William Smidansky v. DCT Texas LLC, et al.

March 16, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION WILLIAM SMIDANSKY, § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER Plaintiff, § 4:25-cv-00365 § § versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § DCT TEXAS LLC, et al, § Defendants. § 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.

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.

Uae.

Honorable Charles Eskridge United States District Judge