Bomber v. Communicare Michigan LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER (1) Granting Defendant Fieger & Fieger P.C.'s 9 Motion to Dismiss, (2) Dismissing All State Law Claims Without Prejudice Against All Defendants, (3) Directing Plaintiff to File a First Amended Complaint, and (4) Terminating Defendant Lawrence J. Acker, P.C.'s 18 Motion to Dismiss as Moot. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EUGENE BOMBER, Plaintiff, Case No. 16-cv-11943 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. COMMUNICARE MICHIGAN LLC et al.. Defendants. _________________________________/ ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT FIEGER & FIEGER P.C.’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #9), (2) DISMISSING ALL STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, (3) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND (4) TERMINATING DEFENDANT LAWRENCE J ACKER, P.C.’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #18) AS MOOT On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff Eugene Bomber (“Bomber”) filed a ten-count Complaint against Defendants Communicare Michigan LLC (“Communicare”), Tampa Bay Holdings, LLC (“Tampa Bay”), Lawrence J. Acker, P.C. (the “Acker Firm”), and Fieger & Fieger, P.C. (the “Fieger Firm”) (the “Complaint”). (See ECF #1.) The Complaint includes ten counts: one federal claim for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (the “FDCPA”), brought against Communicare, Tampa Bay, and Acker only, and nine state law claims, including claims for violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and the Michigan Occupational Code. (See id.) Bomber alleges that the Court has 1 original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C § 1331 because he has asserted a claim under the FDCPA, and supplemental jurisdiction over his statelaw claims under 28 U.S.C § 1367. (See id.) On September 30, 2016, the Fieger Firm filed a motion to dismiss (the “Fieger Motion”). (See ECF #9.) The Acker Firm filed a motion to dismiss on October 20, 2016 (the “Acker Motion”). (See ECF #18.) The Court held a hearing on both motions on December 20, 2016. In the Fieger Motion, the Fieger Firm argues, among other things, that the Court should exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims Bomber has brought against the firm. (See Fieger Motion at 2-4, ECF #9 at 5-7, Pg. ID 101-03.) For the reasons stated on the record, the Court agrees and declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims Bomber has brought against the Fieger Firm. It therefore GRANTS the Fieger Motion and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Bomber’s claims against the Fieger Firm. In addition, on its own motion and for the reasons stated at the hearing, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all of the state-law claims in Bomber’s Complaint. Each of the state-law claims brought in counts 2-10 of the Complaint are therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Finally, on its own motion and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court ORDERS Bomber to file a First Amended Complaint by no later than 2 January 31, 2017. The First Amended Complaint shall include allegations that precisely allege how each named Defendant qualifies as a “debt collector” under the FDCPA and how each named Defendant violated the FDPCA. Any Defendant named in the First Amended Complaint shall answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint by no later than March 1, 2017. The Court further TERMINATES the Acker Motion (ECF #18) as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.           Dated: December 20, 2016   s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on December 20, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (313) 234-5113 3

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?