Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-md-02555/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-md-02555-10/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 relates to all actions. 

Case No. 14-md-02555-JSW 

ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL 

BRIEFING AND EXTENDING 

DEADLINES FOR OPPOSITION AND 

REPLY BRIEFS 

Re: Docket. No. 84 

On October 2, 2015, the Court is scheduled to hear an “unopposed” motion to consolidate 

four of the eight cases that comprise this litigation: 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. At the 

case management conference held on July 10, 2015, the Court did set a deadline by which the 

Plaintiffs in these four cases (the “Moving Plaintiffs”) would be required to file an amended 

consolidated complaint. (Docket No. 69, Minute Order.) However, the Court also stated that “[i]f 

Plaintiffs seek to consolidate these actions, they shall file a motion to consolidate or, if all parties 

in all cases agree, a stipulation to consolidate. These actions will either be fully consolidated for 

pretrial proceedings or they will not be consolidated.” (Id. (emphasis added).) 

The Moving Plaintiffs have not moved to consolidate all eight actions. The Court 

HEREBY ORDERS that the Plaintiffs shall file additional briefing, limited to no more than ten 

pages, that demonstrates why the Moving Plaintiffs’ cases should not be consolidated with the 

other four cases. That brief shall be due by September 4, 2015. 

Moving Plaintiffs also caption their motion as “unopposed.” However, it has not been 

signed by counsel for the Defendants and although Plaintiffs assert Defendants do not oppose the 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 90 Filed 08/27/15 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 

mo

wh

Au

Sep

mo

hea

Da

otion, there i

In light

hich Defenda

ugust 31, 201

ptember 25, 

otion suitable

aring date. 

IT IS S

ated: August 

s no evidenc

t of the Cour

ants must file

15 to no later

2015. The h

e for resoluti

SO ORDER

27, 2015 

ce to support

rt’s request f

e an opposit

r than Septem

hearing rema

ion without 

RED. 

2

t that assertio

for additiona

ion to the m

mber18, 201

ains on calen

oral argume

on. 

al briefing, it

motion or a st

15. Plaintiff

ndar on Octo

ent, it shall n

__

JE

Un

t HEREBY E

tatement of n

fs may file a 

ober 2, 2015

notify the par

___________

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

EXTENDS t

non-oppositi

reply by no 

5. If the Cou

rties in advan

__________

WHITE 

District Judg

the time by 

ion from 

later than 

urt finds the 

nce of the 

____ 

ge 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 90 Filed 08/27/15 Page 2 of 2