Page 1 of 2

Men/Vin v. Universal Debit Credit Corp.

No Shepard?s SignalTM
As of: August 27, 2020 6:28 PM 

Merwin v. Universal Debit 8. Credit Corp.

 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division
August 21, 2009, Decided; August 21, 2009, Filed
Case No. 1:090v790

Reporter
2009 US. Dist. LEXIS 144791 

GEORGE MERWIN, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSAL
DEBIT AND CREDIT CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

Counsel: For George Merwin, Kathy Devivo,
Plaintiffs: Neil Bryan Tygar, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law
Offices of Neil Bryan Tygar, P.A., Delray Beach, FL.

For Universal Debit and Credit Corporation, a Virginia
Corporation, Carlos Gavidia, individually, Defendants:
Damon William Wright, Venable LLP (DC), Washington,
James Thomas Bacon, PRO HAC VICE, Allred
Bacon Halfhill Young PC, Fairfax, Sefton Keller
The Law Office of Carpenter and Deisher,
Funkstown, MD.

 

For Tres Hombres, LLC, a Virginia limited liability
company, Lonnie D. Gaddy, Ill, individually, Defendant:
Damon William Wright, Venable LLP (DC), Washington,
Jeffrey Scott Wertman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Berger
Singerman, Las Olas Centre ll, Fort Lauderdale, 
James Thomas Bacon, PRO HAC VICE, Allred Bacon
Halfhill Young PC, Fairfax, VA.

For Discount Pharmacy, LLC, a Virginia limited liability
company, Defendant: Karen M. Nissen, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Vernis Bowling, North Palm Beach, 
C. Thomas Brown, Glenn Hugh Silver, Silver Brown,
Fairfax, Damon William Wright, Venable LLP (DC),
Washington, James Thomas Bacon, PRO HAC
VICE, Allred Bacon Halfhill Young PC, Fairfax, VA.

Judges: T. 8. Ellis, Ill, United States District Judge.
Opinion by: T. S. Ellis, 

Opinion

 

ORDER

 

The matter came before the Court on defendants'
motion to dismiss (Docket No. 51) for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Rule Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiffs
originally filed their complaint in Florida state court,
alleging violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and various
state laws. Defendants removed the case to federal
district court in Florida. Upon removal, plaintiffs failed to
file a Civil RICO Case Statement, as required by that
court's local rules, and plaintiffs then amended their
complaint, removing the RICO counts. The case was
subsequently transferred to this Court and defendants
filed their motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs? time period in
which to file a response has elapsed. Hearing was held,
at which only defendants appeared. Accordingly, this
matter is now ripe for disposition.

 

Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Circuit Court of Palm
Beach County, Florida, on February 11, 2009. In the
original complaint, plaintiffs alleged RICO claims in
three counts and state law claims in thirteen counts. On
March 17, 2009, defendants properly removed the case
to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. In
accordance with the Local Rules of the District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, the court ordered
plaintiffs to file a Civil RICO Case Statement. Mend/in v.
Universal Debit Credit Corp, No. 09-80434-Civ (S.D.
Fla. Mar. 23, 2009) (Order). Plaintiffs failed to do so,
and subsequently amended their complaint to remove
the RICO counts, thus leaving only the claims under
state law. Defendants thereafter filed a motion to
transfer the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
which motion was granted. Mam/in v. Universal
Debit Credit Corp, No. 09-80434-Civ (SD. Fla. July
16, 2009) (Order). On July 31, 2009, defendants moved

Men/Vin v. Universal Debit Credit Corp.

to dismiss the case pursuant to Rule Fed. R.
Civ. P. Plaintiffs have not responded and did not appear
at the hearing held on August 21, 2009.

 

When all federal claims in a case are dismissed, courts
may, at their discretion, decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. See
28 U.S.C. 6 1367(c)(3) (permitting district courts to
decline supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims
where "the district court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction"). That discretion is
customarily exercised when all federal claims are
dismissed before trial. See United Mine Workers v.
Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726. 86 S. Ct. 1130, 16 L. Ed. 2d
218 1966 ("Certainly, if the federal claims are
dismissed before trial, the state claims should be
dismissed as cited in More City of
Gaithersburq. 519 F.3d 216, 231 {4th Cir. 2008).
Because no federal claims remain in this case, the
complaint will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 6 

 

 

 

Accordingly, and for good cause,

It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' complaint is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is further ORDERED that defendant's motion to
dismiss, pursuant to Rule Fed. R. Civ. P., is
DENIED AS MOOT.

 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all
counsel of record and to place this matter among the
ended causes.

T. 8. Ellis, 

T. 8. Ellis, MI

United States District Judge
Alexandria, Virginia

August 21, 2009

Page 2 of 2

 

End of Document