Tullis v. ExxonMobil Corporation

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 8 MOTION to Stay is granted Proceeding, 7 MOTION to Dismiss is denied Plaintiff's Complaint and/or Strike Plaintiff's Overbroad Collective Definition and Related Collective Allegations, 11 MOTION for Discovery denied without prejudice, 25 Memorandum and Recommendations is adopted, (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(JaredMarks, 2)

Case 2:22-cv-00192 Document 26 Filed on 01/18/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

BRIAN TULLIS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

January 18, 2023
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00192

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 2, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued a
“Memorandum and Recommendation” (M&R, D.E. 25). The parties were provided proper
notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed.
When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s M&R is filed, the district court
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the
magistrate judge’s M&R. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005)
(citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s M&R (D.E. 25), and all other relevant documents in the record, and
finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, ExxonMobil’s motion to dismiss (D.E. 7) is DENIED,
ExxonMobil’s motion to stay (D.E. 8) is GRANTED, Tullis’s motion for discovery (D.E.
1/2

Case 2:22-cv-00192 Document 26 Filed on 01/18/23 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

11) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and this case is STAYED pending the
decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hewitt v. Helix Energy Solutions, Inc., 15
F.4th 289 (5th Cir. 2021), petition for cert. granted, 2022 WL 1295708 (U.S. May 2, 2022)
(No. 21-984).
ORDERED on January 18, 2023.
_______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2