Bomber v. Communicare Michigan LLC et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 16-cv-11943
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
LLC et al..
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
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
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
s/Holly A. Monda
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?