United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
December 8, 2005.
JAVED AHMED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
I.C. SYSTEM, INC., RAVI KANT, M.D. and KEN RAPP, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLIAM STANDISH, Senior District Judge
In this civil action, plaintiff, Javed Ahmed, asserts the
following claims against defendants, I.C. System, Inc., Ravi
Kant, M.D. ("Dr. Kant") and Ken Rapp, arising out of medical
treatment provided to plaintiff by Dr. Kant for injuries
sustained in an automobile accident on July 29, 2003 and
defendants' subsequent attempts to collect the cost of the
medical treatment from plaintiff:
Count I (against I.C. System, Inc.) violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o;
Count II (against I.C. System, Inc. and Dr. Kant)
violation of the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. §§ 2270.1-2270.6;
Count III (against I.C. System, Inc. and Dr. Kant)
violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"),
73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq.;
Count IV (against I.C. System, Inc. and Dr. Kant)
Count V (against I.C. System, Inc. and Dr. Kant)
civil conspiracy; Count VI (against all defendants) violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968;
Count VII (against Dr. Kant) fraud;
Count VIII (against Dr. Kant) negligent
Count IX (against Dr. Kant) breach of contract.
On October 26, 2005, Dr. Kant filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6). (Doc. No. 12). Initially, Dr.
Kant asserts that the Court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims under
28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c).*fn1
Noting that the gist of
plaintiff's complaint concerning him is the claim that he
overcharged plaintiff for medical treatment rendered in connection with an
automobile accident in violation of the cost containment
provision of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial
Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1701 et seq., and Pennsylvania
common law, Dr. Kant maintains that the lone federal claim
asserted against him the RICO claim "is simply a federal
appendage to what is clearly a case based on state statute and
common law." (Dr. Kant's Motion to Dismiss, p. 3). Dr. Kant then
asserts that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted with respect to the RICO claim, the UTPCPL
claim and the common law claims for unjust enrichment, civil
conspiracy and fraud.
On November 14, 2005, plaintiff filed a response to Dr. Kant's
motion to dismiss and a motion to dismiss the claims against Dr.
Kant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a) (2). In this document,
plaintiff indicates that he agrees to the dismissal of the RICO
claim against Dr. Kant, and that he wishes to dismiss the state
law claims against Dr. Kant without prejudice to his right to
re-file those claims in state court. (Doc. No. 19). Two days
later, on November 16, 2005, plaintiff filed another response to
Dr. Kant's motion to dismiss indicating that he agreed to the
dismissal of the claims against Dr. Kant (Doc. No. 20), as well
as a separate motion to dismiss the claims against Dr. Kant
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a) (2). (Doc. No. 21). Under the
circumstances, Dr. Kant's motion to dismiss will be denied as moot and plaintiff's motion to dismiss the claims
against Dr. Kant under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a) (2) will be granted.
AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2005, IT IS SO
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.