Gamel v. City of Cincinnati

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court acted properly in declining supplemental jurisdiction and remanding the action to state court when the case was at an early stage of litigation, discovery wasn’t over, and no summary judgment motion was filed
• holding that the district court acted properly in declining supplemental jurisdiction and remanding the action to state court when the case was at an early stage of litigation, discovery wasn’t over, and no summary judgment motion was filed
• holding that the district court acted properly in declining supplemental jurisdiction and remanding the action to state court when the case was at an early stage of litigation, discovery wasn’t over, and no summary judgment motion was filed
• concluding no abuse of discretion in remanding where the only factor favoring the exercise of supplement jurisdiction was forum manipulation
• observing that where all federal claims are dismissed, “the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims”
• noting that “the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims.” (quoting Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254–55 (6th Cir. 1996))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).