Opinion

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

Court
District Court, E.D. Texas
Filed
Jul 11, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.8%

affirmed en banc by an equally divided court, 101 F.3d 367

How later courts described this case

  • affirmed en banc by an equally divided court, 101 F.3d 367

Written by the judges who cited it.

The 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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.