Vault Cargo Management, LLC v. Rhino U.S.A., Inc.

S.D. California

Vault Cargo Management, LLC v. Rhino U.S.A., Inc.

DecidedJanuary 8, 2020

Docket3:18-cv-01517

StatusUnknown

This text of Vault Cargo Management, LLC v. Rhino U.S.A., Inc. (Vault Cargo Management, LLC v. Rhino U.S.A., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vault Cargo Management, LLC v. Rhino U.S.A., Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 VAULT CARGO MANAGEMENT, Case No.: 3:18-cv-01517-H-LL LLC, an Iowa limited liability company, 11 ORDER: Plaintiff, 12 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY RHINO U.S.A., Inc., a California 14 DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH corporation, PREJUDICE 15 Defendant. 16 [Doc. No. 69]

17 (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 18 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT 19

20 [Doc. No. 59.]

22 On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff Vault Cargo Management, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a 23 complaint before this Court alleging that Defendant Rhino U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant”) 24 falsely advertised that its products were manufactured within the United States. (Doc. No. 25 1.) On November 20, 2019, Defendant moved for summary judgment, stating that 26 “although [Defendant] may have made certain discrete statements regarding its products 27 being manufactured in the United States, such statements have since been removed . . . .” 28 1 || (Doc. No. 59-1 at 1.) Defendant then argued for summary judgment on the grounds that 2 || Plaintiff failed to prove damages. (Id.) 3 On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the complaint with 4 || prejudice, explaining that Plaintiff had become financially insolvent and was unable to 5 ||continue the litigation. (Doc. No. 69.) On December 30, 2019, Defendant filed an 6 || opposition to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 70.) After considering □□□□□□□□□□□ 7 || motion and Defendant’s opposition, as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, the 8 ||Court grants Plaintiff's motion and dismisses the complaint with prejudice. See Fed. R. 9 ||Civ. P. 41(a)(2); Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 412 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rule 41 vests district 10 || courts with a “broad grant of discretion’). Since the Court is dismissing the complaint with 11 || prejudice, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as moot. (Doc. No. 12 ||59.) Exercising the Court’s discretion, the Court also grants the motion to have each side 13 || bear its attorney’s fees. As to costs, the Court declines to rule on the request that each side 14 its own costs. If Defendant seeks costs, it must follow the proper procedures for an 15 award of costs, and Plaintiff may oppose any award under the law. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || DATED: January 8, 2020 lu |. is Maan bead 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 VAULT CARGO MANAGEMENT, Case No.: 3:18-cv-01517-H-LL LLC, an Iowa limited liability company, 11 ORDER: Plaintiff, 12 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY RHINO U.S.A., Inc., a California 14 DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH corporation, PREJUDICE 15 Defendant. 16 [Doc. No. 69]

17 (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 18 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT 19

20 [Doc. No. 59.]

22 On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff Vault Cargo Management, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a 23 complaint before this Court alleging that Defendant Rhino U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant”) 24 falsely advertised that its products were manufactured within the United States. (Doc. No. 25 1.) On November 20, 2019, Defendant moved for summary judgment, stating that 26 “although [Defendant] may have made certain discrete statements regarding its products 27 being manufactured in the United States, such statements have since been removed . . . .” 28 1 || (Doc. No. 59-1 at 1.) Defendant then argued for summary judgment on the grounds that 2 || Plaintiff failed to prove damages. (Id.) 3 On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the complaint with 4 || prejudice, explaining that Plaintiff had become financially insolvent and was unable to 5 ||continue the litigation. (Doc. No. 69.) On December 30, 2019, Defendant filed an 6 || opposition to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 70.) After considering □□□□□□□□□□□ 7 || motion and Defendant’s opposition, as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, the 8 ||Court grants Plaintiff's motion and dismisses the complaint with prejudice. See Fed. R. 9 ||Civ. P. 41(a)(2); Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 412 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rule 41 vests district 10 || courts with a “broad grant of discretion’). Since the Court is dismissing the complaint with 11 || prejudice, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as moot. (Doc. No. 12 ||59.) Exercising the Court’s discretion, the Court also grants the motion to have each side 13 || bear its attorney’s fees. As to costs, the Court declines to rule on the request that each side 14 its own costs. If Defendant seeks costs, it must follow the proper procedures for an 15 award of costs, and Plaintiff may oppose any award under the law. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || DATED: January 8, 2020 lu |. is Maan bead 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Vault Cargo Management, LLC v. Rhino U.S.A., Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vault-cargo-management-llc-v-rhino-usa-inc-casd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack