28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to order a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when grounds for declining jurisdiction may exist.

Pritchett v. Memorial Health Services · filed 2020-12-10(c)

The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her Unruh Act claim for similar reasons.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Bouyer v. Soledad Entertainment LLC · filed 2020-12-11(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when fairness and comity concerns arise.

Lammey v. Rossi · filed 2020-12-16(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when fairness and comity concerns arise.

Walker v. Lichuan Pan · filed 2020-12-16(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to order a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim.

Garcia v. B R Grigsby Associates, LLC · filed 2020-12-16(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for the court to consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Ed Hull v. Vercher 120 LLC · filed 2020-12-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’1 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Jones v. Pearlman · filed 2020-12-17(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Garcia v. Kenmore 3450, LLC · filed 2020-12-17(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Garcia v. Great Highway, LLC · filed 2020-12-18(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Bouyer v. CLI CA Properties, LLC · filed 2020-12-28(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it otherwise exists.

Whitaker v. 360 Perspectives, Inc. · filed 2020-12-28(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it otherwise exists.

Salinas v. SHC Laguna Niguel I, LLC · filed 2020-12-28(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Whitaker v. Presidio Properties, L.L.C. · filed 2020-12-28(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Perri v. Mendez · filed 2020-12-29(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when its factors do not favor remand.

Falgout v. Anco Insulations Inc · filed 2022-10-28(c)

In this case, the statutory factors above do not weigh in favor of this Court remanding the case back to State Court. First, although Plaintiffs argue that their negligence claims are more frequently litigated in state court, the asbestos exposure and failure to warn claims do not raise any novel or complex issues of Louisiana law. ... This Court will therefore continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the Gibbs factors weigh against exercising it.

Arch Energy, L.C. v. City of Brentwood · filed 2022-11-08(c)

The Court finds that while it may retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, the so-called Gibbs factors heavily weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction here.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims against the same defendants.

Rettig 307829 v. Tennyson · filed 2022-11-14(c)

With respect to Defendants Schroeder, Westcomb, Jack, Lancour, Price, Kortman, and Mann, because Plaintiff’s federal claims against these Defendants will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law “gross negligence” claims that Plaintiff asserts against them.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims, even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Garcia v. Hoskin Hogan · filed 2022-11-28(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Singh v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2022-11-29(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Hee Soon Park v. CGP Commercial, LLC · filed 2022-12-01(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Cox v. Stewart · filed 2022-12-06(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Raglin v. Estrada · filed 2022-12-13(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Before exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, a court may require the plaintiff to show cause why it should do so.

Maldonado v. Maekawa · filed 2022-12-13(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when fairness and comity concerns arise.

Cox v. Sassounian · filed 2022-12-19(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Gonzalez v. De La Cruz · filed 2022-12-19(c)

The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Cox v. Nakawatase · filed 2022-12-20(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Maldonado v. Cervantes · filed 2022-12-21(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Gilbert v. Bonfare Markets, Inc. · filed 2022-12-27(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Maldonado v. Tapia · filed 2022-12-28(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Ventura v. Begakis · filed 2022-12-28(c)

The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Garcia v. Sinaloence Food Products and Services, Inc. · filed 2022-12-28(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to require a plaintiff to explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims before deciding whether to decline jurisdiction.

Hee Soon Park v. BMR2 Investments, LLC · filed 2023-02-23(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Valencia v. Crown Associates I, LLC · filed 2023-02-23(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Hee Soon Park v. Canyon Palm Terrace, LLC · filed 2023-02-23(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of the case.

Luna v. DJM Magnolia, LLC · filed 2023-02-23(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Gilbert v. Castrejon · filed 2023-02-23(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Gastelum v. Best Buy, Inc. · filed 2023-02-24(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Hernandez v. 1037 Victory Place, LLC · filed 2023-02-27(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of the litigation.

Elliott v. A.B.M. Properties Inc. · filed 2023-02-28(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie- Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and related state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims.

Elliott v. Jaber · filed 2023-02-28(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie- Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and related state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Gilbert v. PRA Enterprise, Inc. · filed 2023-03-01(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to retain a supplemental state-law claim through an urgent request for interim relief when compelling reasons do not justify remand before that request is decided.

Gala v. Kavanagh · filed 2023-03-02(c)(4)

But on the unusual circumstances presented here, compelling reasons do not justify a remand before the Court acts on plaintiffs’ TRO request.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Raglin v. Santos · filed 2023-01-03(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Gougis v. 846 E Valley Blvd, LLC · filed 2023-01-03(c)

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim against a defendant whose federal claims are dismissed while retaining a state law claim against a defendant with pending federal claims.

Burley 502426 v. Weller · filed 2023-01-03(c)

As to Defendant Nalley, because the Court will dismiss all of Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Nalley, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim against Defendant Nalley. Plaintiff’s state law claim against Defendant Nalley therefore will be dismissed without prejudice. Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendant Weller, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim against Defendant Weller.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Cox v. One Market Square, LLC · filed 2023-01-04(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity and may require the plaintiff to show cause why it should retain state law claims.

Hee Soon Park v. Khimani · filed 2023-01-04(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Zendejas v. Demirchyan · filed 2023-01-05(c)

The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Ho v. North Coast Business Park I Owners' Association, Inc. · filed 2023-01-10(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims before deciding whether to decline it.

Cauley v. Maha, LLC. · filed 2023-01-10(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(c).

Before deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, a court may require the plaintiff to show cause why it should do so.

Davidson v. 6805 Pacific Boulevard, L. P. · filed 2023-01-10(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Weilch v. Ace Association, LLC · filed 2023-01-10(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367 permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims accompanying a federal ADA claim.

Soto v. Edmond G.W. Chow · filed 2023-01-10(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to weigh fairness and comity, including California’s regulation of frequent disability access litigants, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims.

Ed Hull v. KG Bellflower, LLC · filed 2023-01-10(c)

Given California’s efforts to curtail abuses of the Unruh Act, fairness and comity weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction. ... The Court, therefore, orders the Hull to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Brooke v. Twenty4Seven Hotels Corporation · filed 2023-01-10(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Zendejas v. BT Vineland LLC · filed 2023-01-12(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) calls for weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Redick v. Compass Group USA, Inc. · filed 2023-01-13(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Hernandez v. Vardehoghli · filed 2023-01-17(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Ventura v. Manookian · filed 2023-01-17(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Gonzalez v. Burlington Investment, LLC. · filed 2023-01-17(c)

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Weilch v. Ko · filed 2023-01-17(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Hee Soon Park v. 919 Soto LLC · filed 2023-01-18(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Williams v. Moreira · filed 2023-01-18(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to order a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Gougis v. Realty Income Properties 23, LLC · filed 2023-01-19(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim and permits a show-cause inquiry before that choice is made.

Gilbert v. Samra · filed 2023-01-19(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Further, an inadequate response will result in the Court recommending that supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim be declined and that the Unruh claim be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after considering the circumstances of the case, the nature of the state law claims, and their relationship to the federal claims.

Cox v. Lonnies · filed 2023-01-20(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- including the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims - - district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after considering the circumstances of the case and the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Doering v. Ghar, Inc. · filed 2023-01-20(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- including the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims - - district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c) calls for a case-specific weighing of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Weilch v. Pioneerlux Associates, LP · filed 2023-01-24(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Luna v. Muchamel · filed 2023-01-25(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Hernandez v. Eskandari · filed 2023-01-25(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Zendejas v. Barbato · filed 2023-01-25(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Holland v. Lucera LLC · filed 2023-01-25(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Luna v. A J Golden Real Estate Inc. · filed 2023-01-26(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Gougis v. Flynn · filed 2023-01-26(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims were dismissed while retaining it for a state-law claim against a defendant with a pending federal claim.

Green 850700 v. Taylor · filed 2023-01-26(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Taylor, Alberts, and Wexford County, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against them. Those claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring those claims in state court. Because Plaintiff continues to have a pending federal claim against Defendant Barbara, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim against her.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed while retaining related state law claims against a defendant with a pending federal claim.

Brown 976922 v. Akins · filed 2023-01-27(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants West, Thompson, and Aldape, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law negligence and violation of MDOC policy claims against them. Such claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring those claims in state court. Because Plaintiff continues to have a pending federal claim against Defendant Akins, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law negligence and violation of MDOC policy claims against her.

Section 1367(c) permits a court considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims to order the plaintiff to show cause why it should do so.

Hernandez v. Egari · filed 2023-01-31(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims against a defendant.

Justice 696223 v. Dove · filed 2023-01-31(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” ... Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Hill, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against him.

Section 1367 permits a court to hear state claims alongside a closely related federal claim when they form part of the same case or controversy and the state claims are neither novel, complex, nor substantially predominant.

Alderman v. ADT, LLC · filed 2023-02-01(a), (c)

Further, the court recognizes no reason to abstain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction. The causes of action in Counts I and III are neither novel nor complex and they do not substantially predominate over Count II. Accordingly, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's first and third causes of action because they are so closely related to his FMLA claim that “they form part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims before deciding whether to decline it.

Cuevas v. Dukmajian Nh Holding, LLC · filed 2023-02-01(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Gastelum v. Cotton On USA, Inc. · filed 2023-02-01(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 calls for courts to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Truong v. RH-Lambert Brea Associates, L.P. · filed 2023-02-02

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). Given this authority, as well as the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint on or before February 10, 2023, at 5:00 p.m.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Gonzalez v. Grubert · filed 2023-02-03(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Le v. Little Saigon Square Garden Grove, LLC · filed 2023-02-06

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Given this authority, as well as the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint on or before February 10, 2023, at 5:00 p.m.

Section 1367 calls for courts deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Weilch v. HO Properties LLC · filed 2023-02-06

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Given relevant authority on the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, including but not limited to Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint on or before February 13, 2023, at 5:00 p.m.

Under § 1367(c), a court may require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Walker v. Elite Property LLC. · filed 2023-02-07(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the federal claims remain plausible.

Rescue Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Mental Health & Recovery Services Board of Lucas County · filed 2023-02-08(a)

Because this Court has found Plaintiff’s procedural due process and First Amendment claims plausibly show Plaintiff is entitled to relief, this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over accompanying state law claims.

Holland v. Grand Pacific 7-28, LLC · filed 2023-02-09(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Gonzalez v. 5th St Loft LLC · filed 2023-02-09(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” City of Chicago v. Int’1 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for the court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Rhambo v. Cruz · filed 2023-02-14(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, and the court may order the plaintiff to show cause on that issue.

Ventura v. Model Properties, LLC · filed 2023-02-14(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Cox v. Lopez · filed 2023-02-15(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 calls for courts to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Brooke v. Union Investments USA LLC · filed 2023-02-17

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

Section 1367 calls for courts to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Brooke v. Newport Center Hotel LLC · filed 2023-02-17

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

Section 1367 calls for courts deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in each case and at every stage of litigation.

Brooke v. The Waterfront Hotel LLC · filed 2023-02-17

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

Section 1367 allows a district court to retain state law claims against defendants facing pending federal claims and decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed.

Vandee 542173 v. Wetly · filed 2023-03-13(c)

Here, Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Wetly and Ward. Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against those Defendants. The Court, however, has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Eckward and Moradi. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Eckward and Moradi, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain a supplemental state-law claim arising from the same facts as a federal claim when separating the claims would undermine judicial economy and risk inconsistent rulings.

Alzid v. Porter · filed 2023-03-22(c)

Effectively severing the complaint in half and forcing Plaintiff to litigate his state-law claim, that arises out of the same facts as his federal claim, in a different court would not promote judicial economy and would risk inconsistent rulings. ... Thus, in its discretion, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over Plaintiff’s state-law claim.

Section 1367(c)(4) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction despite exceptional circumstances when judicial economy and fairness favor retention at the case's procedural stage.

Gilbert v. Singh · filed 2023-04-03(c)(4)

After consideration, the Court will decline to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) in light of the procedural posture of this case. ... However, in light of the procedural stage of this case, considerations of judicial economy and fairness weigh in favor retaining jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the sole federal claim is removed from the operative complaint.

Gross v. The City of San Diego · filed 2023-04-06(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim, where the underlying basis for original jurisdiction is a claim that has been dismissed. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction of the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor doing so.

SHEARS v. GOUGHLER · filed 2023-04-18(c)

However, the Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) if doing so is in the interests of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties, as is the case here.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the related federal claims are dismissed and to retain it when related federal claims remain pending.

Hickman 577165 v. Washington · filed 2023-04-19(c)

With respect to Defendants Washington, Huss, Johnson, Caron, Wright, Foster, and Unknown Parties #2, because Plaintiff’s federal claims against these Defendants will be dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants without prejudice. As to Defendants Suvanto, Derrick, and Unknown Party #1, because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against these Defendants, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims against Defendants Suvanto, Derrick, and Unknown Party #1.

Section 1367(c) factors may guide a court deciding whether to retain a supplemental state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim.

Lewis v. United States of America · filed 2023-05-08(c)

Other courts in this district have also considered the discretionary factors listed in the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). See, e.g., Rhodes v. MCIC, Inc., 210 F.Supp.3d 778, 787 (D.Md. 2016). Those factors include: (1) whether the supplemental claim “raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” (2) whether the claim “substantially predominates over the . . . claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,” (3) whether the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and (4) “other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In this case, these considerations weigh against remand.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state constitutional claims when corresponding federal claims proceed.

Evans v. Slagle · filed 2023-05-26(a)

Because the Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims have passed initial review, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Section 14 and 19 claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state tort claims when a federal claim survives initial screening.

Montgomery v. Smith · filed 2023-06-06(a)

Because at least one of the plaintiff's federal claims survives the required PLRA screening, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state tort claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Barnes v. County of Nassau · filed 2023-06-09(a)

In determining whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a district court must balance the “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). The Court, having considered the relevant factors, finds that it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law defamation claim and to dismiss it.

Section 1367(c) gives a court discretion to retain supplemental state-law claims when related federal claims remain and to decline jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims against that defendant.

Kelly 225090 v. Corizon of Michigan · filed 2023-06-12(c)

The Court, therefore, will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against those Defendants. The Court, however, has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Morrison. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Morrison, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Gonzalez v. Pico Property, LLC · filed 2023-06-14(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(4) does not require a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim merely because the clerk entered default.

Brooke v. 247 Hotels Beverage, LLC · filed 2023-08-07(c)(4)

Contrary to Brooke’s contention, the clerk’s entry ... of default did not require the district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(a) allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state and city claims arising from the same facts and relying on the same evidence as federal claims, even after the federal claims fail at summary judgment.

Doe v. New York University · filed 2023-08-17(a)

Although Plaintiff has no federal claim that survives summary judgment, his state and city law claims arise from the same facts and rely on the same evidence as his federal claims, and as a result, this Court retains discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that supplemental jurisdiction exists where pendent claims share a “common nucleus of operative fact” with federal claims) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Given the substantial resources already expended by the parties in developing, and the Court in reviewing, the voluminous factual record and the numerous legal arguments in this case, the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendent claims is warranted. See Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39, 56 (2d Cir. 2004).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a surviving state-law claim after the federal claims are resolved.

May Yang v. Robert Half Int., Inc. · filed 2023-08-22(c)(3)

We reverse and remand Yang’s battery claim to allow the district court to determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but that discretion does not deprive them of authority to hear those claims.

ECBI WARNER, LLC v. PATRICK · filed 2023-09-12(c)

That the district court had the discretion to decline to hear the state law claims is not synonymous with the district court lacking jurisdiction or authority to hear the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against a defendant whose federal claims have been dismissed while retaining state law claims against defendants who still face a federal claim.

Miller 824688 v. Gregg · filed 2023-09-25(c)

With respect to Defendant Surety, because Plaintiff’s federal claims against this Defendant will be dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Surety without prejudice. As to Defendants Gregg, Compton, and Tuzuhowski, because Plaintiff continues to have a pending federal claim against these Defendants, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims against Defendants Gregg, Compton, and Tuzuhowski.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Brooke v. La Peer Hotel Owner LLC · filed 2023-10-12(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when an ADA claim is mooted and dismissed early in the case.

Brooke v. LBVH Hotel LLC · filed 2023-10-12(c)

If an ADA claim is mooted and dismissed at an early stage, the Court has the discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Garcia v. R Hanas, Inc. · filed 2023-10-12(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a federal court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Rhambo v. Computer Concepts, Inc. · filed 2023-10-16

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Benford v. San Antonio Investments, Inc. · filed 2023-10-16

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Given relevant authority on the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, including but not limited to Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint on or before October 24, 2023, at 5:00 p.m.

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Pham v. Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC · filed 2023-10-16

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Given relevant authority on the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, including but not limited to Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint on or before October 24, 2023, at 5:00 p.m.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims whose legal analysis completely overlaps with the federal claims.

Becker v. City of Hillsboro, Missouri · filed 2023-10-17

Given the complete overlap of the legal analysis here, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and rule on both the federal and state claims.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to consider the circumstances of the case and the nature and relationship of the state and federal claims when deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Magallanes v. Martinez · filed 2023-10-18(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- including the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims -- district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims. ... In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for the court to consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Ho v. Regal Group, LLC · filed 2023-10-19(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after considering the circumstances of the case, the governing state law, and the relationship between state and federal claims.

Myers v. Husner · filed 2023-10-20(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- including the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims -- district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.

Cooper v. Big Bear Blvd LLC · filed 2023-10-23(c)

The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and related state claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims.

Cooper v. El Pollo Loco · filed 2023-10-23(c)

The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and related state claims.

Section 1367(a) calls for weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Benford v. Swais · filed 2023-10-23(a)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’”

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Maldonado v. Sheu · filed 2023-10-24(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims before deciding whether to decline jurisdiction.

Chilin v. Leininger & Short · filed 2023-10-24(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Cooper v. Segall · filed 2023-10-24(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Ho v. El Paseo Plaza Partners LLC · filed 2023-10-24

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Given relevant authority on the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, including but not limited to Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint on or before November 1, 2023, at 5:00 p.m.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Chilin v. Forgey · filed 2023-10-24(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Gougis v. Maria De Jesus Amor · filed 2023-10-25(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Gonzalez v. Ecuenvios Ecuaworld Express LLC · filed 2023-12-01(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Bryant v. Box Breaks Los Angeles LLC · filed 2023-12-01(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Bryant v. Crudele · filed 2023-12-01(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the claims, the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Vera v. J and Y K, LLC · filed 2023-12-04(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- including the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims -- district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367 permits accompanying state law claims to proceed for ordinary adjudication when viable federal claims remain.

Youmans v. Barone · filed 2023-12-04

If there are no facially plausible federal law claims against any of the named defendants, then the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. On the other hand, if there are any viable federal law claims that remain, then the validity of any accompanying state law claims may be appropriately addressed in the usual course by way of a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. ... Plaintiff may proceed on his individual capacity claims alleged in his Second Amended Complaint as follows: (1) Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violation against Correction Officer Roy based on segregation conditions excessive to the underlying reason for his confinement of homemade alcohol; and (2) Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violation against Correction Officer Fountain based on excessive force due to his use of severe restraints; and (3) state law torts against both Roy and Fountain.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Gonzalez v. 60Out Escape Room · filed 2023-12-05(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Orosco v. Hernandez · filed 2023-12-06(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when one of its four listed grounds applies.

Myers v. Main HN TN LLC · filed 2023-12-06(c)

District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims based on the circumstances of the case, the nature of those claims, and their relationship to the federal claims.

Ventura v. La Puente Tires, Inc. · filed 2023-12-07(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- including the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims -- district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Ventura v. Airamar Inc. · filed 2023-12-07(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Escobedo v. Singh · filed 2024-02-22(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims forming part of the same case or controversy as a claim within its original jurisdiction, but exercising that jurisdiction is discretionary.

Smyer v. Kroger Ltd. P'ship I · filed 2024-03-08(a)

A district court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction “over all other claims that . . . form part of the same case or controversy” as the claim over which they have original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), but doing so is discretionary, Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 625 F.3d 949, 951 (6th Cir. 2010).

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to dismiss state law claims without prejudice against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed and to retain state law claims against defendants whose federal claims remain pending.

Neely 308258 v. Pederson · filed 2024-03-29(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Theut, Slater, and Smith have been dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against these individuals without prejudice. Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Pederson and Batho remain pending, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against them.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the federal claims are dismissed.

Brandon v. Cambria County Transit Authority · filed 2024-04-03(c)

The District Court stated that, to the extent the claim sounded in state law, it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. This was well within its discretion.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over intertwined state-law claims when the factors favor keeping them together with the federal claims.

Ditcharo v. Union Pacific Railroad Company · filed 2024-04-03(c)

Consequently, balancing the §1367(c) factors militates against remand.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to remand remaining state-law claims after the federal claim is eliminated, using informed discretion that accounts for comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Tutungian v. Massachusetts Electric Company · filed 2024-05-06(c)

In determining whether to retain jurisdiction, courts must exercise their broad discretion in an “informed” manner. ... Here, the circumstances weigh in favor of remanding the action to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims are dismissed and to retain it over a state-law claim against a defendant with a surviving federal claim.

Atkins 333064 v. Washington · filed 2024-05-07(c)

With respect to Defendants Washington, Bauman, Contreras, Knaus, Naeyaert, Unknown Party Hearing Investigator Jack, Lancour, Theut, Loman, Westcomb, and Paulson, because Plaintiff’s federal claims against these Defendants will be dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants without prejudice. As to Defendant Hubble, because Plaintiff continues to have a pending federal claim against Defendant Hubble, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim against Defendant Hubble.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after considering the nature of those claims and the governing state law.

Zendejas v. Skates For Less, Inc. · filed 2024-05-16(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Such discretion may be exercised “[d]epending on a host of factors” including “the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim without first determining whether the plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant.

Munoz v. Texas Roadhouse of Bakersfield, LLC · filed 2024-05-30(c)

Although the undersigned currently has no information before it to assess whether Plaintiff qualifies under California law as a high-frequency litigant, such status is not necessary or dispositive to the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under these circumstances.