Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-md-02555/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-md-02555-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE: COCA-COLA PRODUCTS 

MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES 

LITIGATION (NO. II) 

This document applies to all actions. 

Case No. 14-md-02555-JSW 

ORDER ON MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE 

Re: Docket No. 84 

Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to consolidate filed by the Plaintiffs 

in the following cases: Engurasoff v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., 13-cv-3990; Nobles v. The 

Coca-Cola Company, et al., 13-cv-5071; Merritt v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., 14-cv-1067; 

and Aumiller v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., 14-cv-1447 (the “Moving Plaintiffs”). The 

“Non-Moving Plaintiffs” are Plaintiffs in the following four actions: Lazaroff v. The Coca-Cola 

Company, et al., 14-cv-3686, Sowizrol v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., 14-cv-3774, Rankin v. 

The Coca-Cola Company, et. al., 14-cv-4274, and Marino v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., 14-

cv-4356. 

The Court has considered the parties’ papers, including the supplemental briefs ordered by 

the Court, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case. The Court finds the motion suitable 

for disposition without oral argument, and it VACATES the hearing scheduled for October 2, 

2015. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

The Moving Plaintiffs ask the Court to consolidate the four cases listed above for all 

purposes, including trial. That request is GRANTED. The Non-Moving Plaintiffs have stated that 

they oppose consolidation “for all purposes,” because they intend to move to remand their lawsuits 

to the transferor districts at the conclusion of pre-trial proceedings. This Court has never 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 97 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

exp

sup

con

Pla

and

Th

sha

not

Co

Pla

mo

Da

pressed an in

pplemental b

nsolidated fo

aintiffs make

d Defendant

Accord

e Moving Pl

all enter Def

thing in that 

urt’s Order, 

In their

aintiffs corre

otion to dism

IT IS S

ated: Septem

ntention to c

brief was inte

or pre-trial p

e clear that th

s also ask th

dingly, each o

laintiffs’ cas

fendants’ pro

Order shall 

dated July 2

r opposition b

ectly note tha

miss. 

SO ORDER

mber 29, 2015

onsolidate a

ended only t

proceedings,

hey do not o

hat the Court

of these eigh

ses shall be c

oposed order

alter any pri

22, 2015, set

brief, Defen

at this is an i

RED. 

5

2

all eight actio

to seek clarif

as set forth 

oppose conso

 consolidate

ht actions sh

consolidated

r on Pretrial 

ior order of t

tting forth th

ndants sugge

issue that sho

ons for all pu

fication as to

in the Minu

olidating the

e these matte

hall be conso

d for pre-trial

Practice and

the Court, in

he authority a

st the Nobles

ould be addr

__

JE

Un

urposes, and

o why all eig

ute Order. In

ese matters fo

ers for pre-tri

olidated for p

l proceeding

d Procedure,

ncluding, but

and duty of l

s case shoul

ressed by wa

___________

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

d the Order re

ght matters s

n their reply 

or pre-trial p

ial proceedin

pre-trial proc

gs and trial. 

 with the cav

t not limited

lead counsel

ld be dismiss

ay of a prope

__________

WHITE 

District Judg

equiring 

should not be

brief, all 

proceedings, 

ngs. 

ceedings. 

The Court 

veat that 

d to the 

l. 

sed. 

erly noticed 

____ 

ge 

e

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 97 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 2