The opinion in this case (linked below, previously discussed here) is worth a read. Just to clarify a few of the details, the parties had filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff's claims against the credit-card company were dismissed, which appears to have eliminated all the federal claims from the case. The court then dismissed the remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to refiling them in state court, if the parties really want to do that.
We also get the full and artfully vague allegation describing the defendant's alleged services. The complaint described her as a "service provider, providing personal, private sessions with clients for a predetermined per-session fee. She is not a doctor, nurse or licensed medical practitioner. She advertises herself [as] an expert at providing personal, hands-on service to individual customers in a private sessions at a set rate." Move along, nothing to see here.
Again, however, plaintiff did get slightly more specific when asked about this at his deposition, in which he testified "I paid her and she had sex with me and there was an understanding that it was payment for sex." No further questions.