Smith et al v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government et al

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: The Court pursuant to 28 USC 1367(c)(3), exercises its discretion not to make "needless decisions of state law," and shall dismiss without prejudice Plas' remaining claims against Dft. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 5/9/2011.(SCD)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
EUGENE SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
**

**

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 5:08-183-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**

**

**

This matter is before the Court upon its own motion.
Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court has
considered how to proceed with Plaintiffs’ remaining claims under
state law.
“[t]he

28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides, in pertinent part, that

district

courts

may

decline

to

exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction [over all other claims that form part of the same case
or controversy] if . . . the district court has dismissed all
claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .”
§ 1367(c)(3).

28 U.S.C.

Further, “[n]eedless decisions of state law should

be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice
between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading
of applicable law.”

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715,

726 (1966); see also Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp.,
89 F.3d 1244, 1254 (6th Cir. 1996)(stating the dictum in Gibbs

-1-

generally remains valid when analyzing whether state claims should
be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367).

Accordingly, this Court,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), exercises its discretion not to
make “[n]eedless decisions of state law,” and shall dismiss without
prejudice Plaintiffs’ remaining claims against Defendant.
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This the 9th day of May, 2011.

-2-

28