28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367 allows a court to retain common-law claims after dismissing federal claims against some defendants when federal claims remain against other defendants named in those common-law claims.

Vaughn v. Krehbiel · filed 2005-04-11(c)(2)

Ordinarily, the dismissal of the sole federal claim would likely result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). However, because there are other Defendants who have not moved against the federal claims, and because those Defendants are also named in the same common-law claims as the Krehbiels, the Court will not dismiss all claims the Krehbiels for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at this time.

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

Garcia v. City of Chicago · filed 2005-04-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claim, I relinquish jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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.

Wainwright v. County of Oxford · filed 2005-04-21(c)(3)

The Court is of the view that under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(8) it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Freedom of Access Law claim and to permit Plaintiff to proceed on Count II in the forum best suited to resolve the claim: the courts of the State of Maine.

Section 1367(c) does not require a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal question remains.

Sadler v. Meck · filed 2005-05-09(c)

Sadler also brings state law claims, but with no federal question remaining, the District Court is not required to retain supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Dallas v. Holmes · filed 2005-05-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal cause of action, it would have been proper for the court to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when no sufficient reason supports retaining them.

Lucas v. Township of Bethel · filed 2005-05-12(c)(3)

Thus, these two holdings are not incompatible, as Plaintiffs suggest, and certainly do not justify the District Court exercising jurisdiction if only pendent state law claims remain.

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

Dresner v. Utility. Com, Inc. · filed 2005-05-18(c)(3)

Given that the Court has dismissed all federal claims, it will not entertain plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, which are apparently brought pursuant to this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state law claims after it dismisses the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

No. 04-1792 · filed 2005-05-31(c)(3)

Of course, if the § 1983 claim was subject to dismissal, then the district court had the authority to dismiss the § 1988 claim, as well as the state law claims. See § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after the claims supporting original federal jurisdiction are dismissed, even if it exercised supplemental jurisdiction earlier.

Lee-Hillman v. Allegiance Corp. · filed 2005-06-03(c)(3)

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction at any stage of the litigation and the fact that it may have previously exercised such jurisdiction is not a bar to later relinquishing it.

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

United States Ex Rel. Scott v. Metropolitan Health Corp. · filed 2005-06-23(c)(3)

Therefore, the state law breach of contract and defamation claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state law claims after dismissing the claim over which it had original jurisdiction.

Estades-Negroni v. CPC Hospital San Juan Capestrano · filed 2005-05-31(c)(3)

Of course, if the § 1983 claim was subject to dismissal, then the ... district court had the authority to dismiss the § 1988 claim, as well as the state law claims. See § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ostensen v. Suffolk County · filed 2005-07-18(c)(3)

Because this decision grants the County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing all of the Plaintiffs federal claims prior to the trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses any and all state claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the federal claims are gone and no class has been certified or trial date set.

Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card Bank · filed 2005-07-29(c)

Considering that no class has yet been certified in this court and no trial date is currently scheduled, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law breach of contract claims.

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

In Re Eaton Vance Mutual Funds Fee Litigation · filed 2005-08-01(c)(3)

Moreover, because all of the federal claims are dismissed, the Court would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over purely state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice when no federal claims remain to support jurisdiction.

Vidal v. Ramallo Bros. Printing, Inc. · filed 2005-08-02(c)(3)

Since no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case, plaintiffs supplemental state law claims are dismissed 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 counterclaims after dismissing the federal claims, taking judicial economy and the prospect of administrative resolution into account.

Barix Clinics of Ohio, Inc. v. Longaberger Family of Companies Group Medical Plan · filed 2005-09-06(c)(3)

Since the court has determined that plaintiffs federal claims must be dismissed, this court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over defendants’ state law counterclaims. ... Thus, it weighs in favor of judicial economy to obtain the final decision of the plan administrator before proceeding to litigate defendants’ state law claims. The court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims, and they will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss state law claims without prejudice after it disposes of the federal claims and no other basis for federal jurisdiction remains.

Harris v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · filed 2005-09-27(c)(3)

Because the remaining claims arise under state law and there is no other basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court DISMISSES the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO BEING RE-FILED IN STATE COURT.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed, with consideration of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

LaGrande v. Key Bank National Ass'n · filed 2005-09-28(c)(3)

As there are no longer any claims based on federal law in this action and with due consideration of concerns of judicial economy, convenience and fairness, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after it grants summary judgment on the federal claim.

DePoutot v. Raffaelly · filed 2005-10-04(c)(3)

That being so, the district court's follow-on decision to dismiss the plaintiff's state law claims without prejudice was well within the realm of its discretion.

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, taking account of comity and fairness.

Buntin v. City of New York · filed 2005-10-26(c)(3)

Here, these factors weigh against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Buntin’s remaining claim. First, the New York Court of Appeals does not appear to have ruled on whether sending pre-termination notice to a government employee’s home address — rather than his or her place of incarceration — would suffice under the New York State Constitution. Comity therefore suggests that this Court should defer consideration of the issue in order to allow the New York courts an opportunity to rule on this arguably novel issue of state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction while a factually related claim within the court’s original jurisdiction remains pending.

Gilliam v. USD 244 School District · filed 2005-10-27(c)(3)

Here, however, the court has not dismissed all factually related claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Plaintiff has also asserted a Title IX claim and the school district has not sought dismissal of that claim. ... Thus, dismissal under § 1367(c)(3) is not warranted at this time.

When the federal claims against defendants are dismissed, a court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against them.

Fisk v. Letterman · filed 2005-11-17(c)(3)

However, if the federal claims against the Connecticut defendants are dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 should not be exercised over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) does not support dismissing supplemental claims on the ground that all federal claims are gone when federal claims survive.

Sanchez v. Public Building Authority · filed 2005-11-29(c)(3)

Defendants’ final argument is that Plaintiffs’ supplemental Commonwealth claims should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) because all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims warrant dismissal. As discussed above, nearly all of Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims survive Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ supplemental Commonwealth claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is denied.

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.

Brown v. Peterson · filed 2005-12-08(c)(3)

Second, the court was within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brown’s remaining state-law slander claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (federal district court has discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental claims when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

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

Wisniewski v. Rodale, Inc. · filed 2005-12-20(c)(3)

In any event, having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claim, I have discretion to dismiss any remaining state law claims for want, of jurisdiction.

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.

Wilson v. Potter · filed 2005-12-22(c)(3)

A District Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, and it may dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Gentle Wind Project v. Garvey · filed 2006-01-03(c)(3)

In accordance with the discretion afforded to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court is of the view that the most appropriate course of action is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the parties’ remaining claims without prejudice.

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

Petra Presbyterian Church v. Village of Northbrook · filed 2006-01-11(c)(3)

When all federal claims have been dismissed from a plaintiffs case, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, in its discretion the court believes that Petra’s state law claims would be better evaluated in state court, and therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Oparaji v. United Federation of Teachers · filed 2006-02-24(c)(3)

Having disposed of all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental 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.

Crab House of Douglaston, Inc. v. Newsday, Inc. · filed 2006-03-03(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Granting the moving Defendants’ motions to dismiss each of the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims.

Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v. Neoforma, Inc. · filed 2006-03-07(c)(3)

Having dismissed each of plaintiffs federal claims, this court finds no compelling reason to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Gordon v. Downs · filed 2006-03-16(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gordon’s remaining state law claims after all Gordon’s federal claims were dismissed.

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

Gannon v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. · filed 2006-03-21(c)(3)

Because judgment is entered against plaintiff on all federal claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and state interests informing that decision.

Matican v. City of New York · filed 2006-03-28(c)(3)

As there is no issue of federal preemption or other concern counterbalancing these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Matican’s state-law claim.

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

Urbanique Production v. City of Montgomery · filed 2006-03-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal constitutional claims, the court in its discretion declines supplemental 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.

Wilson v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · filed 2006-03-29(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction in this matter, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

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

Deaville v. Capital One Bank · filed 2006-03-30(c)(3)

Plaintiffs remaining Louisiana state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such state law claims where all claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Chishty v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services · filed 2006-05-04(c)(3)

This court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims now that all of the federal claims against the moving Defendants have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It is therefore ordered that the remaining state law claims against the moving Defendants are hereby REMANDED to the 367th Judicial District Court of Denton County, Texas.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of an available state forum and the absence of discovery.

Russell v. Continental Restaurant, Inc. · filed 2006-05-12(c)(3)

Plaintiff has represented that she has filed an identical suit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on April 21, 2006. Plaintiff has an adequate alternate forum and parties have not yet conducted any discovery in this case. As such, this Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when some federal claims survive dismissal.

McDORMAN v. Smith · filed 2006-06-14

Because some of plaintiffs’ federal claims have survived the motions to dismiss, the court continues to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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.

Campbell v. Intellisoft Group, Inc. · filed 2006-06-20(c)(3)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim as I have dismissed all claims over which I have original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, taking account of the case’s stage and resources expended.

Mumford v. GNC FRANCHISING LLC · filed 2006-06-29(c)(3)

Where, as here, dismissal of federal claims is warranted, this court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims. ... This case is at the motion to dismiss stage and significant resources of the parties and the judiciary have not yet been expended. Plaintiffs may avail themselves of the appropriate state forum to resolve their state law claims. Under these circumstances, the court can find no compelling reason to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims and no prejudice to plaintiffs’ from their dismissal. This court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims — which include breach of contract (Count I), breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count II), breach of contract as third-party beneficiary (Count VIII), fraudulent misrepresentation (Count IV), and negligent misrepresentation (Count V). Those claims are 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.

