Schulke v. Roberts et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Kayla Schulke, Individually
and On Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Isbaz Corp. et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-20-2571
ORDER
Pending 	before 	the 	court 	is 	Defendants’ 	“Response 	and
Objection to Plaintiffs’ Application for Turnover and Appointment
of Receiver,” which Defendants filed as a motion. ECF No. 119.
Plaintiffs 	filed 	their 	Application 	for 	Turnover 	After
Judgment and Appointing Receiver on January 23, 2026. ECF
No. 112. Defendants were represented by counsel, and Defendants
did not respond to the motion. Thus, under the Local Rules of the
Southern 	District 	of 	Texas, 	the 	motion 	was 	unopposed. 	ECF
No. 113; S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.4. The court held a hearing on the motion
on May 14, 2026, and Defendants’ counsel appeared. ECF No. 115.
Plaintiffs 	identified 	evidence 	that 	Defendants 	had 	nonexempt
property that could be subject to turnover. Defendants did not
raise 	any 	objections 	at 	that 	time. 	The 	court 	granted 	in 	part
Plaintiffs’ Application for Turnover and Appointing Receiver. ECF
No. 115. The court entered the Order Appointing a Receiver on
May 26, 2026. ECF No. 117.
Since the court’s orders, Defendants appear to have retained
additional counsel. ECF No. 118. On June 17, 2026, the same day
that Defendants’ new counsel filed a notice of appearance, he also
filed the pending motion. ECF No. 119. The motion was filed more
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:20-cv-02571 Document 121 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
than a month after the court granted Plaintiffs’ application for
appointment 	of 	a 	receiver 	and 	several 	weeks 	after 	the 	court
entered the order appointing the receiver.
In their motion, Defendants baldly assert new arguments
against appointment of a receiver, without any citation to the
record. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs failed to identify any
specific nonexempt property subject to turnover, Plaintiffs failed
to exhaust other available legal remedies, and a receivership is
unwarranted. ECF No. 119 at 1–6. Defendants also argue that
they 	have 	“due 	process 	concerns” 	with 	the 	appointment 	of 	a
receiver. Id. at 5–6.
Defendants received notice of Plaintiffs’ motion, which was
pending 	for 	nearly 	four 	months 	before 	the 	court’s 	ruling.
Defendants did not respond to the motion. The court held a hearing
on the motion and found that Plaintiffs had met their burden.
Defendants’ counsel appeared at the hearing and did not object.
Defendants’ new filing is not a timely response to the motion. The
pending 	motion 	does 	not 	persuade 	the 	court 	that 	any 	error
occurred. The objections are OVERRULED. To the extent that
Defendants’ “Response and Objection to Plaintiffs’ Application for
Turnover and Appointment of Receiver” is a motion, the motion is
DENIED.
The 	court’s 	Order 	for 	Post-Judgment 	Turnover 	and
Appointing a Receiver, ECF No. 117, remains in effect.
Signed at Houston, Texas, on June 24, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:20-cv-02571 Document 121 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2