28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Cox v. McCraley · filed 1998-02-10(c)(3)

As the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction in the case at bar, the court exercises its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and declines supplemental jurisdiction over Cox’s state' law claims. Thus, those claims will be dismissed from this action without prejudice.

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

Pravda v. City of Albany · filed 1998-02-12(c)(3)

In addition, district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the court has dismissed all of a plaintiff’s federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because there are no longer any federal claims pending, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims that may remain.

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

Cunliffe v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. · filed 1998-03-31(c)(3)

Where a federal court dismisses the claim upon which federal question jurisdiction was based, jurisdiction over any pendent state claim is brought into question. The jurisdictional statute provides that “[t]he district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (1997). ... In its sound discretion, this court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state claim that remains.

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

Progressive Transportation Services, Inc. v. County of Essex · filed 1998-04-03(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiffs federal claim should be dismissed, this Court chooses to exercise its discretion and dismiss the remaining state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3) (“[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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

Honess 52 Corp. v. Town of Fishkill · filed 1998-04-06(c)(3)

Pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim where the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Here, having dismissed the § 1983 claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction, over the remaining pendent state claims.

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

Tops Markets, Inc. v. Quality Markets, Inc. · filed 1998-04-09(c)(3)

When Judge Elfvin granted summary judgment dismissing Tops' Sherman Act claims, the only federal claims, he properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. The governing statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (1994), permits a district court, in its discretion, to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all federal claims.

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

DM Research, Inc. v. College of American Pathologists · filed 1998-04-14(c)(3)

Having determined that the sole federal claim should be dismissed, the Court has discretion to determine whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Engelhardt v. Paul Revere Life Insurance · filed 1998-04-27(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) empowers the trial court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it has dismissed all of the related claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Jersey Heights Neighborhood Ass'n v. Glendening · filed 1998-04-28(c)(3)

Given that the Court has no jurisdiction over the federal claims, as discussed above, the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Maryland Environmental Policy Act action, a state law claim.

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

Omega Homes, Inc. v. City of Buffalo, NY · filed 1998-04-30(c)(3)

Thus, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state.law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after it disposes of all federal claims, dismissing the state claims without prejudice.

Burtner v. Hiram College · filed 1998-06-26(c)(3)

Because pendent jurisdiction is associated principally with federal question jurisdiction, where the existence of a federal claim supports jurisdiction of a pendent state claim, disposition of the federal claim allows the district court to exercise its discretion to allow any unresolved state claims to be heard in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims (Counts III, IV, V, and VI) and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Krim v. Coastal Physician Group, Inc. · filed 1998-07-31(c)(3)

Finally, in view of the fact that Plaintiffs federal securities law claims have been dismissed, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim against the individual Defendants for negligent misrepresentation. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Franklin v. Harry A. Zain, M.D. · filed 1998-08-07(c)(3)

We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Edwards v. Widnall · filed 1998-09-18(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that when a district court has dismissed the federal claims which invested it with original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any claim over which it has supplemental jurisdiction. ... There are no special circumstances justifying departure from this general precept. Both of the state law claims are accordingly dismissed without prejudice.

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

Nweke v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · filed 1998-10-29(c)(3)

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Since the federal claims have been dismissed, leaving no independent basis of jurisdiction over the remaining state claims brought pursuant to the NYHRL and the NYCCRL, they will also be dismissed.

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

Moreno v. State of California · filed 1998-11-12(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the only claim in the complaint based upon federal law. Since that claim is subject to dismissal without leave to amend, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim.

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

Adams v. State of Louisiana · filed 1998-11-24(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, inter alia, if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after disposing of the sole federal claim, taking account of judicial economy and potentially novel state-law issues.

Griffin v. NBD Bank · filed 1999-02-09(c)

Based upon these considerations, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and remand the remaining claims to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Telepo v. Palmer Township · filed 1999-02-26(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment in favor of all of the defendants as to all of plaintiffs section 1983 claims, and there being no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the state law claim, the Court need not address the merits of plaintiffs defamation claim. Therefore, the Court will exercise its discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and will decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants for whom no federal claim remains actionable.

Riley v. Town of Bethlehem · filed 1999-03-30(c)

In this case, because no federal claims are actionable against defendants Fuller, Welt, Hodom, Wiggan, Lewis, Morgan, O’Brien, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against them.

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

Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc. v. County of Nassau, Inc. · filed 1999-05-03(c)(3)

Section 1367(c) of Title 28 provides, in part, that the district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). ... This Court, in an exercise of its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state law claims. Given that discovery apparently may not have even begun, the dismissal of all the federal claims warrants dismissal, without prejudice, of the state law claims as well.

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

Miller v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, COUNTY OF ROGERS · filed 1999-05-04(c)(3)

Since there is no diversity, the disposition, of the § 1983 action against Morgan and Bordwine eliminates the federal claim at issue here. The Court therefore dismisses without prejudice Miller’s remaining state claims.

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

Summit Properties, Inc. v. Hoechst Celanese Corp. · filed 1999-05-24(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims. These matters are more properly dealt with in the state courts.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court broad discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Matherne v. Larpenter · filed 1999-06-02(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) this court has broad discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. The Court, having dismissed Matherne’s federal law claims, hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Newtown v. Shell Oil Co. · filed 1999-06-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed the sole basis for federal jurisdiction as to the individual defendants, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common law and state law claims against the individual defendants.

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

Kennedy v. Berry · filed 1999-06-17(c)(3)

Moreover, the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kennedy’s state-law negligence claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed, particularly when the litigation is still undeveloped and few resources have been spent on the remaining claims.

Banovetz v. King · filed 1999-08-25(c)

In the absence of the United States as a party, we find that the considerations dictated by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 militate against our retention of supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs State law claims. First, the litigation is still comparatively undeveloped. Although the remaining claims are not in areas of unsettled State law, judicial restraint counsels against resolving them where it appears that little of the parties’, or the Court’s, resources have already been devoted to their merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the federal claims are dismissed without a trial.

Idit Dobbs-Weinstein, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee v. Vanderbilt University, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1999-08-26(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court has the discretion to dismiss claims over which it has supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. This court reviews the dismissal of pendent state law claims for abuse of discretion. See Taylor v. First of America Bank-Wayne, 973 F.2d 1284, 1287 (6th Cir. 1992). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Dobbs-Weinstein's state law claims without prejudice after it had dismissed her federal claims without a trial.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it grants summary judgment on the federal claims.

Miller v. Kennebec County · filed 1999-08-30(c)(3)

In light of the fact that the Court has granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims.

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

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership · filed 1999-08-31(c)(3)

The remaining claims are also dismissed, as the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs state claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after it dismisses all claims supporting original jurisdiction, considering judicial efficiency, economy, and comity.

Quality Tubing, Inc. v. Precision Tube Holdings Corp. · filed 1999-09-10(c)(3)

By granting summary judgment for Precision. Tube on Quality Tubing’s patent infringement claim, this court has dismissed the only claim that supports federal jurisdiction. “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The interests of judicial efficiency, economy, and comity all weigh in favor of dismissing the state law claim without prejudice.

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

Jubelirer v. Mastercard International, Inc. · filed 1999-09-17(c)(3)

Accordingly, there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the remaining declaratory judgment claims. In light of the fact that all federal claims have been dismissed at this stage of the proceeding the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the state claims ordinarily are dismissed without prejudice.

Papin v. Lotton · filed 1999-10-07(c)

Having dismissed all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Marks v. National Communications Ass'n, Inc. · filed 1999-10-26(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Consequently, the Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Lipiro v. Remee Products · filed 1999-11-08(c)(3)

This Court, however, declines to exercise jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims.

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

Jordan v. Chrysler Credit Corp. · filed 1999-11-12(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 states that “[t]he district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Because the Court will dismiss the TILA claim, the Court declines to exercise continued jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Stevenson Ex Rel. Stevenson v. Martin County Board of Education · filed 1999-11-15(c)(3)

The court’s exercise of jurisdiction over such claims is discretionary, and a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim “if [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Since the court in this case has dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under federal law, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claim.

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

McKinney v. City of Grosse Pointe Park · filed 1999-11-15(c)(2)

It is well-established that a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when state law “substantially predominates” over federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Cook v. Tulsa Police Dept. · filed 1999-12-14(c)(3)

We review the court’s decision regarding the exercise of pendant state jurisdiction for an abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... We likewise conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the pendant state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim, especially early in the suit.

