Volvo Construction Equipment Rents, Inc. et al v. NRL Texas Rentals, LLC et al

Filing 656

ORDER Denying 648 Plaintiffs' Objection to 647 Proposed Order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 01/31/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

VOLVO CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT RENTS, INC.,

2:09-CV-32 JCM (VCF)

9
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

NRL RENTALS, LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17

ORDER
Presently before the court is the matter of Volvo Construction Rents, Inc. et al v. NRL Texas
Rentals, LLC et al, case number 2:09-cv-00032-JCM-VCF.

18

A bench trial was held from December 3, 2012, through December 6, 2012. The court found

19

in favor of defendants. The court instructed the parties to file a proposed order consistent with the

20

court’s findings as stated on the record.

21

On January 4, 2013, defendants submitted a proposed order with findings of fact and

22

conclusions of law. (Doc. # 647). The same day, plaintiffs filed objections to the proposed order.

23

(Doc. # 648). On January 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed an errata to their objections. (Doc. # 654).

24

Plaintiffs’ objections are general in nature. (See doc. # 647). Plaintiffs’ objections do not state the

25

specific reasons or specific evidence elicited during trial that forms the basis of their objections. (See

26

id.). For example, the majority of plaintiffs’ factual objections state “there was no evidence in

27

support of these findings.” (See id.). Additionally, the majority of plaintiffs’ objections to the

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

conclusions of law simply state “there was no evidence in support of these conclusions.” (See id.).

2

On January 18, 2013, defendants filed a reply in support of their proposed order. (Doc. #

3

655). The reply cites provides the evidence (or lack of evidence) from trial to support each factual

4

finding and conclusion of law objected to by plaintiffs. The court finds that the order accurately

5

comports with its ruling on the record.

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiffs’ objection to the

8
9

proposed order (doc. # 648) be, and the same hereby, is DENIED.
DATED January 31, 2013.

10
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-