Miller et al v. Swisher Hygiene Inc. et al
Florida Southern District Court | |
Judge: | Joan A Lenard |
Case #: | 0:13-cv-61292 |
Nature of Suit | 850 Other Statutes - Securities/Commodities/Exchange |
Cause | 15:0078 Securities Exchange Act |
Case Filed: | Jun 11, 2013 |
Terminated: | Aug 06, 2013 |
Last checked: Saturday Jan 03, 2015 6:50 PM EST |
Defendant
Steven R. Berrard
|
Represented By
|
Defendant
H. Wayne Huizenga
|
Represented By
|
Defendant
Michael J. Kipp
|
Represented By
|
Defendant
Swisher Hygiene Inc.
|
Represented By
|
Plaintiff
Glen Miller
|
Represented By
|
Plaintiff
Neal Rodrigue
|
Represented By
|
Plaintiff
The Hermine Rodrigue Testamentary Trust for Kera Rodrigue
|
Represented By
|
Plaintiff
The Robert Rodrigue Testamentary Trust for Hayden Rodrigue
|
Represented By
|
Plaintiff
The Robert Rodrigue Testamentary Trust for Kera Rodrigue
|
Represented By
|
Docket last updated: 05/15/2025 11:59 PM EDT |
Monday, September 21, 2015 | ||
41 | 41
order
Order Dismissing Case
Mon 09/21 9:36 AM
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On October 11, 2013, the Multi-District Litigation Panel (MDLP) transferred this case to the Western District of North Carolina for consolidated pre-trial proceedings. (D.E.28 .) On July 28, 2015, the MDLP issued a31 Conditional Remand Order, remanding the case back to this Court. On September 4, 2015, the Parties filed a35 Joint Status Report advising the Court that Judge Mullen in the Western District of North Carolina granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in part, and dismissed the federal claims. ( Id. at 4.) Only state law claims remain. ( See id. ) On September 9, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why the remaining state law claims should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c)(3), which permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." (D.E. 36 (citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill , 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) ("When the balance of [judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity] indicates that a case properly belongs in state court, as when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.")). On September 18, 2015, the Parties responded to the Court's show cause order, and all Parties agree that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and should dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice. ( See D.E.39 at 1, D.E.40 at 2.) Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c)(3), all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and this case is now CLOSED. This entry constitutes the ENDORSED ORDER in its entirety. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 9/21/2015. (gie) (Entered: 09/21/2015) |
|
Friday, September 18, 2015 | ||
40 | 40
![]() RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by The Robert Rodrigue Testamentary Trust for Kera Rodrigue, Neal Rodrigue, Glen Miller, The Hermine Rodrigue Testamentary Trust for Kera Rodrigue, The Robert Rodrigue Testamentary Trust for Hayden Rodrigue. (Bennington, Alfred) |
|
39 | 39
![]() RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 36 Order to Show Cause,,,,,,,,, by Swisher Hygiene Inc., Steven R. Berrard, H. Wayne Huizenga.(Nelson, David) |
|
Att: 1
![]() |
||
Friday, September 11, 2015 | ||
38 | 38
order
Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney
Fri 09/11 12:27 PM
ORDER GRANTING37 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney to be noticed in this matter. The clerk is directed to remove Attorney Krista Sue Plotkin from the service list in this matter. This entry constitutes the ENDORSED ORDER in its entirety. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 9/11/2015. (gie) |
|
37 | 37
![]() MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Krista S. Plotkin. by Glen Miller, Neal Rodrigue, The Hermine Rodrigue Testamentary Trust for Kera Rodrigue, The Robert Rodrigue Testamentary Trust for Hayden Rodrigue. Responses due by 9/28/2015 (Plotkin, Krista) |
|
Wednesday, September 09, 2015 | ||
36 | 36
order
Order to Show Cause
Wed 09/09 1:39 PM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record. On June 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their1 Complaint in this Court alleging two causes of action under the Securities Exchange Act, and ten causes of action under Florida state law. The Complaint invokes this Court's federal question jurisdiction based on the two Securities Exchange Act claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. (D.E.1 para. 7.) On August 6, 2013, the Court entered an Order staying and administratively closing the case pending the decision of the Multi-District Litigation Panel (MDLP) whether to transfer this case to the Western District of North Carolina for consolidated pre-trial proceedings. (D.E. 27.) On October 11, 2013, the MDLP transferred this case to the Western District of North Carolina for consolidated pre-trial proceedings. (D.E.28 .) On July 28, 2015, the MDLP issued a31 Conditional Remand Order, remanding the case back to this Court. On August 21, 2015, the Court directed the Parties to file a Joint Status Report (D.E. 32), which they filed on September 4, 2015. ( See D.E.35 .) Therein, the Parties advise the Court that Judge Mullen in The Western District of North Carolina granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in part, and dismissed the federal claims. ( Id. at 4.) Only state law claims remain, including claims for breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and Florida's Investor Protection Act.. ( See id. ) It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Parties shall have until and including September 18, 2015 to SHOW CAUSE why the remaining state claims should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c)(3). See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill , 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) ("When the balance of [judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity] indicates that a case properly belongs in state court, as when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice."). This entry constitutes the ENDORSED ORDER in its entirety. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 9/9/2015. (gie) |
|
Friday, September 04, 2015 | ||
35 | 35
![]() STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT by Steven R. Berrard, H. Wayne Huizenga, Swisher Hygiene Inc. (Singer, Stuart) |
|
Thursday, September 03, 2015 | ||
34 | 34
![]() NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by David Nelson on behalf of Steven R. Berrard. Attorney David Nelson added to party Steven R. Berrard(pty:dft). (Nelson, David) |
|
Wednesday, September 02, 2015 | ||
33 | 33
![]() NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Eli J Glasser on behalf of Steven R. Berrard. Attorney Eli J Glasser added to party Steven R. Berrard(pty:dft). (Glasser, Eli) |
|
Friday, August 21, 2015 | ||
32 | 32
order
- Endorsed Order no pdf attached
Fri 08/21 2:08 PM
ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO FILE A JOINT STATUS REPORT. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's31 Conditional Remand Order, filed July 28, 2015. The Order states that the "consolidated pretrial proceedings... have been completed[.]" It appears, then, that this case is ripe for trial. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Parties shall have until and including September 4, 2015 to (1) file a Joint Status Report advising the Court of the status of this action and (2) show cause, if any, why this case should not be set for trial during the Court's November 2015 trial calendar. This entry constitutes the ENDORSED ORDER in its entirety. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 8/21/2015. (gie) |
|
utility
~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings
Fri 08/21 2:46 PM
Set Deadline per DE#32. Joint Status Report due by 9/4/2015. (cqs) |
||
Tuesday, July 28, 2015 | ||
31 | 31
![]() Courtesy Copy of CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER re: MDL 2384. (Signed by Jeffery N. Luthi, Clerk of the Panel). ** awaiting certified copy from the transferee court ** , with a Stipulation or Designation of the Contents of the Record to be Remanded. (gp) |
|
Wednesday, January 15, 2014 | ||
30 | 30 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT. Case transferred from Florida Southern has been opened in Western District of North Carolina as case 3:14-cv-02387, filed 01/15/2014. (bb) | |
29 | 29
![]() |
|
SYSTEM ENTRY - Case 0:13-cv-61292 electronically transferred out to North Carolina Western. (gp) | ||
Friday, October 11, 2013 | ||
28 | 28
![]() |
|
Tuesday, August 06, 2013 | ||
