REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

STEPHANIE K. BOWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

This civil action is now before the Court on Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to amend the complaint. (Doc. 78).

I. Background and Facts

This is an action for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq., and the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA), R.C. 1333.61, et seq., along with additional common-law claims. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from benefitting from the use of PPS' confidential and proprietary materials — materials that Plaintiff alleges Defendants misappropriated while working for PPS but secretly running a competitive business — pending the resolution of this matter

Plaintiff now seeks to amend its complaint to dismiss its claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq., and the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA).

II. Analysis

Leave to amend a complaint shall be freely granted when justice requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Rule 15(a) embodies "a liberal policy of permitting amendments to ensure the determinations of claims on their merits." Marks v. Shell Oil Co., 830 F.2d 68, 69 (6th Cir. 1987).

Here, PPS contends, inter alia, that it no longer seeks to pursue the trade secret claims because the cost of discovery necessary to prove these claims — as outlined in Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) Motion and the accompanying Affidavits (Doc. 39) — is outweighed by the potential recovery. In making this determination, PPS has considered the factors described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26: the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. PPS's motion is well-taken and should be granted.

With this amendment to the complaint, however, there will be no federal claim before the Court, nor does the complaint allege diversity of citizenship. As such, the Court no longer has original jurisdiction and should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendant state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, any state law claims should also be dismissed without prejudice.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons explained herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. 78) be GRANTED; all pending motions (Docs. 89, 90) be DENIED as MOOT and this matter be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.