BHLIB:670722.2\108128-00008 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CLIFTON E. JACKSON and 

CHRISTOPHER M. SCHARNITZKE, Case No: 09-cv-11529 

 Plaintiffs, The Honorable David M. Lawson 

v. Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan 

SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., 

COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, INC. and 

DR. PAUL DROUILLARD, 

 Defendants. 

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯/ 

Marshall D. Lasser (P25573) 

Marshall D. Lasser, P.C. 

P.O. Box 2579 

Southfield, Michigan 49037 

Telephone: (248) 647-7722 

mlasserlaw@aol.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Thomas W. Cranmer (P25252) 

Matthew F. Leitman (P48999) 

Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone, P.L.C. 

840 West Long Lake Road, Suite 200 

Troy, Michigan 48098 

Telephone: (248) 879-2000 

cranmer@millercanfield.com 

leitman@millercanfield.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Coca-Cola 

Enterprises, Inc. 

Daniel B. Tukel (P34978) 

Lynn A. Sheehy (P38162) 

Katherine D. Goudie (P62806) 

Butzel Long 

150 W. Jefferson, Suite 100 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

tukel@butzel.com 

sheehy@butzel.com 

goudie@butzel.com 

Telephone: (313) 225-7000 

Attorneys for Defendant Dr. Paul Drouillard 

Kathleen H. Klaus (P67207) 

Maddin, Hauser, Wartell, Roth & Heller, P.C. 

28400 Northwestern Highway, 3rd Floor 

Southfield, Michigan 48034 

khk@maddinhauser.com 

Telephone: (248) 354-4030 

Attorneys for Defendant Sedgwick Claims 

Management Services, Inc. 

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯/ 

DEFENDANT COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT (SECOND REVISION) 

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 41 Filed 08/13/09 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 689
BHLIB:670722.2\108128-00008 2 

 Defendant Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. (“Coke”), for its response to Plaintiffs’ Amended 

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Second Revision), says as follows: 

 1. For the reasons explained in detail in the supporting brief, Coke respectfully 

requests that this Court deny leave to amend and that the Court dismiss the Complaint and 

require Plaintiffs to pay Coke’s fees and costs in responding Plaintiffs’ many requests to amend. 

(Coke is not seeking fees nor costs related to that portion of its motion to dismiss aimed at 

Plaintiffs’ claims that Coke violated 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) & (b).) 

 WHEREFORE, Coke asks this Court to enter an order denying Plaintiffs leave to further 

amend their Complaint, dismissing all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Coke with prejudice, and 

awarding Coke its fees, costs, and all other relief deemed appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C. 

By: s/Matthew F. Leitman 

Thomas W. Cranmer (P25252) 

Matthew F. Leitman (P48999) 

Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone, P.L.C. 

840 West Long Lake Road, Suite 200 

Troy, Michigan 48098 

Telephone: (248) 879-2000 

cranmer@millercanfield.com 

leitman@millercanfield.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.

Dated: August 13, 2009 

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 41 Filed 08/13/09 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 690
BHLIB:670722.2\108128-00008 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CLIFTON E. JACKSON and 

CHRISTOPHER M. SCHARNITZKE, Case No: 09-cv-11529 

 Plaintiffs, The Honorable David M. Lawson 

v. Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan 

SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., 

COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, INC. and 

DR. PAUL DROUILLARD, 

 Defendants. 

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯/ 

Marshall D. Lasser (P25573) 

Marshall D. Lasser, P.C. 

P.O. Box 2579 

Southfield, Michigan 49037 

Telephone: (248) 647-7722 

mlasserlaw@aol.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Thomas W. Cranmer (P25252) 

Matthew F. Leitman (P48999) 

Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone, P.L.C. 

840 West Long Lake Road, Suite 200 

Troy, Michigan 48098 

Telephone: (248) 879-2000 

cranmer@millercanfield.com 

leitman@millercanfield.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Coca-Cola 

Enterprises, Inc. 

Daniel B. Tukel (P34978) 

Lynn A. Sheehy (P38162) 

Katherine D. Goudie (P62806) 

Butzel Long 

150 W. Jefferson, Suite 100 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

tukel@butzel.com 

sheehy@butzel.com 

goudie@butzel.com 

Telephone: (313) 225-7000 

Attorneys for Defendant Dr. Paul Drouillard 

Kathleen H. Klaus (P67207) 

Maddin, Hauser, Wartell, Roth & Heller, P.C. 