27 | 27 ORDER STAYING AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE. This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Stay13 , wherein Defendants move for a stay of proceedings in the above-captioned action until the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("Panel") rules on Defendants' request to transfer this case to a pending multidistrict litigation ("MDL") in the Western District of North Carolina, Plaintiffs' response in opposition20 , and Defendants' reply26 . On July 23, 2013, the Panel issued a16 Conditional Transfer Order ("CTO"), a copy of which was filed with this Court on July 24, 2013, finding that Plaintiffs' case appeared to involve questions of fact that are common to the proceedings in In re Swisher Hygiene, Inc. Securities and Derivative Litigation , MDL Docket No. 3:12-MD-2384-GCM, which are pending in the Western District of North Carolina before Judge Graham C. Mullen. In their Motion to Stay, Defendants seek a brief stay pending the Panel's decision regarding transfer. Although "a stay pending an MDL transfer motion is not automatic, such a stay 'can increase efficiency and consistency, particularly when the transferor court believes that a transfer order is likely and when the pending motions raise issues likely to be raised in other cases as well.'" Giles v. POM Wonderful LLC , No. 10-61684 CIV, 2010 WL 4630325, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2010) (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation § 22.35 (4th ed. 2004)) (citing Bonenfant v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. , No. 07-60301 CIV, 2007 WL 2409980 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2007) ("It is common practice for courts to stay an action pending a transfer decision by the JPML.")). Upon review of the Parties' arguments in their Motion, Response, and Reply, as well as a review of the CTO, the Court finds it likely that the Panel will enter an order transferring this case to the pending MDL. The Court further finds that a brief delay in proceedings will not prejudice Plaintiffs, Defendants may suffer substantial and unnecessary burden and expense without a stay, and significant judicial resources will be spared by staying this action to allow the Panel to rule. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is stayed and administratively closed. In the event this case is not transferred to MDL 12-2384 Plaintiffs may file an appropriate motion to lift the stay. This entry constitutes the ENDORSED ORDER in its entirety. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 8/6/2013. (cew) | |
Monday, August 05, 2013 | ||
26 | 26
![]() |
|
Att: 1
![]() |
||
Att: 2
![]() |
||
Att: 3
![]() |
||
Thursday, August 01, 2013 | ||
25 | 25
![]() |
|
24 | 24
![]() |
|
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 | ||
23 | 23
![]() |
|
Att: 1
![]() |
||
Att: 2
![]() |
||
22 | 22
![]() |
|
Att: 1
![]() |
||
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 | ||
21 | 21
![]() |
|
Att: 1
![]() |
||
20 | 20
![]() |
|
Monday, July 29, 2013 | ||
19 | 19
![]() |
|
Att: 1
![]() |
||
Friday, July 26, 2013 | ||
18 | 18
![]() |
|
Att: 1
![]() |
||
Thursday, July 25, 2013 | ||
17 | 17
![]() |
|
Wednesday, July 24, 2013 | ||
16 | 16
![]() |
|
Att: 1
![]() |
||
Monday, July 22, 2013 | ||
15 | 15
![]() |
|
Friday, July 19, 2013 | ||
14 | 14
![]() |
|
Att: 1
![]() |
||
Att: 2
![]() |
||
Att: 3
![]() |
||
13 | 13
![]() |
|
Tuesday, July 16, 2013 | ||
12 | 12 ORDER SETTING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. On July 8, 2013, the Parties filed a8 Stipulation, in which they agreed to an extension until August 1, 2013, for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, upon review of the Parties'8 Stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants shall have until August 1, 2013, to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint. This entry constitutes the ENDORSED ORDER in its entirety. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 7/16/2013. (atl) | |
Tuesday, July 09, 2013 | ||
11 | 11
![]() |
|
10 | 10
![]() |
|
Monday, July 08, 2013 | ||
9 | 9
![]() |
|
8 | 8
![]() |
|
Att: 1
![]() |
||
Monday, July 01, 2013 | ||
7 | 7
![]() |
|
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 | ||
6 | 6
![]() |
|
Thursday, June 13, 2013 | ||
5 | 5
![]() |
|
4 | 4
![]() |
|
Wednesday, June 12, 2013 | ||
3 | 3
![]() |
|
Att: 1
![]() |
||
Tuesday, June 11, 2013 | ||
1 | 1
![]() |
|
Att: 1
![]() |
||
Att: 2
![]() |
||
Att: 3
![]() |
||
Att: 4
![]() |
||
Att: 5
![]() |
||
Att: 6
![]() |
||
Att: 7
![]() |
||
Att: 8
![]() |
||
Att: 9
![]() |
||
Att: 10
![]() |
||
Judge Assignment to Judge Joan A. Lenard (ail) |