Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 10-3665

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:

• Read the Sixth Circuit's Full Decision in Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 10-3665