Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 10-3665

By FindLaw Staff on November 08, 2010 2:54 PM

District court's refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over city retirees' state-law claims affirmed

Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 10-3665, concerned city retirees' putative class action lawsuit against the City of Cincinnati to prevent the city from implementing an ordinance requiring city retirees to pay for part of their post-retirement health insurance benefits.

In affirming the district court's refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state-law claims after all of their federal claims were voluntarily dismissed, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding the case back to the state court as it properly considered the relevant Carnegie-Mellon factors in deciding not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state-law claims.

Related Link:

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard

Find a Lawyer

More Options