28400 Northwestern Highway, 3rd Floor 

Southfield, Michigan 48034 

khk@maddinhauser.com 

Telephone: (248) 354-4030 

Attorneys for Defendant Sedgwick Claims 

Management Services, Inc. 

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯/ 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES’ RESPONSE IN 

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (SECOND REVISION) 

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 41 Filed 08/13/09 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 691
BHLIB:670722.2\108128-00008 i 

STATEMENT OF ISSUE PRESENTED 

Plaintiffs seek leave to file yet another different version of their Complaint against Defendant 

Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. (“Coke”). None of the newest proposed amendments save Plaintiffs’ 

RICO and RICO conspiracy claims against Coke. Indeed, for all of the reasons set forth in the 

motions to dismiss filed by all three Defendants, all of Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law – 

even with the proposed amendments. Should this Court deny leave to amend and compel 

Plaintiffs’ to pay Coke’s fees and costs in responding to Plaintiffs’ flood of motions for leave to 

amend? 

 Coke says: YES 

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 41 Filed 08/13/09 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 692
BHLIB:670722.2\108128-00008 ii 

CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY 

Ayres v. General Motors Corp., 234 F.3d 514 (11th Cir. 2000) 

Danielsen v. Burnside-Ott Aviation, 746 F. Supp. 170 (D.D.C. 1990), 

aff’d 941 F.2d 1220 (D.C.Cir. 1991) 

United States v. Driver, 535 F.3d 424 (6th Cir. 2008) 

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 41 Filed 08/13/09 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 693
BHLIB:670722.2\108128-00008 

I. Introduction 

 Enough is enough! Plaintiffs have stretched the liberal standards for amending pleadings 

far beyond their breaking point. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure simply do not allow a 

plaintiff to file an unending stream of proposed amendments every time one defendant in a 

multi-defendant case points out a flaw in the then-operative Complaint. Yet that is exactly what 

the Plaintiffs here have done. They have filed and/or proposed to file several amended 

Complaints – all before the Court has had an opportunity to assess the viability of the claims (i) 

in the First Amended Complaint (which is the currently-operative Complaint) and/or (ii) in the 

other amended Complaints proposed by Plaintiffs. And every time that one of the Defendants 

highlights the flaws in the Plaintiffs’ pleadings, Plaintiffs simply “go back to the drawing board” 

and gin up another version of the Complaint. 

 Each revised Complaint is just as flawed as the earlier versions. For instance, the latest 

proposed revision purports to cure defects in Plaintiffs’ conspiracy and aiding and abetting 

claims against Coke. But the proposed revisions actually perpetuate the flaws in these claims. 

Even with the proposed revisions, the conspiracy claim still fails to allege that Coke agreed to 

commit acts that violate the RICO statute, and the aiding and abetting claim contains no 

allegations that Coke actively supported or encouraged mail or wire fraud. The proposed 

amendments are futile and should not be permitted because – for the reasons explained in all 

three Defendants’ motions to dismiss -- all of Plaintiffs’ claims would be subject to dismissal 

even if the latest amendments were allowed. 

 Coke respectfully requests that the Court enter an order dismissing the Complaint, 

denying leave to amend, and requiring Plaintiffs to pay Coke’s costs and fees in responding to all 

of Plaintiffs’ motions to amend. 

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 41 Filed 08/13/09 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 694
BHLIB:670722.2\108128-00008 2 

II. Plaintiffs’ Latest Proposed Complaint Still Fails to State a Viable RICO 

 Conspiracy Claim Against Coke 

 In Coke’s earlier filings, it demonstrated that Plaintiffs’ RICO conspiracy claim fails as a 

matter of law because Plaintiffs have not alleged that Coke agreed to commit any conduct that 

would be actionable as a substantive RICO violation. More specifically, Coke showed that the 

conduct it allegedly agreed to commit is not actionable under RICO because (1) Plaintiffs’ 

cannot use the RICO statute as an “end run” around the exclusive and comprehensive procedures 

and remedies established by Michigan’s Workers Disability Compensation Act (“WDCA”) and 

(2) Defendants’ alleged violation of the duties created by the WDCA – even if fraudulent – does 

not give rise to RICO liability. (See Coke’s Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss at pp. 6-7; 11-

14, citing, inter alia, Danielsen v. Burnside Ott-Aviation, 746 F.Supp. 170 (D.D.C. 1991), aff’d 

941 F.2d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1992) and Ayres v. General Motors Corp., 234 F.3d 514 (11th Cir. 

