Smidansky v. DCT Texas LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
WILLIAM SMIDANSKY,
Plaintiff,
versus
DCT TEXAS LLC, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-00365
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff William Smidansky brought this action to
vacate an arbitration award. Dkt 47. He specifically
challenges the arbitrator’s award of attorney fees as being
imposed in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. See
id at ¶¶95–192. He also challenges the arbitrator’s
confidentiality order as being entered in violation of the
National Labor Relations Act and the confidentiality rules
of the American Arbitration Association. See id at ¶¶193–
211.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Yvonne Ho. Dkt 44. She entered a Memorandum and
Recommendation in which she concluded that Plaintiff had
not shown that the arbitrator exceeded her powers. Dkt 60
at 5–8. She thus recommended that the petition to vacate
be denied and this action dismissed with prejudice. Id at 9.
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 61. He argues that the
Magistrate Judge failed to consider that FLSA and NLRA
rights cannot be waived. Id at 2–3. He also briefly
reiterates arguments presented to the Magistrate Judge as
to the merits of the award and confidentiality order. Id
at 3–5.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-00365 Document 63 Filed 03/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
On de novo review and determination, the objections
lack merit. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined
that Plaintiff hasn’t shown that the arbitrator exceeded her
authority. The Magistrate Judge also correctly determined
that Plaintiff had failed to point to authority showing legal
error.
The objections by Plaintiff William Smidansky to the
Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 61.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 60.
The petition by Plaintiff William Smidansky to vacate
arbitration award is DENIED. Dkt 47.
A final judgment dismissing this action with prejudice
will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 16, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00365 Document 63 Filed 03/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2