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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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 MEMORANDUM & 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 Plaintiffs 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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00108 Document 45 Filed 06/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 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)(l)(C). A
party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge's analysis. Petko
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. Edmondv. 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. US. 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 Mgmt., 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). 1
1 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
court had a complete record of the magistrate's proceedings." See id. (citations omitted).
2/3
Case 2:25-cv-00108 Document 45 Filed 06/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

After considering Plaintiffs objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 42), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of
the M&R. (D.E. 40). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 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), 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.
Signed: San Diego, California
June 15th, 2026
3/3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT WDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00108 Document 45 Filed 06/15/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3