28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after considering comity and the nature of the claim.

Merryfield v. Kansas, State of · filed 2024-06-03(c)

Here, after considering the nature of the state-law claim and the issue of comity, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Foye v. Akash Management, LLC · filed 2024-06-27(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)). Plaintiff is, therefore, ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims 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.

United African-Asian Abilities Club v. Freiberg · filed 2024-06-27(c)

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

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

Vera v. West Coast Medical Equipment and Repair Inc. · filed 2024-06-27(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’] Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 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.

Valencia v. Pedroza · filed 2024-06-28(c)

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

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Benford v. Calica Brothers Collision Center LLC · filed 2024-06-28(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.’” ... 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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Valencia v. Sterling · filed 2024-06-29(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 based on the circumstances of the case and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Hernandez v. Kals Cactus LLC · filed 2024-07-02(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after considering the circumstances of the case and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Elliott v. Roldan · filed 2024-07-03(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) permits district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims based on the circumstances of the case and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Maldonado v. Sanchez · filed 2024-07-03(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 calls for courts deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Gonzalez v. SM One Auto, Inc. · filed 2024-07-08(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)).

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

Cooper v. Vanillo · filed 2024-07-09(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’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) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Marquise Bailey v. Yaghoubi · filed 2024-07-10(c)

The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c).

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

Doering v. Feroz Management LLC · filed 2024-07-11(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.

Harrell v. General Parts Distribution LLC · filed 2024-07-12(c)

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

Section 1367(c) gives courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the related federal claims are dismissed.

Taylor 940436 v. Bush · filed 2024-08-02(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). Here, the Court will dismiss the federal claims against Defendants James, Bolton, Nebel, and “Steve” Unknown, and the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction with regard to Defendants James, Bolton, Nebel, and “Steve” Unknown.

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

Mena v. Andrus Plumbing And Heating Inc. · filed 2024-08-05(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.

Marquise Bailey v. Lopez · filed 2024-08-05(c)

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

Section 1367(c) leaves the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction to the court’s discretion; the court may decline to exercise it when no party raises it.

Major Glen Corporation v. Unknown and Unnamed Individuals · filed 2024-08-05(c)

Even so, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is “purely discretionary.” See Shea v. Koehler, 830 F. App’x 781, 783 (7th Cir. 2020); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). No party raised supplemental jurisdiction, so the Court won’t exercise it.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims in the circumstances it lists.

Mister Bailey v. Stubblefield · filed 2024-08-06(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute codifies these principles. After establishing that supplemental jurisdiction encompasses “other claims” in the same case or controversy as a claim within the district courts’ original jurisdiction, § 1367(a), the statute confirms the discretionary nature of supplemental jurisdiction by enumerating the circumstances in which district courts can refuse its exercise: ... “(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of the case.

Benford v. Salas · filed 2024-08-07(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.’” ... 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 even when it exists.

Villalobos v. Kristina Properties, LLC · filed 2024-08-08(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 after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Holland v. J and A Windows, Inc. · filed 2024-08-08(c)

The statute thereby reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, “a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every state of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” Id. at 173 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)); see also Acri v. Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (recognizing district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 (c)).

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

Zendejas v. Reynolds · filed 2024-08-08(c)

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

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

Orosco v. New World Massage Inc · filed 2024-08-08(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)). ... In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Alvaro Orosco to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Boggs v. Man Sun Chung · filed 2024-08-09(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’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Plaintiff is, therefore, ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint.

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

Holland v. M & K Hospitality LLC · filed 2024-08-09(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’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Plaintiff is, therefore, ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Boggs v. Zdas LLC · filed 2024-08-09(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’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) calls for considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Benford v. Willow Studios West, LLC · filed 2024-08-12(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.

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

Boggs v. Mendoza Auto Group · filed 2024-08-12(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’] Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 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 and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Holland v. Soto · filed 2024-08-13(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 courts to consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Mena v. Laguna Self Storage, LLC · filed 2024-08-13(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, 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(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Escobedo v. Innovative Coating Solutions, Inc. · filed 2024-08-13(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. Touch · filed 2024-08-13(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 over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Garcia v. Reclaimed Wood Source, LLC · filed 2024-08-14(c)

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

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

Cooper v. Fleeup · filed 2024-08-14(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, 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)). Plaintiff is, therefore, ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims 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.

Benford v. Y. Joe · filed 2024-08-14(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) permits district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims based on the circumstances of the case and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Gonzalez v. Carlos · filed 2024-08-16(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) permits district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims based on the circumstances of the case and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Benford v. Verve LLC · filed 2024-08-16(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(a) permits a district court with original jurisdiction to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

JTH Tax LLC v. Cortorreal · filed 2024-08-23(a)

Since the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will use its discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to address the state law claims and will apply Virginia law in addressing those claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against individual defendants even when no federal claims remain against those defendants.

Nagel v. Cloverleaf Local School District Board of Education · filed 2024-09-09(a)

As no federal claims remain against the individual Cloverleaf Defendants, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), over the individual Defendants in claims three through six.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim.

Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio · filed 2024-10-01

However, supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367 is discretionary, not mandatory. ... In this case, the Court exercises its discretion to deny supplemental jurisdiction so that a state court can evaluate the claim and the reasonableness of any damages sought.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims survive dismissal and the state-law claims present no novel issues of state law.

David v. Whittaker · filed 2024-10-17(c)(1)

Further, none of the state law claims asserted in the amended complaint present novel issues of state law that might otherwise direct the Court to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim alongside a federal claim.

Schwantes v. Nicholai · filed 2024-12-12(c)

The court will take supplemental jurisdiction over her claim.

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

Anash, Inc. v. Borough of Kingston · filed 2024-12-19(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the Court has not found a preliminary injunction appropriate regarding any of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Therefore, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, a preliminary injunction will not be granted on state law grounds.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when it involves factual findings similar to a federal claim and judicial economy favors hearing both.

Salamey v. Salami · filed 2025-01-14

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law conversion claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court elects to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the aiding in conversion claim against Carter in the interests of judicial economy as the claim involves similar factual findings as the RICO claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against particular defendants when the remaining federal claims against other defendants are unrelated.

Spriestersbach v. State of Hawaii · filed 2025-02-12(c)(3)

Because the remaining claims against the PD Defendants are state law claims, this Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See § 1367(c)(3). ... These claims do not compel this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against the Individual PD Defendants because the legal malpractice claim and NIED claim that remain against them are unrelated to the remaining federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lukashin v. United Collection Bureau Inc · filed 2025-02-12(c)(2)

This Court will not retain jurisdiction over those claims. See Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir.), supplemented, 121 F.3d 714 (9th Cir. 1997), as amended (Oct. 1, 1997) (“a federal district court with power to hear state law claims has discretion to keep, or decline to keep, them under the conditions set out in [28 U.S.C.] § 1367(c)”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) (authorizing a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction where a state law claim “substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction”).

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

Watson 711283 v. Tomadewicz · filed 2025-03-05(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)). Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Cope, Rohrig, and Morrison will be dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when none of its factors counsels against doing so.

GLADU v. MAGNUSSON · filed 2025-03-10(c)

Now, with all of Mr. Gladu’s federal claims revived, and because none of the factors in § 1367(c) counsel against exercising jurisdiction, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Count VI.

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

Carter 262495 v. Jones · filed 2025-03-21(c)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants MDOC, Purcey, and Barnes will be dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants.

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

Goben v. Kent, County of · filed 2025-03-21(c)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Kent County, Vital Core Health Strategies, Sutton, Iacaboni, Dingman, Dunham, Unknown Party #2, Unknown Party #3, and Unknown Parties will be dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, taking judicial economy, multiple litigation, and unnecessary decisions of state law into account.

