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

E.D. Texas

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

DecidedJuly 11, 2024

Docket2:22-cv-00506

StatusUnknown

This text of Prevent U.S.A. Corporation v. Volkswagen AG (Prevent U.S.A. Corporation v. Volkswagen AG) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prevent U.S.A. Corporation v. Volkswagen AG, (E.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PREVENT U.S.A. CORPORATION, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 2:22-CV-00506-JRG-RSP § VOLKSWAGEN AG; VOLKSWAGEN § GROUP OF AMERICA, § INCORPORATED, § § Defendants. ORDER Volkswagen previously filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 82.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 125), recommending grant of Volkswagen’s Motion to Dismiss. Prevent has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 126). After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion to Dismiss, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Prevent’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 Prevent’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 82) is GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendants in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on forum non conveniens.1 1 This dismissal is without prejudice to the underlying merits, although it is preclusive as to the defense of forum non conveniens. See Baris v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., 74 F.3d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1996) (affirmed en banc by an equally divided court, 101 F.3d 367). 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2373, at 943-944; and § 4436, at 143-144. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of July, 2024.

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. § Case No. 2:22-CV-00506-JRG-RSP § VOLKSWAGEN AG; VOLKSWAGEN § GROUP OF AMERICA, § INCORPORATED, § § Defendants. ORDER Volkswagen previously filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 82.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 125), recommending grant of Volkswagen’s Motion to Dismiss. Prevent has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 126). After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion to Dismiss, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Prevent’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 Prevent’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 82) is GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendants in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on forum non conveniens.1 1 This dismissal is without prejudice to the underlying merits, although it is preclusive as to the defense of forum non conveniens. See Baris v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., 74 F.3d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1996) (affirmed en banc by an equally divided court, 101 F.3d 367). 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2373, at 943-944; and § 4436, at 143-144. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of July, 2024.

RODNEY GILSTRAP \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Prevent U.S.A. Corporation v. Volkswagen AG, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prevent-usa-corporation-v-volkswagen-ag-txed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack