Rice v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., 4:15-CV-00371. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20180221l95
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER MATTHEW W. BRANN , District Judge . AND NOW, this 20th day of February `, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc.'s Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 117) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: a. The motion is DENIED with respect to Defendant's request to strike Plaintiffs' amended class definitions; b. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff Kukich's Tort claims,
Summary: ORDER MATTHEW W. BRANN , District Judge . AND NOW, this 20th day of February `, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc.'s Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 117) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: a. The motion is DENIED with respect to Defendant's request to strike Plaintiffs' amended class definitions; b. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff Kukich's Tort claims, ..
More
ORDER
MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 20th day of February `, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc.'s Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 117) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:
a. The motion is DENIED with respect to Defendant's request to strike Plaintiffs' amended class definitions;
b. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff Kukich's Tort claims, as included in Counts Two, Three, and Seven of the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint;
c. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff Rice's Tort-Based Claims seeking purely Economic Damages, as including in Counts Two, Three, and Seven. Plaintiff Rice's claims in tort for both economic and non-economic losses, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, remain severed in accordance with my Memorandum Opinion of July 28, 2015, with all economic losses resulting solely from damage to the product itself being dismissed.
d. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff Kukich's claim for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Count Five). Said dismissal is with prejudice;
e. The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff Kukich's Breach of Express Warranty claim (Count Six), and his claim under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (Count Four). Leave to amend, however, is granted to the extent Plaintiff can correct the deficiencies outlined in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion; and
f. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff Kukich's Declaratory Relief Claim (Count One).
2. Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to amend their complaint, as indicated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order.
Source: Leagle