Santiago v. Alonso · filed 2000-03-31(c)(3)

The dismissal of plaintiffs federal claim leaves only plaintiffs claims under Puerto Rico law. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs Commonwealth claims against Defendants.

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

Gordon v. Lowell · filed 2000-04-18(c)(3)

Although we have the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, we decline to do so based on the consideration set forth in section 1367(c)(3), that we have dismissed all claims over which we had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts broad discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Dashields v. Robertson · filed 2000-05-10(c)(3)

In sum, the district court's remanding of Appellee's remaining claims was proper and well within the wide latitude of discretion afforded trial courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and § 1441(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial.

Warden v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. · filed 2000-05-18(c)(3)

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, I “should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims rather than resolving them on the merits.”

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

Thomas v. Dickel · filed 2000-05-30(c)(3)

We believe, therefore, that the district court had ample discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides that a district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction."

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed; federal claims remaining against other defendants support retaining related state-law claims.

Cox v. Indian Head Industries, Inc. · filed 2000-06-05(c)(3)

Section 1367(c) provides a number of reasons for a district court to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. The only relevant provision is subsection (3), which allows for dismissal of the supplemental claims where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” While it is likely that the district court will dismiss the Title VII claim against Defendant Barnett, other federal claims remain as to the other defendants and, as to those claims, Defendant Barnett appears to be inextricably intertwined.

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

Watkins v. California Dept. of Corrections · filed 2000-06-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed Claim 2 as against the individual defendants, the Court finds it inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims brought against those defendants in their personal capacities.

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

Brown v. Secretary of Air For · filed 2000-06-23(c)(3)

The district court also noted that it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 in any event, because Mr. Brown's state law claims involved substantially different facts from his claims asserted under the USFSPA. The district court properly exercised its discretion in this regard. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).

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

Polar International Brokerage Corp. v. Reeve · filed 2000-06-27(c)(3)

Because all of plaintiffs’ federal claims are dismissed, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims and find that those claims must be dismissed as well.

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

Attorney General of Canada v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. · filed 2000-06-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed Canada’s federal causes of action at this early stage of the litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the common law fraud action.

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

Chestand v. Medical Technology · filed 2000-06-22(c)(3)

Then, having granted summary judgment to MTRA in Chestand’s Title VII claim, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Chestand’s state claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... We find no error in this regard.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, particularly when little case activity has occurred.

Weber v. Contempo Colours, Inc. · filed 2000-07-07(c)(3)

This Court having dismissed the sole claim over which it has jurisdiction, and no significant discovery or other procedures having occurred before this Court, this Court will exercise its discretion to dismiss supplemental state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ashann-Ra v. Com. of Va. · filed 2000-08-22(c)

However, inasmuch as the court herein disposes of all Ra’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it resolves the federal claims.

Barstow v. Kennebec County Jail · filed 2000-08-22(c)

Since the Court grants summary judgment with regard Counts I and II, the Court no longer has federal question jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1831. Furthermore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Counts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support dismissal of supplemental state law claims when the federal claims remain in the case.

Emcore Corp. v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP · filed 2000-07-06(c)(3)

Such request, predicated on the unrealized assumption that the court would reject plaintiffs federal RICO claims, is denied.

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

Hexagon Packaging Corp. v. Manny Gutterman & Associates, Inc. · filed 2000-08-29(c)(3)

In that the court dismisses the federal claims, this court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Martinetti v. Town of New Hartford Police Department · filed 2000-09-18(c)(3)

The only claim over which this court had original jurisdiction having been dismissed, exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is declined, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and the matter is remanded to the New York state court from which it was removed.

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

Antoine L. Garabet, M.D., Inc. v. Autonomous Technologies Corp. · filed 2000-09-18(c)(3)

A district court, within its discretion, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it once had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal claims survive dismissal.

Leon v. County of San Diego · filed 2000-09-09(c)(3)

Because the court does not dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal causes of action, Defendants’ request that the court refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiffs’ state law claim is denied.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it grants summary judgment on the claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the remaining claims involve different factual and legal issues.

