Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DOUGLAS MITCHELL,
Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 06-14296
HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF ALLIED INTERSTATE, INC.,
Defendant.
_________________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 28, 2006. Plaintiff’s Complaint is not organized into separate counts; rather it includes claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Michigan Collection Practices Act (“MCPA”), Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.251 et seq., under the heading “Causes of Action.” See Complaint.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction the FDCPA claim, because it arises under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The MCPA claim, however, is based upon state law. Although the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if there are “compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim in this matter. The Court finds that the contemporaneous presentation of Plaintiff’s parallel state claims for relief will result in the undue confusion of the jury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); see also Padilla v. City of Saginaw , 867 F. Supp. 1309, 1315 (E.D. Mich. 1994).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s state law claim under the Michigan Collection *2 Practices Act is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claim under the FDCPA.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: October 20, 2006
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record by electronic or U.S. mail on October 20, 2006.
s/Marie E. Verlinde Case Manager (810) 984-3290
2