Gamel v. City of Cincinnati
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23181
| 6th Cir. | 2010Background
- City retirees enacted Ordinance No. 360-2009 requiring partial post-retirement health-insurance payments.
- Retirees sued in federal court (Gamel I) asserting federal and Ohio constitutional claims and sought a TRO.
- Gamel I was voluntarily dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1) after the TRO denial.
- On the same date, retirees filed a state-court action with essentially the same claims; City removed to federal court.
- Plaintiffs amended to drop all federal claims; City moved to remand; district court remanded to state court.
- City appealed the district court’s decision on supplemental jurisdiction; this court affirmed the remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction. | Gamel contends factors favored retaining jurisdiction. | City argues factors favored remand to state court. | No abuse; remand affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1862 (2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for supplemental jurisdiction decisions)
- Harper v. AutoAlliance Intern., Inc., 392 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2004) (retention factors: forum manipulation, discovery, and readiness for dispositive motions)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (factors balancing economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in supplemental jurisdiction)
- Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178 (6th Cir. 1993) (factors for discretionary retention of supplemental jurisdiction)
- Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244 (6th Cir. 1996) (when all federal claims are dismissed, usually dismiss or remand state-law claims)
- Soliday v. Miami County, 55 F.3d 1158 (6th Cir. 1995) (affirms abuse-of-discretion review of supplemental jurisdiction decisions)