Torrence v. CHERRY CREEK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 5 · filed 2000-10-05(c)(3)

Finally, I note that Plaintiffs Third and Fourth claims for relief are based on state law and my authority over them a matter of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Having granted summary judgment on the claims over which I have original jurisdiction, and seeing no reason to retain jurisdiction over what are uniquely state law claims involving factual and legal issues categorically different from those involved in Plaintiffs federal claims, I find there are compelling reasons for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims for relief. Accordingly, IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Plaintiffs Third and Fourth claims for relief are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it grants summary judgment on all federal claims.

Lansdown v. Chadwick · filed 2000-10-05(c)(3)

Defendants have also moved for summary judgment on the Estate’s state law claims. However as the court has granted summary judgment in their favor on the only federal law claims, we decline to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(a) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims while federal claims remain pending.

Thomas v. Nakatani · filed 2000-10-13(a)

The Court has not dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal claims and retention of jurisdiction over her state law claims is appropriate for the time being.

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

Cox v. AA CHECK CASHIERS, INC. · filed 2000-11-08(c)(3)

As Plaintiffs TILA claim provides the only basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case and as the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state-law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment filed by the various Defendants (Docs.275, 329) are hereby granted.

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

Horwitz v. L & J.G. Stickley, Inc. · filed 2000-11-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff s federal claim at this early stage of the litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law cause of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claim fails.

Herbin v. Hoeffel · filed 2001-01-18(c)(3)

Appellant failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the defendants did not act under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981). The district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.

Mooney v. NORTHWEST ILL. REGIONAL COMMUTER RR CORP. · filed 2001-01-25(c)(3)

Because the FELA claims were settled and dismissed, federal jurisdiction over this suit is based entirely upon the supplemental jurisdiction statute. That statute provides that a district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" over supplemental state law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Therefore, it is within this court's discretion whether to proceed with the remaining third-party claim or dismiss it. To make this determination, the court must balance the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity. ... Therefore, this court exercises its discretion in dismissing the third-party complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain pending.

Samedi v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2001-01-26(c)(3)

As the Court has not granted summary judgment on all federal claims against Defendant County, it will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of actions, as well.

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

Duratherm, Inc. v. Onsite Technology LLC · filed 2001-01-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Duratherm’s pendent state law claims.

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

Summum v. City of Ogden · filed 2001-01-31

In light of the foregoing, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction of the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when no federal claim remains.

Palermo v. Correctional Medical Services Inc. · filed 2001-04-03(c)(3)

With no remaining federal claim, this Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Durkee’s state law premises liability claim.

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

Walker v. City of Salisbury · filed 2001-04-04(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, with the state claims dismissed without prejudice.

Fiorentino v. Vanderbilt · filed 2001-04-11(c)(3)

We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fiorentino's state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), but the dismissal of these claims should be without prejudice, see Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir. 1998).

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

Elliott v. British Tourist Authority · filed 2001-04-30(c)(3)

Plaintiffs federal claims all having been dismissed, we decline to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

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

Pahler v. City of Wilkes-Barre · filed 2001-05-05(c)(3)

Although section 1367(c)(3) provides the court with discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the court has dismissed all other claims over which it has original jurisdiction, that discretion will not be exercised here.

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

Hvr, Inc. v. City of Newport, Ri · filed 2001-05-11(c)

In the present case, no federal claims remain, leaving only questions of law arising under state law and the Rhode Island Constitution. Under these circumstances, this Court declines the opportunity to interpret state law in a matter devoid of any federal interest. Accordingly, the Court will not exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice after it dismisses all federal claims.

Freilich v. Board of Directors of Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc. · filed 2001-05-14(c)(3)

For the following reasons, all of the defendants’ motions to dismiss will be GRANTED, as to all federal claims, and the Court will exercise its discretion to dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Earth Flag Ltd. v. Alamo Flag Co. · filed 2001-05-17(c)(3)

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

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

Berger v. Correctional Medical · filed 2001-08-28(c)(3)

The district court also properly refused to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent negligence claim, which it dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Zeppieri v. New Haven Provision Co. · filed 2001-08-31(c)(3)

The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims on grounds that it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claims.

Nicholson v. Moates · filed 2001-09-05(c)

Even if the court does have supplemental jurisdiction over the assault and battery claim, the court finds that since summary judgment is due to be granted as to the federal claims in this case, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims for assault and battery and conversion. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Longoria v. New Jersey · filed 2001-10-17(c)(3)

Since I have dismissed all claims under which Longoria can claim federal jurisdiction, I shall exercise my discretion to dismiss the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Luna v. City of San Bernardino · filed 2001-11-15(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Luna’s state law claims after it properly dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Dixon v. Sullivan · filed 2001-11-19(c)(3)

Lastly, a district court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. In this case, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Dixon’s state law claim, because it had dismissed his federal claims. We find it did not abuse its discretion in doing so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3).

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

Broadwater v. Heidtman Steel Products, Inc. · filed 2002-01-09(c)(3)

The Court, in this Order, has dismissed or granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all of Broadwater’s federal claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Broadwater’s remaining, pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that raise novel or complex state law issues after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Powers v. CSX Transportation, Inc. · filed 2002-01-29(c)(1), (c)(3)

Moreover, pursuant to Section 1367(c)(1), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the state claim “raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” ... In summary, the Court concludes that, given the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims and the novel and complex nature of her state law claim for negligent or wanton delay, the plaintiffs supplemental state law claims should be remanded to state court.

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

Green Party of State of New York v. Weiner · filed 2002-02-11(c)(3)

A district court, however, “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, the Court has granted summary judgment on all federal claims. The Court accordingly will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim and may confuse the jury.

Broad, Vogt & Conant, Inc. v. Alsthom Automation, Inc. · filed 2002-02-25(c)(2)

Where, as here, Plaintiffs assert only one federal claim out of thirteen claims in the Complaint, the state law claims substantially predominate over the remaining federal claim and might engender confusion among the jury.

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

Barnett v. Okeechobee Hospital · filed 2002-02-25(c)(3)

Once the court dismissed the claims against the VA, it was free to decline jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Moore v. Winer · filed 2002-03-20(c)(3)

Turning to plaintiffs state law claims, which he is asserting only under the “pendent jurisdiction” of this Court (now codified as its supplemental jurisdiction), and there being no allegations establishing diversity of citizenship, the Court, having dismissed the plaintiffs federal claims, exercises its discretion to dismiss his state-law claims, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2001).

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

Turner v. Kight · filed 2002-03-25(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s ruling on the federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court will decline to exercise its pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state claims in Counts XIII to XIX. A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims when all federal claims have failed.

Bliss v. Rochester City School District · filed 2002-03-28(c)(3)

I note preliminarily that even if plaintiffs’ contract claims were to survive the instant motions, I would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because all of the federal claims have failed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, with dismissal favored absent unusual circumstances.

Paycom Billing Services, Inc. v. Payment Resources International · filed 2002-06-03(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... There are no “unusual circumstances” in this case that would justify the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims now that the federal claim upon which jurisdiction was predicated has been dismissed.

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

Peda v. American Home Products Corp. · filed 2002-06-20(c)(3)

The court, however, will exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and declines jurisdiction over this claim (count V) and hereby remands the case to state court.

When all claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed, § 1367 permits the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim and dismiss it without prejudice.

Levitt v. Bear Stearns & Co. · filed 2002-06-27(c)(3)

However, a Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if, among other things, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b). Here, the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. As such, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim for common law fraud, and that claim is dismissed without prejudice.

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

Breen v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY · filed 2002-07-23(c)(3)

In this case, the third factor enumerated in § 1367(c) is clearly present, and to only a slightly lesser extent, the second and fourth factors as well. The Court has dismissed all of the claims that were within the Court’s original jurisdiction and only Plaintiffs’ state law claims remain. And those claims are manifestly better suited for resolution by a state court, applying squarely applicable state law, in front of a jury of state citizens. Accordingly, the Court respectfully declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed; if it declines, it should dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Roe v. Texas Department Of Protective And Regulatory Services · filed 2002-08-13(c)(3)

We remand to the district court either to reconsider the official immunity question or to decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. If the court declines supplemental jurisdiction, it should dismiss without prejudice so that plaintiffs can pursue their claims in Texas state court.

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

Harvey v. Garber · filed 2002-08-19(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed all of the claims that provided it with original jurisdiction in the case, the dismissal without prejudice of the supplemental state law claims was not an abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane · filed 2002-09-11(c)(3)

Because this court is dismissing all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction (the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims), it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Washington State Constitution Claim.

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

Doe v. MD · filed 2002-10-04(c)(3)

The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the court has already dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2000). Because the district court properly found no federal claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it finds no cognizable federal claim.

Stewart v. Weast · filed 2002-10-28(c)(3)

Having found that plaintiff has no cognizable federal claim, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over novel claims for negligent misrepresentation and fraud she has asserted under Maryland common law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the federal claims have been dismissed, and the state-law dismissal is without prejudice.

Scherer v. Curators of the University · filed 2002-10-31(c)(3)

We find that the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Scherer’s remaining claim under the Missouri Sunshine Law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); St. John v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 139 F.3d 1214, 1216-17 (8th Cir. 1998), but we clarify that the dismissal of the state claim is without prejudice.

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

Shattuck v. Town of Stratford · filed 2002-11-13(c)(3)

The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ Connecticut state law claims on the ground that it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the related federal claim survives dismissal.

Quintero v. Caribe G.E. Power Breakers, Inc. · filed 2002-12-09(a)

The court having denied the request for dismissal of the Title VII claims it may, in its discretion, entertain the state-based claim under its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Campuzano v. ILLINOIS STATE BD. OF ELECTIONS · filed 2003-01-10(c)(3)

And even if they did, the court would refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it because all of the federal causes of action have long since been dismissed from this law suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claim fails, with that decision reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Parrillo v. Reilly · filed 2003-01-16(c)

Without a federal claim, all that remains are Timothy’s claims arising under state law, but the court properly dismissed them as well. Complete diversity is lacking, and Timothy has made no showing that the court abused its discretion by refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when doing so avoids prejudice and serves judicial economy.

Breiner v. Litwhiler · filed 2003-02-21(c)(3)

After dismissal of all federal claims, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims if it finds that the parties will not be prejudiced and that the interests of judicial economy would be served. ... Therefore, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Curto v. Smith · filed 2003-03-12(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed all of the federal claims in this action, the Court dismisses these claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Chatila v. Aranco Oil Corp. · filed 2003-03-13(c)(3)

Therefore, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction as to the state law claims in this case. Those claims are dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Frye v. Police Dept. of Kansas City, Missouri · filed 2003-04-17(c)(3)

However, now that the constitutional claims have been disposed of, the Court need not (and arguably should not) retain supplemental jurisdiction over the tort claims.

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

Jenkins v. Trustees of Sandhills Community College · filed 2003-04-25(c)(3)

Each of the federal claims in the case have been disposed of either through summary judgment or dismissal, and the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Ms. Jenkins’ state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims while federal claims remain and to decline that jurisdiction if all federal claims are dismissed.

Burdett v. Harrah's Kansas Casino Corp. · filed 2003-05-05(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state claims if the court has federal question jurisdiction, but if the court dismisses all federal question claims, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... The Court therefore exercises supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. It may decline to do so later, if all federal claims are dismissed.

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

Asberry v. Bisig · filed 2003-06-23(c)(3)

Having found no basis for federal jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over any supplemental state law 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.

Golden v. Gorno Bros., Inc. · filed 2003-07-08(c)(3)

Furthermore, because all of the federal claims have been dismissed, and because Plaintiff may initiate his Mag-nuson-Moss Warranty Act claim in state court, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), ... declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action and DISMISSES these claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Penn v. City of Montgomery, Alabama · filed 2003-07-17(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) provides that a “district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Because the federal claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction have now been resolved against Plaintiff, ... the Court will dismiss the state law claims, albeit without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the federal claim fails, taking account of judicial efficiency, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Jou v. Accurate Research, Inc. · filed 2003-08-22(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state-law claim. After deciding the federal claim adversely to Plaintiff, the district court concluded that declining jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim would not “compromise considerations of judicial efficiency, convenience of the parties, fairness, and comity.” We agree.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been eliminated before trial.

Estate of Imrie v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District · filed 2003-09-15(c)(3)

Because the claims over which the court has original jurisdiction have been eliminated before trial, the court also DISMISSES without prejudice the remaining state law claims in this action.

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

BHC Interim Funding, L.P. v. Finantra Capital, Inc. · filed 2003-09-24(c)(3)

As to defendants Litt, Dwyer and Arthur Press, the recommendation is that the federal claims be dismissed with prejudice, and that the state-law claims be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Thus the recommendation is to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against these three defendants. These defendants do not object to this treatment of jurisdiction, and I concur with it.

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

US EX REL. SCHUHARDT v. Washington University · filed 2003-09-29(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law causes of action if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Because the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over defendant's counterclaim, and it will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law counterclaims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Davis Island Land Co v. State of Mississippi, et a · filed 2003-10-14(c)(3)

The district court followed the general rule that it is proper to decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendant state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed or otherwise eliminated from a case prior to trial. ... The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to exercise jurisdiction over the purely state law counterclaims.

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

Koorn v. Township · filed 2003-10-17(c)(3)

However, because the Court properly dismissed the Koorns’ federal claims, it properly refused to exercise jurisdiction over their pendant state claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it resolves the federal claims, dismissing the state claims without prejudice.

Blaisdell v. Rochester · filed 2003-10-24(c)

With regard to plaintiff's state law claims (counts one, four, and five), the court declines to exercise supplemental ... jurisdiction and those counts are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal claims remain.

Phillips v. Colleges · filed 2003-11-06(c)(3)

The district court, having concluded that no grounds supported the exercise of federal jurisdiction, acted well within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Phillips’s state law claims.

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

Elwood v. Morin · filed 2004-01-02(c)(3)

After dismissing the federal claims against Jimenez, the district court acted within the discretion conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) in dismissing Elwood’s supplemental claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state claims after the federal claims fail.

Heath v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2004-02-18(c)(3)

His federal claims failing, so too do his pendent state claims. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly at an early stage of litigation.

Yekimoff v. Seastrand · filed 2004-03-19(c)(3)

Since I am dismissing all federal claims, I exercise my discretion, given the early stage of this litigation, to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim against one defendant when federal claims remain against other defendants.

Longmoor v. Nilsen · filed 2004-03-31(c)(3)

The Court does not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) because plaintiffs’ intentional infliction claim against P-J's arises from the same controversy as plaintiffs' remaining § 1983 claims against the remaining State Police defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, particularly when they require substantial analysis of state law.

Johnson v. City of Detroit · filed 2004-05-24(c)(3)

Upon review of the remaining state law Counts, it appears that Plaintiffs supplemental state law claims will require significant interpretation and analysis under Michigan law and the court finds these matters are best handled by the Michigan state courts. As such, the court will employ its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) and will dismiss Plaintiffs remaining supplemental claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Pruitt v. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC · filed 2004-06-03(c)(3)

When the district court correctly dismisses a plaintiff’s federal law claims, we review its decision to refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that plaintiff’s state law claims for an abuse of discretion. ... The district court’s actions were clearly authorized under § 1367(c)(3).

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

Cook v. James · filed 2004-06-09(c)(3)

Finally, we find that because the dismissal of Cook’s § 1983 action was proper, the district court correctly exercised its discretion to decline to confer supplemental jurisdiction over Cook’s state law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2000), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when, as here, all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dis- missed.

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

McCormick v. City of Lawrence · filed 2004-06-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims over which the court has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Perez v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Puerto Rico · filed 2004-06-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed Ronda’s ADEA claims, no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim after the related federal claims against those defendants have been resolved.

Longmoor v. Nilsen · filed 2004-07-23(c)(3)

Inasmuch as Longmoor and Keene have no remaining federal claims against the State Police Defendants, and Longmoor’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against them does not arise from the same controversy as Longmoor’s remaining federal claims against the Barkham-sted defendants, the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state claim and it is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim, guided by the extent of pretrial proceedings, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

University of Colorado Hospital Authority v. Denver Publishing Co. · filed 2004-08-02(c)(3)

Although I have the discretion to try pendent state claims after dismissing the federal claim that established the court’s original jurisdiction, I should exercise this discretion only “in those cases in which, given the nature and extent of pretrial proceedings, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness would be served by retaining jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice when no substantial federal claim remains.

Ramirez-Aguirre v. Ranger American Armored Services, Inc. · filed 2004-08-11(c)(3)

The Court, exercising its broad discretion in such matters, dismisses Ramirez’s State law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). The case at hand is not one of diversity jurisdiction, and no substantial federal claim remains.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses the federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction well before trial.

