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

> District Court, E.D. Texas · August 3, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10446454

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Texas
- **Decided:** August 3, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10446454

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10446454. Public record. Not legal advice.