Brown v. Patel et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Bryce Brown,
Plaintiff,
v.
Chandresh Patel, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-05036
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
The 	Court 	reopens 	this 	case—which 	had 	been 	stayed 	and
administratively closed pending arbitration, see Dkt. 22 (May 21, 2025 order
adopting Dkt. 21)—to resolve a motion filed by Defendants Chandresh Patel,
G&A Outsourcing III, LLC, and OnPoint Lab, LLC to confirm a February 26,
2026 arbitration award that granted their summary judgment motion and
dismissed Plaintiff Bryce Brown’s claims. 	Dkt. 27; Dkt. 27-1 (arbitration
order). Although Defendants’ motion is styled as opposed, it is hereby deemed
unopposed because Brown failed to file a response. 	S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.4. 	After
carefully considering the motion, the record, and the applicable law, it is
recommended that Defendants’ motion to confirm the award be granted and
that final judgment be entered dismissing Brown’s claims with prejudice.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-05036 Document 28 Filed 04/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
Background
Last year, this Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel Brown to
arbitrate his employment discrimination and retaliation claims. 	See Dkt. 21
(April 	22, 	2025 	combined 	Memorandum 	& 	Order 	and 	Recommendation);
Dkt. 22 (May 21, 2025 Order of adoption). 	That decision mooted Brown’s
motion for summary judgment on his claims. 	See Dkt. 22 at 2. 	With those
conclusions, this Court stayed and administratively closed the case. See id.
Brown complied with the Court’s decision by filing his claims with the
American Arbitration Association. 	See Dkt. 24 (September 29, 2025 notice).
On February 26, 2026, the arbitrator issued an order granting Defendants’
motion for summary judgment “in full” and dismissing Brown’s claims with
prejudice. Dkt. 25-1.
On March 16, 2026, Defendants filed their motion to confirm the award.
Dkt. 27. Brown did not respond. The motion is ripe for resolution.
Legal standard
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) “empowers courts to confirm or
enforce arbitration awards ....” Guardian Flight, L.L.C. v. Health Care Serv.
Corp., 140 F.4th 271, 276 (5th Cir. 2025). Specifically, the FAA states: “at any
time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may
apply 	to 	the 	court 	so 	specified 	for 	an 	order 	confirming 	the 	award, 	and
thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated,
Case 4:24-cv-05036 Document 28 Filed 04/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title.” 9 U.S.C.
§ 9.
Analysis
Defendants ask this Court to confirm the arbitrator’s award under
9 U.S.C. § 9 and dismiss Brown’s claims. 	They are entitled to the requested
relief.
First, Defendants timely filed their request to confirm the award. 	The
FAA provides a one-year deadline for seeking confirmation, which runs from
the date of the arbitration award. 9 U.S.C. § 9. Defendants filed their motion
well within the allotted timeframe, less than 30 days after the arbitrator’s
award. 	Compare Dkt. 27 (March 16, 2026 motion), with Dkt. 27-1 (February
26, 2026 award).
Second, Brown has not identified any basis for vacating or modifying the
arbitrator’s award. He has abandoned any such contention by failing to file a
timely response. 	Regardless, an arbitration award is subject to vacatur “only
in very unusual circumstances.” See Oxford Health Plans L.L.C. v. Sutter, 569
U.S. 564, 568 (2013) (quoting First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S.
938, 942 (1995)). 	As the Fifth Circuit has emphasized, “judicial review of an
arbitration 	award 	is 	extraordinarily 	narrow, 	and 	[the 	court’s] 	review 	is
exceedingly deferential to the arbitration panel’s decision ....” U.S. Trinity
Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Se. Directional Drilling, L.L.C., 135 F.4th 303, 307 (5th
Case 4:24-cv-05036 Document 28 Filed 04/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
Cir. 2025) (citation and quotations omitted). 	The record reflects no basis to
override the arbitrator’s decision. 	Accordingly, this Court should confirm the
arbitrator’s take-nothing award.
Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants
Chandresh Patel’s, G&A Outsourcing III, LLC’s, and OnPoint Lab, LLC’s
motion to confirm the arbitrator’s award (Dkt. 27) be GRANTED, and that a
separate 	final 	judgment 	be 	entered 	directing 	that 	Brown’s 	claims 	be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	Failure 	to 	file 	timely 	objections 	will 	preclude
appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions, except for
plain error. 	Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825
(5th Cir. 2015).
Signed on April 21, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cv-05036 Document 28 Filed 04/21/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4