GORDON et al v. KOHL'S CORPORATION et al

Filing 179

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY (DOC. 177 ) IS GRANTED. DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 163 ) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 8/7/2017. 8/7/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JENNIFER GORDON, VALERIE
TANTLINGER and JENNIFER
UNDERWOOD,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION

v.

NO. 15-730

KOHL’S DEPARTMENTS STORES, INC.
and CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2017, upon review of Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 163); Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition thereto (ECF No. 169);
Defendants’ Reply in Support thereof (ECF No. 172); and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File
Sur-Reply in Opposition thereto (ECF No. 177), after oral argument and for the reasons set forth
in the Court’s Opinion of August 7, 2017 (ECF No. 178), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply (ECF No. 177) is GRANTED; and
(2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 163) is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part as follows:
(1) Defendants’ motion is GRANTED with respect to all claims by Plaintiffs
Jennifer Gordon and Valerie Tantlinger, and JUDGMENT IS
ENTERED IN FAVOR of Defendants Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc.
and Capital One, National Association, and AGAINST Plaintiffs Jennifer
Gordon and Valerie Tantlinger on all claims;
(2) Defendants’ motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff Jennifer
Underwood’s claims under Count I (good faith and fair dealing) in their
entirety, and Count II (unjust enrichment) to the extent that they arise from
Kohl’s Account Ease, and JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR of
Defendants Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. and Capital One, National
Association, and AGAINT Plaintiff Jennifer Underwood on Count I in its
entirety and Count II to the extent it arises from Kohl’s Account Ease; and

(3) Defendants’ motion is DENIED with respect to Count II (unjust
enrichment) by Plaintiff Jennifer Underwood arising from PrivacyGuard.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Wendy Beetlestone, J.
_______________________________
WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.

2