Shake v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Chris Shake
Defendant: Pepsico, Inc. and Frito-Lay North America, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2012cv00408
Filed: January 27, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office: Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge: Roanne L. Mann
Presiding Judge: Roslynn R. Mauskopf
Nature of Suit: Fraud or Truth-In-Lending
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Fraud
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 29, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 36 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER in case 1:12-cv-00408-RRM-RLM; granting in part and denying in part (23) Motion to Dismiss in case 1:12-md-02413-RRM-RLM: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, defendants' motion to take judicial notice of certain documents is granted, and their motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1) All claims against defendant PepsiCo are dismissed without prejudice; 2) The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim (Count I) is dismissed with prejudice; 3) The New York General Business Law claims (Counts II and III) are dismissed with prejudice only as to non-New York plaintiffs; 4) The New York warranty claim (Count VIII) is dismissed with prejudice o nly as to non-New York plaintiffs. This claim is otherwise dismissed without prejudice; 5) The Florida warranty claim (Count X) is dismissed without prejudice; 6) The New York intentional misrepresentation claim (Count XI) is dismissed with prejud ice only as to non-New York plaintiffs. This claim is otherwise dismissed without prejudice; 7) The California and Florida intentional misrepresentation claims (Counts XII and XIII) are dismissed without prejudice; 8) To the extent the Unfair Co mpetition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims (Counts IV, V, VI, and VII) are predicated on "All Natural" representations appearing anywhere other than on the products' packaging, the claims are dismissed without prejudice; and 9) All other claims shall proceed consistent with this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiffs' request to amend is denied without prejudice to renew consistent with this Me morandum and Order. Discovery shall proceed pursuant to the Case Management Order under the supervision of the assigned magistrate judge. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 8/29/2013. Associated Cases: 1:12-md-02413-RRM-RLM et al. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Shake v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Pepsico, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Frito-Lay North America, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Chris Shake
Represented By: Michael Robert Reese
Represented By: Kim Richman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?