McQuin 863639 v. Nurkala · filed 2025-03-27(c)

Furthermore, in determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues.” Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). 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)). Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Stromer, Mayo, Wilson, and Perttu will be dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants. Because Plaintiff continues to have a pending federal claim against Defendant Nurkala, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Nurkala.

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

Fleming 802151 v. McIntyre · filed 2025-04-10(c)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Cannon, Jones, and Fosburg will be dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants. Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants McIntyre, Bartlett, and Stamper, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants.

Section 1367 gives a court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when a federal claim against the same defendant remains pending.

Alvarado 931694 v. Unknown Party · filed 2025-04-14(c)

Because Plaintiff continues to have a pending federal claim against Defendant Stewart, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Stewart.

Section 1367(c) makes dismissal of supplemental state-law claims discretionary; a court may retain them where a related federal claim remains pending.

Simmons 510274 v. Coblentz · filed 2025-04-30(c)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Coblentz, Becher, and Rewerts will be dismissed. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants. However, because Plaintiff continues to have a pending federal claim against Defendant Heeke, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims against Defendant Heeke.

Section 1367(c) gives courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims are dismissed and to retain it where federal claims remain pending.

Coleman 379771 v. Morgan · filed 2025-05-12(c)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Bartholomue, Riley, Spanzola, Vandenakker, HUM, and Jane Doe Nurse will be dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants. Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Morgan, Jones, EMT Officers, and Grier, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants who have no federal claims pending against them.

Harvin v. Cheney · filed 2025-06-06(c)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims for recklessness against Lieutenant McDonald, Warden Barone, Captain Papoosha, and Commissioner Quiros pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Silla v. Holdings Acquisition Co LP · filed 2025-06-16(c)

The District Court properly treated Silla’s PHRA claims as coextensive with her Title VII and ADA claims and rejected them on like grounds, see Atkinson v. LaFayette Coll., 460 F.3d 447, 454 n.6 (3d Cir. 2006); Kelly v. Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102, 105 (3d Cir. 1996), and the District Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Silla’s breach-of-contract claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a novel state-law claim when the relevant factors favor hearing it alongside a related federal claim.

Jensen v. Utah County · filed 2025-08-04(c)

Although Plaintiffs’ state free-exercise-clause claim raises novel and complex issues, the court finds that the balance of the factors weighs toward exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain related state law claims or remand them after dismissing the federal claims on nonjurisdictional grounds.

Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers, Inc. · filed 2025-08-14(c)

Because the district court’s dismissal of the federal claims could not have been jurisdictional, the court had discretion either to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims or to decline and remand them.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the related federal claims and to retain it where federal claims remain.

Peck v. Niles Police Department · filed 2025-08-19(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)). Here, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Niles Police Department, Berrien County, and Vital Core, the balance of the relevant considerations weights against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiff’s state law claims against those Defendants. The Court, therefore, will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Niles Police Department, Berrien County, and Vital Core without prejudice. However, because Plaintiff’s Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendants Wainscott and Hairston remain in the case, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Wainscott and Hairston.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to weigh whether to retain state law claims when the federal claims against some defendants have been dismissed.

Knight 730807 v. Washington · filed 2025-09-18(c)

Here, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Washington, Macauley, and Unknown Parties, the balance of the relevant considerations weights against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiff’s state law claims against those Defendants. The Court, therefore, will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Washington, Macauley, and Unknown Parties. However, because Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment personal capacity claims for damages against Defendant Al-Ani remain in the case, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Al-Ani.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when they do not substantially predominate and judicial economy supports hearing them together.

Tomlin v. State of New Mexico · filed 2025-09-30(c)

Exercising that discretion is appropriate here at this stage, because: (i) Tomlin’s State law claims derive from an identical set of facts and do not substantially predominate over her federal claims, (ii) the Court may be able to resolve at least some of the State law claims without addressing novel or complex issues of State law, and (ii) judicial economy supports exercise of supplemental jurisdiction at this stage.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the related federal claims are dismissed.

Ward 0162169 v. Griffiths · filed 2025-10-01(c)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Morrison will be dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Morrison. Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendant Griffiths, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Griffiths.

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

Zupko v. County of Ocean · filed 2025-10-07(c)(3)

The decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction was well within the district judge's discretionary power.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain related state-law claims when the factors governing its discretion favor exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Deroche v. Anco Insulations, Inc. · filed 2025-10-08(c)

Balancing the factors militates in favor of exercising, not declining supplemental jurisdiction over all remaining claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law negligence claim alongside a federal claim.

Czapiewski · filed 2025-12-29(a)

The court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law negligence claim.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when a federal claim remains in the case.

Nguyen · filed 2026-01-14(a)

Because the Court will deny the Shyrock Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs’ RICO claim, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when doing so aids efficient disposition and none of subsection (c)’s exceptions apply.

Sobie · filed 2026-03-27(c)

Because exercising supplemental jurisdiction over this claim will aid the efficient disposition of the parties’ dispute, and none of the exceptions apply, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a), (c)(1) - (4), the Court exercises jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining State-law claim.

Section 1367(a) allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law negligence claim at the screening stage.

Harland · filed 2026-04-01(a)

At this early stage, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but it does not permit the court to decline claims independently within its original diversity jurisdiction.

Kavanaugh · filed 2026-04-10(c)(3)

Even if the Court were to interpret the plaintiff’s position in his motions to remand as seeking to withdraw any claim arising under federal law (in which case the Court would then have discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims and remand the case), the presence of diversity jurisdiction provides an independent basis for original (not supplemental) jurisdiction over the state law causes of action. The Court has no discretion to decline jurisdiction over claims that fall within its original subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Orr v. Calavan Kia of West Atlanta · filed 2026-06-09(c)(3)

Because the district court dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it had discretion to dismiss the state law contract claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits, but does not require, a district court with original jurisdiction over federal claims to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Gannon v. Texas Dept of Trans · filed 2026-06-12

Although we have provided that a district court may “exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 where it has original jurisdiction over the federal law claims at issue,” Railroad Commission, 898 F.3d at 503, we have nowhere implied that a district court is required to do so.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to retain supplemental state claims after the federal claim fails, but does not require it to do so.

Rothschild v. Braselmann · filed 2018-01-04(c)(3)

Accordingly, plaintiff may be unable to establish the Eighth Amendment claim, and, while the federal court could still retain the supplemental state claims, it is not required to and the action could be dismissed (see Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Harvey Gerstman Assoc., Inc., US Dist Ct, ED NY, 11-CV-4825, Feuerstein, J., 2012).

Section 1367 permits a district court to choose whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim when a federal claim remains pending.

Ralph Smith, Jr. v. James Hood, III · filed 2018-08-10

Additionally, we VACATE the district court’s dismissal of Smith’s pendant state law claim on this issue to permit the district court to ... choose whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when no statutory reason to decline jurisdiction is present.

Ryan v. Salisbury · filed 2019-05-14(c)

Because this is so, and because at this stage none of the issues iterated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is present, the Court finds the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims proper.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims and dismiss them with prejudice when the record supports dismissal of both the federal and state claims.

Ivy v. Warren Kimbrough David W. Shull · filed 1997-05-22

When Ivy failed to respond to those motions, the district court properly concluded that there was no evidence to support either the § 1983 or the state law claims. In these circumstances, there was no plain error, and no abuse of the court’s discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, in dismissing the pendent claims with prejudice.

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

Valencia v. Egizi · filed 2022-04-28(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 weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Zendejas v. Valley Industrial Properties, Inc. · filed 2022-04-29(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).

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 and may require the plaintiff to show cause for retaining those claims.

Elliott v. Y. Hong · filed 2022-05-05(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) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the statutory factors do not warrant declining it.

Johnson v. Hunter Warfield, Inc. · filed 2022-05-05(c)

Moreover, the state law claims are related to the federal claim such that they form part of the same case or controversy, and consideration of the 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) factors supports exercising supplemental jurisdiction in this matter.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when they raise no novel or complex state-law issue and do not substantially predominate over the federal claims.

Stacy v. Jennmar Corporation of Virginia, Inc. · filed 2022-05-06(c)(1), (c)(2)

While supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), I find that it would be appropriate in this case because the state law claims do not “raise[] a novel or complex issue of State law” or “substantially predominate[]” over the other claims.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation and may require the plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised over state law claims.

Williamson v. Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation · filed 2022-05-09(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, 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) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Redick v. Charlies Trio Cafe, LP · filed 2022-05-09(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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Hee Soon Park v. Borovay · filed 2022-05-09(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 the Disabled Persons Act, Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Rhambo v. George · filed 2022-05-09(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 the Disabled Persons Act, Unfair Competition Act, and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to consider fairness and comity in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Brooke v. Paradigm TVM LLC · filed 2022-05-09(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’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). ... 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 cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when fairness and comity concerns arise.

Ventura v. Holman · filed 2022-05-09(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 the Disabled Persons Act, Health & Safety Code, and negligence 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 before deciding whether to retain them.

Elliott v. ROIC California, LLC · filed 2022-05-11(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).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a federal court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity and may require the plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Holland v. Aracelia Fast · filed 2022-05-12(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 a court considering supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of the case.

Ed Hull v. Cerritos TC Property, LLC · filed 2022-05-12(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 based on the circumstances of the case, the nature and governing law of those claims, and their relationship to the federal claims.

Brooke v. W and J Business Ventures LLC · filed 2022-05-13(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 weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Bryant v. Gee · filed 2022-05-13(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, 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.

Raglin v. Sunny Chin · filed 2022-05-13(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 district court to require a showing before retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and to decline jurisdiction if the response is inadequate.

Rhambo v. Rosemead East Pasadena LLC · filed 2022-05-17(c)

Further, an inadequate response will result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims and the dismissal of those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims, including when a plaintiff fails to justify retaining them after an order to show cause.

Delapaz v. Wolf · filed 2022-05-17(c)

Further, an inadequate response will result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims and the dismissal of those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Brooke v. Silver Creek Properties LLC · filed 2022-05-17(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.

Rhambo v. Tieo · filed 2022-05-17(c)

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

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

Dalton v. City of Santa Barbara · filed 2022-05-17(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 consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding at any stage whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Jones v. Vermont Hollywood Associates, L.P. · filed 2022-05-17(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, 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) calls for courts to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Turner v. Kim · filed 2022-05-17(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, 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) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Bryant v. Shinmei Restaurant Corporation · filed 2022-05-18(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.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when federal claims survive.

Makhsudova v. City of New York · filed 2022-05-18(a)

Because the Court ultimately finds that certain of Plaintiff’s Title VII claims survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s correlative NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims.

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

Ed Hull v. Armehr Corp. · filed 2022-05-19(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 court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Weilch v. Melendez · filed 2022-05-19(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims for the reasons listed in that subsection.

Hee Soon Park v. JA Petroleum Corp · filed 2022-05-20(c)

The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after considering the circumstances of the case and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Jones v. Diab · filed 2022-05-23(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) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim.

Jones v. Shokri · filed 2022-05-23(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. 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 a related state-law claim.

Brooke v. Good Family Inc. · filed 2022-05-23(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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Mister Bailey v. Gewelber · filed 2022-05-26(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) calls for consideration of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Cleveland v. Moon Y. Sung · filed 2022-05-27(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.

Section 1367(c) lets a court require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of the case.

Raglin v. Lim · filed 2022-05-27(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) lets district courts decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on the circumstances of the case and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Raglin v. 1711 S. Catalina LLC · filed 2022-05-31(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) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Mister Bailey v. Kristy Xinli Lee · filed 2022-06-01(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) calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Ventura v. Donahue · filed 2022-06-01(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 deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation and to require the plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Weilch v. Song Chim Kaing · filed 2022-06-02(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) calls for a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Weilch v. Earth Vitality Medical Group, Inc. · filed 2022-06-02(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) permits a court to consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Weilch v. Quach · filed 2022-06-02(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 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even when it has discretion to decline that jurisdiction.

