Windland International, Inc. D/B/A Super Tire v. Transjet Cargo LLC et al.

S.D. Texas

Windland International, Inc. D/B/A Super Tire v. Transjet Cargo LLC et al.

DecidedOctober 15, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-01622

StatusUnknown

This text of Windland International, Inc. D/B/A Super Tire v. Transjet Cargo LLC et al. (Windland International, Inc. D/B/A Super Tire v. Transjet Cargo LLC et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Windland International, Inc. D/B/A Super Tire v. Transjet Cargo LLC et al., (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 15, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

WINDLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC. § D/B/A SUPER TIRE, § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-CV-01622 § TRANSJET CARGO LLC ET AL., § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

In its Motion for Default Judgment, Plaintiff requested the Court dismiss its claims against Defendant Transjet Cargo LLC (“Transjet”) with prejudice.1 ECF 53 ¶ 14; ECF 53-1. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff can request a voluntary dismissal by court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). See also Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2002) (“[M]otions for voluntary dismissal should be freely granted unless the non-moving party will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.”). Plaintiff represents it settled with Transjet and that their agreement calls for the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Transjet with prejudice. ECF 51 ¶ 5; ECF 53 ¶ 14. Therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request to dismiss its claims against Transjet be GRANTED and the claims against Transjet be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 10. The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of the Memorandum and Recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds.

Signed on October 15, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

Christina A. Bryan 6 United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 15, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

WINDLAND INTERNATIONAL, INC. § D/B/A SUPER TIRE, § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-CV-01622 § TRANSJET CARGO LLC ET AL., § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

In its Motion for Default Judgment, Plaintiff requested the Court dismiss its claims against Defendant Transjet Cargo LLC (“Transjet”) with prejudice.1 ECF 53 ¶ 14; ECF 53-1. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff can request a voluntary dismissal by court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). See also Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2002) (“[M]otions for voluntary dismissal should be freely granted unless the non-moving party will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.”). Plaintiff represents it settled with Transjet and that their agreement calls for the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Transjet with prejudice. ECF 51 ¶ 5; ECF 53 ¶ 14. Therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request to dismiss its claims against Transjet be GRANTED and the claims against Transjet be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 10. The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of the Memorandum and Recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds.

Signed on October 15, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

Christina A. Bryan 6 United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Windland International, Inc. D/B/A Super Tire v. Transjet Cargo LLC et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/windland-international-inc-dba-super-tire-v-transjet-cargo-llc-et-al-txsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack