28 U.S.C. § 1367

Under § 1367(c), a plaintiff’s possible forum manipulation is one factor, but is not dispositive, when deciding whether to remand remaining state-law claims.

Katrina Hicks v. Austin Independent School Dist · filed 2014-04-22(c)

Even accepting the School District’s contention that Hicks engaged in forum manipulation, this factor is not dispositive. Forum manipulation is only one of the important considerations that the district court must take into account and balance in making its remand decision.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are dropped when the relevant factors favor declining supplemental jurisdiction, even if the plaintiff manipulated the forum.

Gamel v. City of Cincinnati · filed 2010-11-08(c)(3)

Ultimately, the district court found that the only factor that weighed in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction was the retirees’ forum manipulation, but decided that this factor alone was not sufficient to warrant retaining jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It concluded that exercising supplemental jurisdiction “would not foster judicial economy and would result in . . . needlessly resolving issues of state law.” Based on the district court’s analysis as set forth above, we conclude that it properly considered the relevant Carnegie-Mellon factors in deciding not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the retirees’ state-law claims. We therefore find no abuse of discretion in remanding the case back to the state court.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental state-law claims after the federal claim is dropped from a properly removed case, considering economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and forum manipulation.

Westfall v. Osborne · filed 2020-05-28(c)

Here, removal to federal court was proper, which allows the Court to exercise its discretion in determining whether remand to the state court is appropriate.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after the federal claim is dropped from a properly removed case.

Simerly v. Osborne · filed 2020-05-28(c)

Here, removal to federal court was proper, which allows the Court to exercise its discretion in determining whether remand to the state court is appropriate.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the claims supplying original federal jurisdiction are dropped.

Mogul v. New York Public Radio · filed 2022-03-17(c)(3)

However, now that the removable claims — the federally preempted claims — have been dropped from the complaint, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dropped.

Mission Healthcare Services v. Renew Home Health · filed 2022-05-31(c)(3)

Because there are no claims remaining here over which the court has original jurisdiction, and neither party wishes the case to remain in federal court, the court agrees that remand to the Utah Third Judicial District Court is both proper and desirable.'! Accordingly, the case will be remanded, and Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss is moot.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are dropped.

Uniti Fiber LLC. v. Minor · filed 2022-06-13(c)(3)

Supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims will be declined pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), and this action will be remanded to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits remand of remaining state claims after the federal claims are dropped; suspected forum manipulation is a factor in that decision, but dropping the claims alone does not require retaining jurisdiction.

EDRINGTON-LATHAM v. UNIFIED VAILSBURG SERVICES ORGANIZATION · filed 2022-10-04(c)(3)

Here, Plaintiffs’ mere exclusion of the FLSA claims from the Amended Complaint “do not rise to the level of the ‘manipulative tactics’ necessary to tip the scale in favor of retaining jurisdiction.” Collins v. Stevens Institute of Technology, Civ. No. 15-4393, 2016 WL 4579973, *5 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2016). This matter is in the early stage of litigation, discovery has not begun, the pleadings remain unsettled, and the Court has yet to delve into the merits of the case. The Court’s “familiarity with this matter barely scratches the surface,” as the Court has no familiarity with it other than through the instant motion. Collins v. Stevens Institute of Technology, 2016 WL 4579973, at *5. Accordingly, this Court will adopt Judge Wettre’s determination that Plaintiffs’ exclusion of the FLSA claims from the Amended Complaint, without more, is not indicative of bad faith or impermissible forum manipulation.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims after all federal claims are dropped, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Hernandez v. B&M Industrial, Inc. d/b/a B&M Machinery Co. · filed 2023-01-03(c)(3)

In sum, the applicable factors all counsel in favor of relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims and remanding this case to state court.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after the federal claim is dropped.

Williams v. CertainTeed LLC · filed 2026-02-02(c)

Thus, even though Plaintiff no longer asserts a Title VII claim, the Court may exercise its discretion to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

When the claim supporting original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, § 1367 requires the district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness affirmatively justify retaining it; the court must briefly explain a decision to retain jurisdiction.

Dickerson v. Desimone Inc · filed 2010-11-08(c)(3)

If the District Court dismisses the civil rights claim and exercises its discretion in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims, it should provide a brief record explanation of its affirmative justification for doing so.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain state law claims when federal claims remain.

United States ex rel. Kester v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. · filed 2014-08-07(c)

Though Novartis moves to dismiss all claims, it makes no arguments in support of its motion to dismiss the three state law claims — Counts 4, 8, and 9. Presumably, Novartis assumes that, if this Court dismisses the federal claims, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Because federal claims remain, the Court will not dismiss the state law claims.

Section 1367(d) does not toll limitations for supplemental state law claims when the federal action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Morris v. Giovan · filed 2010-11-12(d)

Thus, § 1367(d) does not toll the statute of limitations for state law claims that are supplemental to an action dismissed from federal court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits dismissal without prejudice of state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed and tolls limitations on timely filed state-law claims for thirty days after the dismissal order unless state law provides a longer period.

Calandrino v. the Farmingdale Union Free School District · filed 2020-01-03(c)(3), (d)

For the reasons set forth above, the Report is accepted in its entirety and, for the reasons set forth therein, defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted, plaintiff’s federal law claims against defendants are dismissed in their entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), the statute of limitations for any state law claims timely filed in this Court is tolled for a period of thirty (30) days after the date of this order unless a longer tolling period is otherwise provided under state law.

Section 1367(d) tolling does not require a successful assertion of federal jurisdiction.

Foley v. Azam · filed 2018-10-16(d)

For these reasons, we conclude that section 1367(d) applies, as its text does not require a successful assertion of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1367(d) tolls the limitations period for a state law claim asserted in federal court even if that claim is later dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Krause v. TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORP. · filed 2011-02-03(d)

The plain and unambiguous language of section 1367(d) thus permits the application of the tolling provision to claims commenced in federal court but later dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(d) tolls a state-law claim asserted under supplemental jurisdiction even when the federal court dismisses the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Md v. Spectrum Health Hospitals · filed 2018-04-24(d)

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that 28 USC 1367(d) tolled Puetz’s defamation claim notwithstanding that her federal claim was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) governs supplemental jurisdiction over claims, not motions.

Myers v. Hertz Corp. · filed 2010-10-27(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction is about claims, not “motions.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to remand remaining state law claims after the class claim that supplied CAFA jurisdiction is dismissed, even though the court retains jurisdiction.

Weber v. Quest Diagnostics of Pennsylvania, Inc. · filed 2020-10-30(c)(3)

A federal court therefore has the discretion to either remand or exercise supplemental jurisdiction notwithstanding the dismissal of the CAF A-triggering claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not justify dismissing supplemental state law claims on the ground that all claims within original jurisdiction were dismissed when those claims remain pending.

Gallant v. City of Fitchburg · filed 2010-08-13(c)(3)

Finally, defendants contend that the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims (Counts 1 and 4) where all other claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... For the reasons described above, the Court has decided not to dismiss Counts 2, 3, and 6. It would therefore be improper to dismiss Counts 1 and 4.

Section 1367(c) does not justify dismissing supplemental state law claims on the premise that no federal claims remain when the complaint states viable federal claims.

Weixel v. The Board Of Education Of The City Of New York · filed 2002-03-29(c)

In addition, because plaintiffs' amended complaint pleads viable federal law claims, their supplemental state law claims should not have been dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 ordinarily allows a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims when it dismisses all federal claims before trial.

Peyton v. CITY OF YAZOO CITY, MISS. · filed 2011-01-07(c)(3)

Where federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims ordinarily should be dismissed as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Muller v. Culbertson · filed 2011-02-01(c)(3)

There is no abuse of discretion here, because under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Smith v. Da Ros · filed 2011-02-25(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with regard to Mr. Smith’s federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Smith’s remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court discretion to retain or remand supplemental claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Archila v. Kfc u.s. Properties, Inc. · filed 2011-03-01(c)(3)

The district had discretion over whether to remand the PAGA claims to state court, and we review for abuse of discretion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hartley v. Rubio · filed 2011-03-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed Hartley’s federal claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hartley’s state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

MORALES-CRUZ v. University of Puerto Rico · filed 2011-03-31(c)(3)

As the Court has determined that all of plaintiffs federal claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related claims under Puerto Rico law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after disposing of the federal claims.

La Santa Lopez v. Del Noreste · filed 2011-03-31(c)(3)

Having disposed of plaintiffs federal claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the remaining claims under Puerto Rico law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gose v. BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS OF COUNTY OF McKINLEY · filed 2011-04-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims on which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not warrant dismissing related state-law claims when a federal claim against another defendant remains pending.

Cornerstone Consultants, Inc. v. Production Input Solutions, L.L.C. · filed 2011-05-19(c)(3)

I also decline to dismiss the state-law claims against the moving defendants pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), because I find that those claims are related to the federal claim against defendant PrairiE that is still before me.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Cooksey v. Waters, etc. · filed 2011-07-26(c)(3)

Furthermore, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Poole v. Marks · filed 2011-08-08(c)(3)

Given our conclusion that the District Court properly dismissed the all of the federal claims that provided the basis for the District Court’s jurisdiction, it is apparent that supplemental jurisdiction over the Scabillonis claims would not be warranted at this stage of the litigation.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state law claims after it dismisses the federal claims.

Fisher v. Dodson · filed 2011-09-26(c)(3)

Once the district court properly dismissed the federal causes of action, it was entitled to dismiss the remaining state claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and abuse of process.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Keitz v. Unnamed Sponsors of Cocaine Research Study · filed 2011-12-16(c)(3)

Accordingly, because the court will dismiss the only claims in this action over which it has original jurisdiction — the plaintiffs § 1983 claims — the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law technical battery claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim and dismiss it without prejudice once it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Booker v. City of Beachwood · filed 2011-12-19(c)(3)

Once the district court dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it acted squarely within its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining IIED claim and dismissing it without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Navedo v. Nalco Chemical, Inc. · filed 2012-01-30(c)(3)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiffs state law claims when the federal claims that gave it original jurisdiction are dismissed. ... Accordingly, plaintiffs’ state law claims against defendants shall also be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to dismiss related state law claims on the ground that all original-jurisdiction claims were dismissed while a federal claim remains pending.

Veneklase v. Bridgewater Condos, L.C. · filed 2012-02-06(c)(3)

Because the district court retains original jurisdiction over the ILSFDA claim and the supplemental state law claims are part of the same case or controversy as the ILSFDA claim, the district court erred in dismissing the supplemental state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, especially when trial is not imminent.

Montalbano v. Port Authority · filed 2012-02-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state-law claims after all federal claims are resolved on summary judgment.

Finn v. Haddock · filed 2012-02-29(c)(3)

Because we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Finn’s federal claims, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of Finn’s state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims supporting original federal jurisdiction.

Lipton v. New York University College of Dentistry · filed 2012-03-16(c)(3)

Furthermore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law claims, as there are no longer any federal claims to support original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 allows dismissal of supplemental state law claims after the federal claim supporting jurisdiction is dismissed.

Carrero-Ojeda v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica · filed 2012-06-27(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses plaintiffs FMLA claim, there is no federal claim on which to anchor supplemental jurisdiction for her attendant state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Therefore, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs Law 115 and Law 426 claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims have been dismissed, and the court may first order the plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be retained.

Daoud v. City of Wilmington · filed 2012-10-01(c)(3)

However, the dismissal of all of plaintiffs federal claims leaves only matters of state law in the case. Therefore, the court orders plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ismail v. County of Orange · filed 2012-10-18(c)(3)

Title 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” state-law claims “if — the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... —Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court DECLINES supplemental jurisdiction over all state-law claims against the County of Orange and Orange County District Attorney Elizabeth Costello.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court to decide whether to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Barlow, Jr. v. C.R. England Inc. · filed 2012-12-26(c)(3)

As all of Barlow’s federal claims have been dismissed, we leave it to the district court to decide in the first instance whether it will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Camhi v. Glen Cove City School District · filed 2013-01-07(c)(3)

Accordingly, because the Court has already dismissed the Plaintiffs only federal claim and is not aware of any other ground on which it may exercise original jurisdiction over this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs remaining Article 78 and breach of contract claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after dismissing the federal claim.

Glenn v. Bradley Center Sports & Entertainment Corp. · filed 2013-01-24(c)(3)

Because the magistrate judge did not err by dismissing Glenn’s due-process claim, he also did not err by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Glenn’s state-law claims and dismissing them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; that dismissal does not itself eliminate jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Berneike v. CitiMortgage, Inc. · filed 2013-02-25(c)(3)

Citing no authority, Berneike asserts the district court lost subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims once it dismissed her RESPA claim. Aplt. Br. at 23-24. We disagree. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” § 1367(c).

Section 1367 does not permit continued supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissal of all federal claims that supplied the sole basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Starshinova v. Batratchenko · filed 2013-03-15(c)(3)

Now that the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, however, it can no longer exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367; consequently, those claims are dismissed as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Brattain v. Alcitepe · filed 2013-03-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims – Counts XXI, XXII, and L – the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining nineteen state law claims.

Dismissal of all federal claims leaves the court without supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state and local claims.

Milione v. City University of New York · filed 2013-06-21(c)(3)

Furthermore, the dismissal of Plaintiffs remaining federal claims, discussed below, deprives this Court of supplementary jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs state and local claims against the Individual Defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. v. KPMG · filed 2013-08-05(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law causes of action against defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit dismissal of remaining state law claims when the district court retains original jurisdiction over those claims after the FDIC is dismissed.

Lokey v. FDIC · filed 2013-08-16(c)(3)

Thus, as applied to this case, § 1819(b)(2)(A) operated to create arising under jurisdiction over the Tenants’ claims against the Drayprop Defendants, and the dismissal of the Tenants’ claims against the FDIC did not divest the District Court’s jurisdiction over those claims. See 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(A). Therefore, the District Court improperly dismissed the Tenants’ remaining state law claims against the Drayprop Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit dismissal of remaining claims when the court retains original jurisdiction over them after the FDIC is dismissed.

Lindley v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 2013-08-16(c)(3)

Thus, as applied to this case, § 1819(b)(2)(A) operated to create arising under jurisdiction over the Tenants’ claims against the Drayprop Defendants, and the dismissal of the Tenants’ claims against the FDIC did not divest the District Court’s jurisdiction over those claims. ... Therefore, the District Court improperly dismissed the Tenants’ remaining state law claims against the Drayprop Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

McCreary v. Richardson · filed 2013-10-09(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Rhyne v. Henderson Cnty., 973 F.2d 386, 395 (5th Cir. 1992).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Gonzalez v. Sears Holding Co. · filed 2013-10-15(c)(3)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiffs state law claims when the federal claims that gave it original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Arco Capital Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG · filed 2013-11-27(c)(3)

Because Arco’s federal securities claims are both dismissed in the instant action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, and Counts III and IV are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits remand of remaining state-law claims after dismissal of all claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing the decision.

Kilpatrick v. Dow Chemical Co. · filed 2013-12-18(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by remanding the remaining state-law claims to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) after the dismissal of all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction. The district court found that the balance of common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weighs in favor of remand. The district court’s finding is supported by the record in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain related state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Brown v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. · filed 2013-12-31(c)(3)

One such circumstance provides a court discretion to decline jurisdiction when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claim.

Crayton v. Cook County Correctional Officer Graffeo · filed 2014-01-07(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiffs remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it dismisses all federal claims before substantial pretrial proceedings.

Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes v. First Bank & Trust Co. · filed 2014-02-11(c)(3)

Given that the district court properly dismissed all federal claims prior to any substantial pretrial proceedings, we see no abuse of discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Claim 7.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

FAS Capital, LLC v. Carr · filed 2014-03-20(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court has, but may decline to exercise, continuing supplemental jurisdiction over related claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims when the plaintiff fails to state a cognizable federal claim.

Shallowhorn v. Molina · filed 2014-05-15(c)(3)

Finally, the district court properly dismissed Shallowhorn’s state law claims because he failed to state a cognizable federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

TI Investment Services, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. · filed 2014-05-30(c)(3)

With all of the federal claims in this case having been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Counts II, III, and IV are accordingly dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

HSH, Inc. v. City of El Cajon · filed 2014-09-04(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims asserted by Plaintiffs against Defendant, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction when some claims within the court’s original jurisdiction remain.

P.A. v. City of New York · filed 2014-09-11(c)(3)

But it argues only that those claims should be dismissed because the federal law claims should be dismissed, in which event I should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim [properly before the court] if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.... ”). Since some of PA’s federal claims remain in the case, the argument fails.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; absent compelling reasons to retain them, the remaining claims should be dismissed without prejudice.

Chawla v. Lockheed Martin Corp. · filed 2014-09-22(c)(3)

While courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if there is otherwise a jurisdictional basis for doing so, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) states that a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over such claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Finding no compelling reason here to retain jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss Dr. Chawla’s remaining claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Salvani v. ADVFN PLC · filed 2014-09-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ sole federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Halperin v. International Web Services, LLC · filed 2014-09-30(c)(3)

But with the federal claims dismissed (at least for now), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only after it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Kalitta Air, LLC v. GSBD & Associates LLC · filed 2014-11-12(c)(3)

Because we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Kalitta’s federal RICO claims against both the defaulted and nondefaulted defendants, it abused its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which applies only if the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all federal claims to retain state claims temporarily while plaintiffs seek leave to add a federal claim.

Young v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2014-12-24(c)(3)

As the Court has, dismissed Young’s federal claims, only the Plaintiffs’ state-law claims remain. Given the Supreme Court’s and the Tenth Circuit’s guidance, the Court would normally remand those claims to state court. To give the Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the Complaint to add federal claims against Dear and any other individuals, however, the Court will not remand the state-law claims to state court at this point. The Court has conducted its own independent research and concludes that it has jurisdiction to allow such a motion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when resolving the remaining claim serves judicial efficiency and does not require deciding unsettled state law.

Shahid v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-01-05(c)(3)

In addition, because the resolution of the negligence claim is intertwined with the other claims in this action that the Court must resolve, particularly the negligence claim against the Officer Defendants, and because the Court’s conclusions do not require resolving unsettled issues of District of Columbia law, the Court resolves the negligence claim with respect to the District of Columbia, as well, in the interest of judicial efficiency.

Section 1367 allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Daniels v. Cynkin · filed 2015-01-22(c)(3)

To the extent that Daniels argues that the District Court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 was a basis to exercise jurisdiction over these claims, we disagree because all of his constitutional claims were subject to dismissal.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

A.D. v. Haddon Heights Board of Education · filed 2015-03-02(c)(3)

As stated above, having dismissed the federal claims without prejudice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ analogue state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

United States ex rel. Garcia v. AG · filed 2015-03-17(c)

In any case, here the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims as all of the federal claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction; dismissal of only some such claims does not satisfy that condition.

Aventure Communications Technology, LLC v. Sprint Communications Co. · filed 2015-03-19(c)(3)

The Court has denied Aven-ture’s motion to dismiss as to all but one count of Qwest’s second amended complaint, and thus not all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction under § 1367(a) have been dismissed. Aventure’s motion to dismiss Qwest’s claim for declaratory judgment is denied.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the basis for original jurisdiction is dismissed, with fairness and judicial economy supporting retention near trial.

Bak v. Metro-North Railroad · filed 2015-04-16(c)(3)

The court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs wrongful death/negligence claim even though Amtrak will be dismissed from the case. The case is scheduled to go to trial on May 11, 2015, a little more than three weeks from the date of this opinion and order. The parties have devoted significant resources to preparing for trial, including exchanging large volumes of discovery material and conducting lengthy depositions. It would be decidedly unfair to the parties for the court to dismiss the entire action at this late stage. Moreover, the risk of the court deciding novel issues of state law is slim because the action involves straightforward questions of negligence. Finally, judicial economy would not be served by dismissing the case at this late stage only to have it refiled in state court. Thus, the court will, as a matter of discretion, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the case even though defendant Amtrak will be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

United States ex rel. Modglin v. DJO Global Inc. · filed 2015-05-08(c)(3)

Because relators have not stated a viable, federal claim, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over their state law claims at this time.

When a court declines supplemental jurisdiction because it dismissed all federal claims, reinstatement of those claims also requires reversal of the state-law dismissal.

Harris v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority · filed 2015-06-23(c)(3)

And because the court’s dismissal of Harris’ District of Columbia law claims was premised on the dismissal of those federal claims, see Harris, 922 F. Supp. 2d at 36 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)), we reverse that dismissal as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims involving settled issues of state law after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bishop v. County of Macon, N.C. · filed 2015-07-09(c)(3)

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state law claims that involved issues of settled state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Smith v. Illinois School District U-46 · filed 2015-08-13(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), thé Court is permitted to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim if it has dismissed all .claims over which fit has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed; if a federal claim is reinstated on appeal, that basis for declining jurisdiction disappears.

Macias v. Southwest Cheese · filed 2015-08-24(c)(3)

If we had affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling as to all the federal claims, the district court’s decision declining supplemental jurisdiction would have been sound. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (authorizing remand of state-law claims where district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction). However, because we reverse the grant of summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim, the legal predicate for the district court’s decision no longer exists. We therefore vacate that portion of the district court’s judgment declining supplemental jurisdiction and remanding the state-law claims to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Greco v. Senchak · filed 2015-09-23(c)(3)

Here, once the District Court dismissed Greco’s federal Equal Protection claims, the prerequisites for § 1367(c)(3) were met. Put another way, because the District Court dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it had the authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental claims after all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Indag GmbH & Co. v. IMA S.P.A · filed 2015-12-09(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish the Coúrt’s exercise of personal jurisdiction' over the non-resident Defendants and have failed to state a claim for patent infringement against Defendant IMA Industries, the Court has no basis for supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Hawthorne-Burdine v. Oakland University · filed 2016-01-27(c)(3)

In this instance, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly early in the litigation.

Offor v. Mercy Medical Center · filed 2016-03-10(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Therefore, having dismissed all of the Plaintiffs federal claims at an early stage of the litigation, the Court finds it would be inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims.

Kincaid v. Government of the District of Columbia · filed 2016-04-14(c)(3)

But because the Court has dismissed all of the federal claims, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this final claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims.

Coleman v. Secretary United States Department of Homeland Security · filed 2016-05-17(c)(3)

And finally, because the District Court properly dismissed all federal claims in Coleman’s complaint, the District Court properly declined to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over Coleman’s defamation claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester v. Abbott Laboratories & AbbVie Inc. · filed 2016-06-29(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the claims over which it has original jurisdiction at this time, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Funds’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, with retention reserved for unusual circumstances.

Singer v. Progressive Care, SC · filed 2016-08-11(c)(3)

Although the Seventh Circuit has noted occasional circumstances when a federal court should retain jurisdiction over pendent state law claims despite the dismissal of all federal claims, the instant ease does not appear to be one of those “unusual cases.” ... Accordingly, the Court dismisses Singer’s Illinois common law retaliation claim without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Mandola v. County of Nassau · filed 2016-09-30(c)(3)

In the case at bar, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Therefore, Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Farquharson v. Citibank, N.A. · filed 2016-10-31(c)(3)

But if all plaintiff’s federal law claims are dismissed from the case, the district court can elect whether to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially early in the case.

Roberts v. Bliss · filed 2017-01-24(c)(3)

Because the only federal law claim justifying federal jurisdiction is dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims at this early stage in the case, where there has been no significant activity aside from the Court’s consideration of the instant motions to dismiss.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Rudolph v. Ballard · filed 2017-05-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed Rudolph’s federal claims against Commissioner Ballard and Assistant Unit Director Durrett, the Court declines to - exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his* state-law claims for negligence and false imprisonment.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Vogel v. Winchell's Donut Houses Operating Co. · filed 2017-05-18(c)(3)

Here, the Court granted summary judgment on the ADA claim, the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, as it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367 does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over state-law tort claims when all constitutional claims are subject to dismissal.

Nagy v. Social Security Administration · filed 2017-05-25(c)(3)

Lastly, insofar as Nagy intended to assert state-law tort claims against the defendants, the District Court could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them via 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because all of Nagy’s constitutional claims were subject to dismissal.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the claims supporting original jurisdiction have been abandoned, even without their formal dismissal.

Chapman v. Crane Co. · filed 2017-05-31(c)(3)

Crane argues that an abandonment or disclaimer of claims does not constitute a “dismissal” of claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction. ... The case law is to the contrary. ... It was clear here that the federal claims had been abandoned, and the district court explicitly recognized the claims were no longer in the case. ... The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

When only supplemental claims remain, the district court decides in the first instance whether to continue exercising jurisdiction over them.

White v. CitiMortgage, Inc. · filed 2017-06-16(c)(3)

The question of whether to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims is for the district court in the first instance.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Federal Trade Commission v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Co. · filed 2017-09-28(c)(3)

The federal law claims being dismissed, there is no satisfactory basis for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and I decline to do so.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it has dismissed all federal claims.

Anderson v. Dickson · filed 2017-10-27(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed all of Anderson’s federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lott v. Not-For-Profit Hospital Corporation · filed 2017-11-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims, the court declines, at this juncture, to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims that arise under District of Columbia law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Anderson v. Holder, 647 F.3d 1165, 1174 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (permitting district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has general jurisdiction).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

MSPA Claims I, LLC v. Tenet Fla., Inc. · filed 2018-03-29(c)(3)

Because the Court has determined that Counts I, IV, and V should be dismissed, there are no federal claims remaining in this case over which the Court possesses original jurisdiction. As such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining counts in the Second Amended Complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

McMahon v. Fenves · filed 2018-06-25(c)(3)

Since the only federal-law claim has been dismissed, this court ... will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally calls for relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed, absent circumstances warranting departure.

Kejbo v. Caho · filed 2018-06-29(c)(3)

When all of the federal claims drop out, the default rule advises district courts to relinquish jurisdiction over any supplemental state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Correia v. Jones · filed 2018-09-24(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the claims over which the Court has supplemental jurisdiction will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

White v. Simpson · filed 2018-10-10(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the claims over which the Court has supplemental jurisdiction will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not provide a basis to dismiss a related state claim when the federal claims have been reinstated.

Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Balt. Cnty. · filed 2019-02-07(c)(3)

Given our decision on Plaintiffs’ federal claims, § 1367(c)(3) no longer provides a basis for dismissing the state constitutional claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) makes supplemental jurisdiction discretionary after an order removes the court’s original jurisdiction over the action, allowing the court to ask why the remaining claims should stay.

CH Bus Sales, Inc. v. Geiger · filed 2019-03-20(c)(3)

Further, because this Order deprives the Court of original subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit, leaving only “discretionary” supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the parties are ORDERED to show cause as to why this action should remain before this Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; that ground does not support declining jurisdiction when an original-jurisdiction claim remains.

Collymore v. City of New York · filed 2019-04-11(c)(3)

A court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006). Because we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing one of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, we also hold that the district court erred by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Collymore’s state- and local- law claims.

A decision declining supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) because all federal claims were dismissed must be vacated when some federal claims are reinstated.

Lucas v. Henrico County · filed 2019-04-12(c)(3)

Finally, because the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims was based on its dismissal of all the federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2012), we also vacate that portion of the judgment.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Shakouri v. Whitfield · filed 2019-05-01(c)(3)

Having determined that the district court properly dismissed all of Shakouri’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Shakouri’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims at an early stage.

Sterigenics U.S. LLC v. Kim · filed 2019-05-03(c)(3)

Given that Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege a claim under Section 1983 or any other federal law, there are no pending federal claims that could provide grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction. ... The Court also finds that supplemental jurisdiction would not ... be appropriate over Plaintiff's Section 34(b) state-law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Montgomery v. The Board of Trutees of Alabama Agricultural & Mechanical Univeristy · filed 2019-06-25(c)(3)

That being said, a federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. at § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support dismissing supplemental state-law claims when the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction survive dismissal.

Nexus Technologies, Inc. v. Unlimited Power Ltd. · filed 2019-07-03(c)(3)

The Defendants also ask this Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the patent claims is denied, Defendants’ request to dismiss the state-law claims is also denied.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial.

Taylor v. Greenville Public School District · filed 2019-07-09(c)(3)

In a case such as this one, where all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) grants this court discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim.

Kloth-Zanard v. Social Services · filed 2019-07-11(c)(3)

The court, having dismissed the federal claim, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law claims and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal-law claims are dismissed.

Lee v. Lee · filed 2019-07-12(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal-law claims will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Rosa v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority · filed 2019-08-07(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if the district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Having dismissed all federal claims in this case before commencing or even scheduling trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case, which are only state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed all federal claims without prejudice to defer deciding whether to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction while the plaintiff has an opportunity to amend.

Marshall v. Island Lake, Vlg of · filed 2019-08-13(c)(3)

The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state-law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... However, the federal claims in this case have thus far only been dismissed without prejudice, and the Court will grant Marshall an opportunity to amend his Complaint to cure the present pleading deficiencies. ... If Marshall does not file an amended complaint, or if he does and the federal claims continue to fail to state a viable claim, the Court will revisit the issue of whether to relinquish jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Dyson v. The City of Calumet City · filed 2019-08-20(c)(3)

The Court thus dismisses her federal claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). In addition, the Court exercises its discretion to relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction over Dyson’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

CARRILLO v. OWEN · filed 2019-09-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s excessive force claims, no federal claims remain against the Defendants. Consequently, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, including any attempted claim for defamation, libel, assault, and battery. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit declining supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that federal claims were dismissed when a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction remains.

Aguilar v. Ham N Eggery Deli Inc. · filed 2019-09-05(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) does not apply because the court did not “dismiss[] all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” retaining Aguilar’s 2015 FLSA claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial.

SPECIAL POLICE ORGANIZATION OF NEW JERSEY v. CITY OF NEWARK · filed 2019-09-16(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ federal claims have been dismissed and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims on the ground that federal claims were dismissed while federal claims remain pending.

(PC)Suarez v. Beard · filed 2019-09-20(c)(3)

Because this court does not recommend dismissal of all of plaintiff’s federal law claims, there is no basis upon which to recommend dismissal of the state law claims at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the only federal claim.

Rizvi v. Allstate Corporation · filed 2019-09-25(c)(3)

Because Count One is the only federal cause of action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

When all federal claims are dismissed early with leave to amend, the court may defer ruling on related state claims and decline supplemental jurisdiction if no viable federal claim remains.

Guillen v. Colombana · filed 2019-10-10(c)(3)

Given the relatively early phase of litigation, the court anticipates it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state claims unless they are accompanied by at least one viable federal claim. ... Accordingly, the court will defer ruling on the pending motions as to plaintiff’s second, fourth and fifth state law claims until plaintiff has exhausted her opportunity to amend the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Alma · filed 2019-10-15(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal district court is authorized to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims once it has dismissed all of the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Because Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law defamation and negligence claims that Plaintiff seeks to raise in his complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims and to dismiss those state law claims without prejudice.

Booker v. O'Brien · filed 2019-10-16(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state laws claims Plaintiff may have and any such claims are thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hollingsworth v. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency · filed 2019-10-21(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Millinder v. Hudgins · filed 2019-10-21(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Millinder’s remaining claims under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Bennetti 85442 v. Gottfield · filed 2019-10-04(c)(3)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law ... negligence, libel, and defamation claims because Plaintiff’s federal claims have been ... dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) is inapplicable when a bankruptcy court dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction and the supplemental claim simultaneously.

In re Sawtelle Partners, LLC · filed 2019-10-23(c)(3)

Because the Bankruptcy Court dismissed all three claims at once, 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3) is inapplicable.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed while retaining state-law claims against defendants facing a pending federal claim.

Rivera v. Town Of Cicero · filed 2019-10-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed Rivera’s federal claims against the Individual Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims as asserted against the Individual Defendants. Accordingly, Counts V, VII, and VIII are dismissed as to the Individual Defendants except for Defendants Gutierrez and Orozco, against whom a federal claim for unlawful search remains pending.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims.

Moore v. Hopkins County, Kentucky · filed 2019-10-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed Moore’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over his state law claims. ... Hence, Moore’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Talley v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · filed 2019-10-23(c)(3)

As the court will dismiss all claims over which we had original jurisdiction, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Snelling v. City of St. Louis, Missouri · filed 2019-10-24(c)(3)

Because only state law claims remain in this matter, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them and will dismiss them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Giordano v. The School Board of Lee County, Florida · filed 2019-10-25(c)(3)

Even assuming these are properly pled, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court would exercise its discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

After all federal claims supporting federal question jurisdiction are dismissed, the court should cease exercising supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims originally filed in state court.

Bryant v. Department of Public Safety And Corrections · filed 2019-10-25(c)(3)

When federal law claims in an action based on federal question jurisdiction are eliminated and only state law claims remain, the federal court should not continue to exercise jurisdiction.46 Because Plaintiff originally filed this case in state court and the Court no longer has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims must be remanded to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Renken v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System · filed 2019-10-28(c)(3)

Now that the claim stands dismissed, the Court will dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice to their being re-filed in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when no other basis for original jurisdiction exists.

Stage 32, LLC v. Ontiveros · filed 2019-10-28(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed all federal law claims against Defendants and no ... other basis for original jurisdiction exists, the Court DECLINES to exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Marquez v. Klein · filed 2019-10-28(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims as time-barred.

BYRD v. MANGOLD · filed 2019-10-28(c)(3)

The Court having dismissed all of Byrd’s § 1983 claims because they are time-barred, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Byrd’s remaining state law claims.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Cranberry v. SH Management · filed 2019-10-29(c)(3)

Because all claims forming the basis of the Court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), and balancing the issues of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Accordingly, those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ray v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Corrections · filed 2019-10-29(c)(3)

Although Mr. Ray is attempting to raise state law medical negligence claim against PA Miller, there are no remaining federal claims against him or any other Defendant. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Mr. Ray’s state law medical negligence claim.

When the federal question is eliminated before final disposition, the court should remand the remaining local-law claims rather than dismiss them.

Dorsey v. District of Columbia · filed 2019-10-30(c)(3)

While this case was properly removed to the District Court, it is this Court’s responsibility to “employ its discretion to determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ancillary state-law claims.” Araya v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 775 F.3d 409, 414 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citing City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 167, 172-73 (1997)). When the federal question is eliminated before a final disposition in the case, the district court should remand the case rather than dismiss it.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Talley v. Pennsylvania Department of Cor · filed 2019-10-30(c)(3)

As Talley failed to state a claim regarding his federal causes of action, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel, Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 181 (3d Cir. 1999).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims with leave to amend.

Perez v. State of California · filed 2019-10-30(c)(3)

Consequently, IFP status is not warranted and the federal claims are dismissed with leave ... to amend. Because the federal claims were the ostensible basis of the Court’s jurisdiction, it ... declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Juste v. Martinsburg Police Department · filed 2019-10-31(c)(3)

However, the Court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims.

Sekerke v. City of National City · filed 2019-11-04(c)(3)

However, because Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of federal law, the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss his pendent state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed when the case remains at the pleading stage and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor state court adjudication.

Yarbrough v. Swift · filed 2019-11-04(c)(3)

Here, the balance of factors weighs in favor of the Court not exercising supplemental jurisdiction. First, judicial economy concerns weigh in favor of not exercising jurisdiction because the parties are still at the pleading stage in this litigation. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.