WEBB et al v. VOLVO CARS OF N.A., LLC et al

Filing 90

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE 78 MEMORANDUM IMPROPERLY FILED BY DEFENDANT VOLVO CAR UK LIMITED AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT ON VOLVO CAR UK LIMITED 84 IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE 80 MEMORANDUM IMPROPERLY FILED BY DEFENDANTS 86 IS DENIED. DEFENDANT VOLVO CAR UK LIMITED'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 18 IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT VOLVO CAR UK ARE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 5/28/15. 5/29/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP AND E-MAILED.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARK WEBB, et al.,

CIVIL ACTION

v.

NO. 13-cv-02394

VOLVO CARS OF N.A., LLC, et al.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of May, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant Volvo Car UK
Limited’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (ECF 18), Plaintiff’s response in opposition
(ECF 24), Volvo Car UK Limited’s reply in support of its motion (ECF 35), Plaintiff’s sur-reply
in opposition (ECF 42), Volvo Car UK Limited’s response to Plaintiff’s sur-reply (ECF43),
Volvo Car UK Limited’s supplemental Memorandum of Law (ECF 78), Plaintiff’s Motion to
Strike ECF 78 Memorandum Improperly Filed by Defendant Volvo Car UK Limited and Motion
for Entry of Default on Volvo Car UK Limited (ECF 84), Volvo Car UK Limited’s response in
opposition (ECF 85), Plaintiff’s reply in support of its motion (ECF 88), Plaintiff’s Motion to
Strike ECF 80 Memorandum Improperly Filed by Defendants (ECF 86), Defendants’ response in
opposition (ECF 87), oral argument held December 6, 2013 (ECF 49), and an unrecorded
telephone conference with counsel on February 4, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike ECF 78 Memorandum Improperly Filed by Defendant
Volvo Car UK Limited and Motion for Entry of Default on Volvo Car UK
Limited (ECF 84) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike ECF 80 Memorandum Improperly Filed by
Defendants (ECF 86) is DENIED.

3. Defendant Volvo Car UK Limited’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
(ECF 18) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Volvo Car UK are
DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Michael M. Baylson
_______________________________
MICHAEL M. BAYLSON, U.S.D.J.

O:\CIVIL 13\13-2394 webb v. volvo cars\13-cv2394 Order Mots. to Strike and Mot. to Dismiss.doc

2