Taveras v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2022-06-02(c)

To be clear, in dismissing Taveras’s case, the Court properly exercised original jurisdiction over Taveras’s federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims as provided for by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. While perhaps the Court could have exercised its discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, it chose not to; and Taveras has not presented any reason why it should have.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim in the interests of judicial economy.

Sanders v. Genesee County · filed 2022-06-02(c)

The only basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s conversion claim is supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). “[S]upplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, not mandatory.” Charvat v. NMP, LLC, 656 F.3d 440, 446 (6th Cir. 2011). In the interests of judicial economy, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims it could otherwise hear.

Steward v. Touchpoint Support Services, LLC · filed 2022-06-03(c)

While the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, it has the discretion to decline doing so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when fairness and comity concerns arise from state disability access litigation rules.

Weilch v. Mexbuck, LLC · filed 2022-06-06(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, Disabled Persons Act, Unfair Competition Act, and negligence 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.

Benford v. 35th Place MB, LLC · filed 2022-06-10(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.

Weilch v. Long Beach Investments, LLC · filed 2022-06-14(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 cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Raglin v. Yellow Owl Properties Managements, Inc · filed 2022-06-14(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, 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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Elliott v. Ling · filed 2022-06-21(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, Disabled Persons Act claim, Health and Safety Code claim, and negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Benford v. Greenspan · filed 2022-06-22(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) calls for weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Davidson v. Fairview Sunflower, LLC · filed 2022-06-24(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, 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).

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Brooke v. FPL LLC · filed 2022-06-24(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, convemience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carmegie-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 asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Lee v. Sood Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2022-06-29(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) allows a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Bryant v. Yang · filed 2022-06-29(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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Marquise Bailey v. Hampton · filed 2022-07-01(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 require a showing on whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims and to decline jurisdiction if the showing is inadequate.

Elliott v. Shen · filed 2022-07-07(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). ... Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims and dismissing such claim or claims without further notice, pursuant to 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.

Benford v. OC Fuels LLC · filed 2022-07-07(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 why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Mister Bailey v. Oltimate Venture LLC · filed 2022-07-07(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(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims before deciding whether to decline it.

Garcia v. Realton LLC · filed 2022-07-08(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.

Garcia v. Gutierrez · filed 2022-07-12(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)(2) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction even when state-law claims predominate over federal claims.

Miller v. Sawant · filed 2022-07-13(c)(2)

Given the existence of original jurisdiction, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims even though there exist grounds to decline to do so under § 1367(c)(2). Section 1367(c)(2) applies here because the state law claims predominate over the federal defamation claims, as Plaintiffs oddly admit.

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

Brooke v. Best Western Norwalk Inn LLC · filed 2022-07-14(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act 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.

Holland v. Warehouse Gardena Properties, A CA L.P. · filed 2022-07-15(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 state-law claims.

Elliott v. TKWM, LLC · filed 2022-07-20(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.

Elliott v. Lin · filed 2022-07-22(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)(4) allows a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances provide other compelling reasons.

Lee v. Hernandez · filed 2022-07-26(c)(4)

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim and related state law claims based on the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Arroyo.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims and dismiss them after considering whether to exercise that jurisdiction.

Williams v. Jung · filed 2022-07-27(c)

Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims and dismissing such claim or claims without further notice, pursuant to 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.

Elliott v. C.K.S. Investment, Inc. · filed 2022-07-27(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.

Davidson v. Castro · filed 2022-07-29(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after considering the circumstances of the case and the governing state law.

Garcia v. Sandlor Properties, Inc. · filed 2022-08-02(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). ... 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 require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Garcia v. Monroy · filed 2022-08-04(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).

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

Garcia v. Martinez · filed 2022-08-04(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.