Prevent U.S.A. Corporation v. Volkswagen AG

E.D. Texas

Prevent U.S.A. Corporation v. Volkswagen AG

District Court, E.D. Texas·Decided August 3, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-00506·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PREVENT U.S.A. CORPORATION, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00506-JRG-RSP § VOLKSWAGEN, AG and § VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, § INCORPORATED, § § Defendants. § ORDER Volkswagen, AG and Volkswagen Group of America, Incorporated (“Volkswagen”) previously filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 20). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 43), recommending denial of Volkswagen’ s Motion to Dismiss. Volkswagen has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 49), with Plaintiff Prevent U.S.A. Corporation filing a Response (Dkt. No. 57.) After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion to Dismiss, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Volkswagen’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Volkswagen’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ORDERS that the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 20) is DENIED. The Court further declines to certify the Mitsui issue for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Earl v. Boeing Co., No. 4:19-CV-507, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50844, 2021WL 1080689, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2021) (“The decision to certify an interlocutory appeal lies within the sound discretion of the district court.”) (citing Richardson v. Univ. of Tex. Sys., No. 5:19-CV-271-XR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189804, 2019 WL 5683470, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2019)). In enacting § 1292(b), “Congress thus chose to confer on district courts first line discretion to allow interlocutory appeals.” Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35, 47, 115 S. Ct. 1203, 131 L. Ed. 2d 60 (1995). Even when the statutory criteria are met, district courts may nevertheless deny certification. SEC v. Sethi Petroleum, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-338, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110195, 2016 WL 4400064, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2016). So Ordered this Aug 3, 2023

RODNEY GILSTRAP \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PREVENT U.S.A. CORPORATION, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00506-JRG-RSP § VOLKSWAGEN, AG and § VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, § INCORPORATED, § § Defendants. § ORDER Volkswagen, AG and Volkswagen Group of America, Incorporated (“Volkswagen”) previously filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 20). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 43), recommending denial of Volkswagen’ s Motion to Dismiss. Volkswagen has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 49), with Plaintiff Prevent U.S.A. Corporation filing a Response (Dkt. No. 57.) After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion to Dismiss, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Volkswagen’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Volkswagen’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ORDERS that the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 20) is DENIED. The Court further declines to certify the Mitsui issue for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Earl v. Boeing Co., No. 4:19-CV-507, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50844, 2021WL 1080689, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2021) (“The decision to certify an interlocutory appeal lies within the sound discretion of the district court.”) (citing Richardson v. Univ. of Tex. Sys., No. 5:19-CV-271-XR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189804, 2019 WL 5683470, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2019)). In enacting § 1292(b), “Congress thus chose to confer on district courts first line discretion to allow interlocutory appeals.” Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35, 47, 115 S. Ct. 1203, 131 L. Ed. 2d 60 (1995). Even when the statutory criteria are met, district courts may nevertheless deny certification. SEC v. Sethi Petroleum, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-338, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110195, 2016 WL 4400064, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2016). So Ordered this Aug 3, 2023

RODNEY GILSTRAP \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Prevent U.S.A. Corporation v. Volkswagen AG, (E.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Prevent U.S.A. Corporation v. Volkswagen AG (Prevent U.S.A. Corporation v. Volkswagen AG) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related