2000)). Plaintiffs’ latest proposed amendments to their Complaint do not rebut Coke’s showing 

that its alleged misconduct does not amount to a RICO violation. Instead, Plaintiffs’ proposed 

amendments simply describe the alleged conspiracy in a bit more detail. But because the 

additional detail does not describe an agreement by Coke to commit conduct that would be 

actionable as a substantive violation of RICO, the proposed amendments would be futile. 

III. Plaintiffs Have Still Failed to Plead a Viable Aiding and Abetting Theory 

 Against Coke 

 In Coke’s earlier filings, it demonstrated that Plaintiffs’ aiding and abetting theory failed 

because, among other things, Plaintiffs failed to plead that Coke actively assisted and/or 

encouraged any other Defendant to commit a pattern of predicate acts. (See Coke’s Biref in 

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to File Second Amended Complaint at 6-7, citing

United States v. Driver, 535 F.3d 424, 432-33 (6th Cir. 2008)). Plaintiffs’ latest proposed 

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 41 Filed 08/13/09 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 695
BHLIB:670722.2\108128-00008 3 

Complaint still lacks sufficient aiding and abetting allegations against Coke. Plaintiffs allege 

only that Coke “agreed” to rely on reports written by doctors whom Coke “knew” would commit 

fraud; nowhere do Plaintiffs allege that Coke assisted in the preparation of allegedly fraudulent 

reports. (See latest proposed Complaint at ¶32.) Plaintiffs’ allegations fall far short of the active 

assistance and participation standard described by the Sixth Circuit in Driver. 

IV. Sedgwick’s Motion to Dismiss Highlights Additional Fundamental Flaws in 

 Plaintiffs’ Claims and Underscores That There is No Basis to Allow Plaintiffs 

 to Amend Their Complaint and Prosecute This Action 

 Sedgwick’s recently-filed motion to dismiss highlights a host of additional fundamental 

flaws in Plaintiffs’ claims. (See Sedgwick’s Motion, Docket No. 39, at ¶¶3-5.) Coke adopts 

Sedgwick’s arguments in support of its motion to dismiss. The flaws noted by Sedgwick are not 

in any way cured by the latest proposed amendments. Thus, the amendments are futile and 

should not be permitted. 

V. Conclusion and Relief Requested 

 Plaintiffs’ latest proposed amendments to their Complaint do not remedy the fundamental 

flaws in Plaintiffs’ RICO and RICO conspiracy claims and, accordingly, should not be permitted. 

On the contrary, Plaintiffs should be required to pay Coke’s fees and costs in responding to 

Plaintiffs’ unending and improper motions to dismiss. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C. 

By: s/Matthew F. Leitman 

Thomas W. Cranmer (P25252) 

Matthew F. Leitman (P48999) 

Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone, P.L.C. 

Attorneys for Defendant Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.

Dated: August 13, 2009 

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 41 Filed 08/13/09 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 696
BHLIB:670722.2\108128-00008 4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on August 13, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document,

with the Clerk of the court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the 

following: 

• Katherine D. Goudie: goudie@butzel.com, ponce@butzel.com 

• Kathleen H. Klaus: khk@maddinhauser.com, dxa@maddinhauser.com 

• Marshall D. Lasser: mlasserlaw@aol.com, ddtalon@gmail.com 

• Lynn A. Sheehy: sheehy@butzel.com, skarbek@butzel.com 

• Daniel B. Tukel: tukel@butzel.com, bobak@butzel.com 

and hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the following 

non-ECF participants: 

 None. 

Dated: August 13, 2009 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

Thomas W. Cranmer (P25252) 

Matthew F. Leitman (P48999) 

Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone, P.L.C. 

840 West Long Lake Road, Suite 200 

Troy, Michigan 48098 

Telephone: (248) 879-2000 

cranmer@millercanfield.com 

leitman@millercanfield.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 41 Filed 08/13/09 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 697