FROMPOVICZ v. NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC et al

Filing 42

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS ICE RIVER, CROSSROADS, AND LAND'S MOTION TO DISMISS 33 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. DEFENDANT NIAGRA'S MOTION TO DISMISS 34 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED AS PART, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 9/18/18. 9/18/18 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STANLEY F. FROMPOVICZ,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC, ICE RIVER
SPRINGS WATER CO, INC.,
CROSSROADS BEVERAGE GROUP AND
JAMES J. LAND, JR.,
Defendants.

NO. 18-54

ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2018, upon consideration of Defendants Ice
River Springs Water Co, Inc. (“Ice River”), Crossroads Beverage Group (“Crossroads”), and
James J. Land Jr.’s (“Land”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33), Plaintiff’s Response in
Opposition thereto (ECF No. 35), the Reply in Further Support thereof (ECF No. 36), as well as
Defendant Niagara Bottling, LLC’s (“Niagara”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34), Plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition thereto (ECF No. 35), the Reply in Further Support thereof (ECF No.
37), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Defendants Ice River, Crossroads, and Land’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
a. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count One (Lanham Act) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART. Count One is dismissed against Defendant
Crossroads WITH PREJUDICE. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count One
against Defendants Land is DENIED on the theory of commercial harm and on
the theory of commercial disparagement. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count
One against Defendants Ice River is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART. Count One is dismissed against Defendant Ice River WITH
PREJUDICE on the theory of commercial disparagement. Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss Count one on a theory of commercial harm is DENIED.
b. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is DENIED.

c. Defendants Ice River, Crossroads, and Land’s Motion to Dismiss Count Two
(unfair competition) is GRANTED. Count Two is dismissed against Defendants
Ice River, Crossroads, and Land WITH PREJUDICE.
(2) Defendant Niagara’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART.
a. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count One against Defendants Niagara is
DENIED on the theory of commercial harm and on the theory of commercial
disparagement.
b. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is DENIED.
c. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count Two (unfair competition) is GRANTED.
Count Two is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE against Niagara.
BY THE COURT:

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

2