Silvious v. Coca-Cola Company
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139907
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Owen Silvious, proceeding pro se, sued Coca‑Cola and Mid-Atlantic Coca‑Cola Bottling Co. in DC Superior Court for alleged deceptive labeling under the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act.
- Defendants removed the case to this court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff seeks damages exceeding $750 million.
- Plaintiff contends an assignment from Ethan Clay transfers rights to sue under the DC CPA.
- The court later granted dismissal for lack of standing, and noted third‑party representation and assignment issues.
- The court denied leave to file a second amended complaint as futile and dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under DC CPA | Silvious argues standing via assignment from Clay | No standing since injury not personal; assignment insufficient | Lack of standing; dismissal granted |
| Pro se representation of third parties | Assignment attempts to let Silvious represent Clay | Third‑party lay representation not allowed (28 U.S.C. §1654) | Pro se cannot represent third parties; assignment rejected |
| Assignment validity and jurisdiction | Assignment validly transfers claim to Silvious | Assignment document questionable and unreliable; stricken | Assignment rejected; jurisdiction lacking; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrow v. United States, 723 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2010) (threshold jurisdiction issue; burden on plaintiff)
- Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (standing as jurisdictional defect; deeming it requires proof on jurisdictional grounds)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (injury in fact, causation, redressability elements of standing)
- Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2001) (threshold standing and jurisdiction; close scrutiny of facts)
- Scolaro v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 104 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2000) (court may consider materials outside pleadings to resolve jurisdictional questions)
- United States ex rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 274 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2003) (prohibition on third‑party lay representation in suits for others)
- Herrera–Venegas v. Sanchez–Rivera, 681 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1982) (third‑party representation limits; cannot circumvent by assignment)