Opinion ID: 178903
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: The doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, originally set forth in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), was codified by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Section 1367 grants a district court broad discretion to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). In determining whether to retain jurisdiction over state-law claims, a district court should consider and weigh several factors, including the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988); accord Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir.1993) (holding that a district court should consider several factors in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, including the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation, and [that it should] balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues). A district court may also consider whether the plaintiff has engaged in any manipulative tactics when it decides whether to remand a case. If the plaintiff has attempted to manipulate the forum, the court should take this behavior into account in determining whether the balance of factors supports a remand of the state-law claims. Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 357, 108 S.Ct. 614. When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims, or remanding them to state court if the action was removed. Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254-1255 (6th Cir. 1996); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction). There are, however, circumstances where a district court should retain supplemental jurisdiction even if all of the underlying federal claims have been dismissed. In Harper v. AutoAlliance Intern., Inc., 392 F.3d 195 (6th Cir.2004), for example, the court found that the following factors weighed in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims: (1) the plaintiff had engaged in forum manipulation by deciding to dismiss his federal-law claims only after the case had been on the district court's docket for 11 months, (2) the parties had completed discovery, and (3) the defendants' summary-judgment motions were ripe for decision. Id. at 211-12. Moreover, the district court was familiar with the facts of the case and already had invested significant time in the litigation. Id. This court therefore concluded that the district court had properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Id.