 days before the court issued its order”; (2) “the magistrate here made no involved findings of fact . . .”; (3) “the magistrate here provided a thorough analysis to support its recommendation”; and (4) “the district 75 had a complete record of the magistrate’s proceedings.” See id. (citations omitted).

After considering Plaintiff’s objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, (D.E. 42), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R. (D.E. 40). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiffs motion for conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and issuance of court-authorized notice, (D.E. 22), and ORDERS the parties on or before July 1, 2026, to confer and file a joint motion for final approval of the notice forms and procedures, consistent with Judge Libby’s M&R. SO ORDERED.

A S. MORALES —— UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: San Diego, California June 15th, 2026

3/3