Pennichuck Corp. v. City of Nashua · filed 2004-09-13(c)(3)

When, as here, the court dismisses the federal claims that were the basis of original jurisdiction well before trial, the court may in its discretion decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When federal claims remain pending, a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims and address them on the merits.

Madey v. Duke University · filed 2004-09-20(c)(3)

Thus, because Plaintiffs federal claims have not been dismissed, the Court finds it appropriate to now address Plaintiffs state-law claims on the merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no grounds support federal jurisdiction.

Zorn v. Premiere Homes, Inc. · filed 2004-09-27(c)(3)

The District Court, having concluded that no grounds supported the exercise of federal jurisdiction, acted well within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Zorn’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses all federal claims before trial.

McNiff v. Asset Management Specialists, Inc. · filed 2004-09-30(c)(3)

However, if all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the court should ordinarily dismiss any remaining state law claims as well. ... Accordingly, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Harris v. Franziska Racker Centers, Inc. · filed 2004-10-01(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed; related state-law claims may remain while a federal claim against another defendant is still pending.

Viernes v. Executive Mortgage, Inc. · filed 2004-10-13(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim where it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because this Court has original jurisdiction over a remaining federal claim that involves the same nucleus of facts and case or controversy, this Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims at this time.

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

Yruegas v. Vestal · filed 2004-10-25(c)(3)

Plaintiffs federal claims are plainly time-barred and will be dismissed with prejudice. Because I have original jurisdiction over the federal claims, I also have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... Having duly considered the arguments of counsel regarding the remaining state law claims, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, considering fairness and the resources already invested in federal court.

Curay-Cramer v. Ursuline Academy of Wilmington, Delaware, Inc. · filed 2004-11-16(c)(3)

Since I have decided that the Plaintiffs Federal Claims must be dismissed, it is within my discretion whether to retain jurisdiction over the State Claims. ... It is therefore neither wasteful nor unfair to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this matter.

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

Gannett Fleming West, Inc. v. Village of Angel Fire · filed 2004-11-30(c)(3)

One situation in which the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an otherwise related claim under subsection (a) is when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court therefore remands the remaining state law claims to state court.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims fail.

Laxton v. Watters · filed 2004-12-10

Because petitioner has not made out a claim arising under federal law, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Harvey v. County of Ward · filed 2005-01-20(c)(3)

Once claims over which a district court has original jurisdiction are dismissed, it is left to the court’s discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court finds the above decisions warrant allowing the North Dakota state courts the opportunity to decide the remaining state law claims. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the remaining state law claims.

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

Quinn v. BJC Health Sys. · filed 2005-03-01(c)(3)

Here, the Court has determined that all of the federal claims should be dismissed. It is preferable for the Missouri courts to interpret the remaining issues of state law. In accordance with § 1367 and Carnegie-Mellon University, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Martin v. UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN, INC. · filed 2005-03-08(c)(3)

Having found that Martin’s federal claims cannot survive UNH’s Motion for Summary Judgment, this court must determine whether to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over Martin’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which provides that this court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and the case is remanded to the Connecticut Superior Court, in which it was originally filed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after it dismisses the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Sagoma Plastics, Inc. v. Gelardi · filed 2005-03-10(c)(3)

Since the Court has dismissed the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claim.

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

Cook v. Sheriff of Monroe County · filed 2005-03-10(c)(3)

Because no basis for original federal jurisdiction presently exists, the district court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Villegas v. City of Gilroy · filed 2005-04-05(c)(3)

For the reasons set forth above, this Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ Second Claim (Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights to Free Expression Against Officer Bergman) and Fourth Claim (Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights to Free Association Against Officer Bergman). Furthermore, this Court grants Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ First Claim (Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights to Free Expression Against City of Gilroy and GGFA) and Third Claims (Violation of Plaintiffs’ Rights to Free Association Against City of Gilroy and GGFA). Plaintiffs’ remaining claims—i.e., Plaintiffs’ Fifth Claim (Violation of Plaintiffs’ Free Speech Rights Under Cal. Const. art. I, § 2) and Sixth Claim (Violation of Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights Under California’s Uhruh Civil Rights Act)—arise exclusively under state law. This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Fifth and Sixth Claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to remand remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corp. of America · filed 2005-04-11(c)(3)

This was within the court’s discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3), because the court had dismissed all claims for which it had original jurisdiction.