Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01517/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01517-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125(a) False representation of goods sold in interstate commerce

---

1

3:18-cv-01517-H-LL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VAULT CARGO MANAGEMENT, 

LLC, an Iowa limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

RHINO U.S.A., Inc., a California 

corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-01517-H-LL

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY 

DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH 

PREJUDICE

[Doc. No. 69]

(2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AS MOOT

[Doc. No. 59.]

On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff Vault Cargo Management, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a 

complaint before this Court alleging that Defendant Rhino U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant”) 

falsely advertised that its products were manufactured within the United States. (Doc. No. 

1.) On November 20, 2019, Defendant moved for summary judgment, stating that 

“although [Defendant] may have made certain discrete statements regarding its products 

being manufactured in the United States, such statements have since been removed . . . .” 

Case 3:18-cv-01517-H-LL Document 72 Filed 01/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:18-cv-01517-H-LL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(Doc. No. 59-1 at 1.) Defendant then argued for summary judgment on the grounds that 

Plaintiff failed to prove damages. (Id.)

On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the complaint with 

prejudice, explaining that Plaintiff had become financially insolvent and was unable to 

continue the litigation. (Doc. No. 69.) On December 30, 2019, Defendant filed an 

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 70.) After considering Plaintiff’s 

motion and Defendant’s opposition, as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, the 

Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and dismisses the complaint with prejudice. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(a)(2); Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 412 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rule 41 vests district 

courts with a “broad grant of discretion”). Since the Court is dismissing the complaint with 

prejudice, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as moot. (Doc. No. 

59.) Exercising the Court’s discretion, the Court also grants the motion to have each side 

bear its attorney’s fees. As to costs, the Court declines to rule on the request that each side 

bear its own costs. If Defendant seeks costs, it must follow the proper procedures for an 

award of costs, and Plaintiff may oppose any award under the law. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 8, 2020

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:18-cv-01517-H-LL Document 72 Filed 01/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2