Smith et al v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government et al, No. 5:2008cv00183 - Document 82 (E.D. Ky. 2011)
Court Description: 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
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
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
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
