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-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?