Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-CV-00506-JRG-RSP
08-03-2023
PREVENT U.S.A. CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. VOLKSWAGEN, AG and VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendants.
ORDER
RODNEY GILSTRAP UNITED STATE'S DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.