ENSLIN v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY et al

Filing 193

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 168 , IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC., KEYSTONE COCA-COLA AND BOTTLING AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, KEYSTONE COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO., K EYSTONE COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, INC., AND KEYSTONE COCA-COLA BOTTLING CORPORATIONS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 170 , IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, AS FOLLOWS: (A) THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IS DENIED. (B) THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, ECF NO. 125 , IS DENIED AS MOOT. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, ECF NO. 127 , IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS EXPERT REPORT, ECF NO. 149 , IS DENIED AS MOOT. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC., KEYSTONE COCA-COLA AND BOTTLING AND DISTRIBUT ION CORPORATION, KEYSTONE COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO., KEYSTONE COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, INC., AND KEYSTONE COCA-COLA BOTTLING CORPORATION, AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF. DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, ABC CORPORATIONS 1-50, AND XYZ PARTNERSHIPS AND ASSOCIATIONS ARE DI SMISSED. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO TERMINATE THESE PARTIES. NO LATER THAN APRIL 17, 2017, PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE A STATUS REPORT CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF THIS ORDER ON HIS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT THOMAS WILLIAM ROGERS, III, WHO IS CURRENTLY IN DEFAULT. SEE ECF NO. 37 . SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 3/31/17. 3/31/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E-MAILED.(mas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
SHANE K. ENSLIN, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,

:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
:
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY;
:
COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC.;
:
KEYSTONE COCA-COLA AND BOTTLING
:
AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION;
:
KEYSTONE COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.;
:
KEYSTONE COCA-COLA BOTTLING
:
COMPANY, INC.;
:
KEYSTONE COCA-COLA BOTTLING
:
CORPORATION;
:
THOMAS WILLIAM ROGERS, III;
:
DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50;
:
ABC CORPORATIONS 1-50; and
:
XYZ PARTNERSHIPS AND ASSOCIATIONS,
:
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________________

No. 2:14-cv-06476

ORDER
And now, this 31st day of March, 2017, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying
Opinion issued this day, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 168, is DENIED.

2.

Defendants’ The Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc.,
Keystone Coca-Cola and Bottling And Distribution Corporation, Keystone CocaCola Bottling Co., Keystone Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc., and Keystone
Coca-Cola Bottling Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction or for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 170, is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
(a)
(b)

3.

The motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.
The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 125, is DENIED as moot.
1

4.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Class Action Complaint, ECF No. 127, is
DENIED.

5.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Report, ECF No. 149, is DENIED
as moot.

6.

JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of The Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola
Refreshments USA, Inc., Keystone Coca-Cola and Bottling and Distribution
Corporation, Keystone Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Keystone Coca-Cola Bottling
Company, Inc., and Keystone Coca-Cola Bottling Corporation, and against
Plaintiff.

7.

Doe Defendants 1-50, ABC Corporations 1-50, and XYZ Partnerships and
Associations are DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate these
parties. 1

8.

No later than April 17, 2017, Plaintiff shall file a status report concerning the
effect of this Order on his claims against Defendant Thomas William Rogers, III,
who is currently in default. See ECF No. 37.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge

1

See Blakeslee v. Clinton Cty., 336 F. App’x 248, 250 (3d Cir. 2009) (“Use of John Doe defendants is
permissible in certain situations until reasonable discovery permits the true defendants to be identified. If reasonable
discovery does not unveil the proper identities, however, the John Doe defendants must be dismissed.” (citation
omitted)).

2