At the Airport v. ISATA, LLC · filed 2006-07-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed the plaintiffs RICO causes of action, there is no longer any independent basis for federal jurisdiction in this case. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs many state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) calls for weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to retain state-law claims after all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed; an inadequately identified federal interest alone does not justify retaining them.

Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2006-07-11(c)(3)

Once a district court's discretion is triggered under § 1367(c)(3), it balances the traditional "values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity," Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350, 108 S.Ct. 614, in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction. ... The district court here relied solely on a federal interest it failed to adequately identify to justify its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and otherwise ignored the Cohill factors. More is not required to constitute error, and our own application of Cohill leads to the conclusion that the district court should have declined jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Taylor v. Giant Food, Inc. · filed 2006-07-12(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and will remand the case to state court.

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

Robyn Meredith, Inc. v. Levy · filed 2006-07-27(c)(3)

It will, however, decline to do so based, first, on the consideration set forth in section 1367(c)(3), namely, the dismissal of all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction.

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

Foggy Bottom Ass'n v. District of Columbia Office of Planning · filed 2006-07-28(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that this Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court has dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Austin v. The City of Montgomery · filed 2006-08-02(c)(3)

Because all federal claims were due to be dismissed, the district court did not err in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

McCauley v. Computer Aid Inc. · filed 2006-08-25(c)(3)

In light of the fact that the court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal claims, the court will exercise its discretion to dismiss without prejudice all of Plaintiffs state claims, including breach of contract.

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

Morrow v. City of Oakland · filed 2006-08-28(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Morrow’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); Acri v. Varían Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc) (describing factors district court should consider in declining supplemental jurisdiction).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after it has resolved all federal claims in favor of the defendants.

Lingo v. City of Albany Department of Community & Economic Development · filed 2006-09-11(c)

Because the court had resolved all of Lingo’s federal claims in favor of the defendants, it could choose not to exercise jurisdiction over that state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing that decision.

Price v. Jefferson County · filed 2006-09-20(c)(3)

Moreover, the factors enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) lead to the conclusion that this case properly belongs in the state court where it began. No significant factor justifies retaining jurisdiction rather than remanding, while relevant statutory provisions and judicial decisions weigh heavily in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Giesse v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2006-09-27(c)(3)

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over all federal and administrative claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Giesse’s state claims.

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

Ricci v. DeStefano · filed 2006-09-28(c)(3)

Having granted defendants summary judgment on all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

Stanfill v. Johnson · filed 2006-10-05(c)(3)

Finally, the district court possessed discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to dismiss Mr. Stanfill’s state law tort claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Hanak v. Talon Insurance Agency, Ltd. · filed 2006-10-13(c)(3)

In this situation, because the federal claims are being dismissed well before trial, the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity suggest that this court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims while a federal claim within its original jurisdiction remains pending.

Calderon v. Burton · filed 2006-10-16(c)(3)

And because I have not dismissed the federal claims against Chief Burton, I cannot avail myself of § 1367(c)(3) to dismiss these purely state law claims brought against parties who are not proper defendants on the federal claims.

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

Douris v. Newtown Borough, Inc. · filed 2006-12-07(c)(3)

Absent a non-frivolous federal claim, the District Court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims contained in Douris’ complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Jones v. Hudnell · filed 2006-12-19(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state law claims without prejudice. Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 226 (5th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court broad discretion to dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice after the federal claims supporting jurisdiction are dismissed.

Differential Development-1994, Ltd. v. Harkrider Distributing Co. · filed 2007-01-09(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), when federal claims that serve as the basis of subject-matter jurisdiction are dismissed and only state-law claims remain, a district court has broad discretion to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice to permit them to proceed in state court.

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

Ross v. Metropolitan Church of God · filed 2007-01-23(c)(3)

However, “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Considerations of comity therefore singularly favor a remand of this action to state court. Furthermore, the Court finds that judicial economy, fairness, and convenience favor resolution by a state court of the remaining claims in this case.

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

Jeneski v. City of Worcester · filed 2007-01-30(c)(3)

Whether state law claims remain available to Jeneski is a matter that is not before us since the district court had discretion not to resolve them.

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

Johnson v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. · filed 2007-02-02(c)(3)

Lastly, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s state law claims once it had dismissed all his federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims; those state-law claims should then be dismissed without prejudice.

Volmar v. North Shore Hospital · filed 2007-02-13(c)(3)

In the present case, therefore, once Vol-mar’s federal claims were dismissed on motion, any alleged state-law claims should have been dismissed without prejudice on the ground that the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the sole federal claim lacks merit.

Jackson v. Rohm Haas Co · filed 2007-02-26(c)(3)

A District Court has the discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal claims remain in the case. ... It was not clearly erroneous for the District Court to refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, particularly where the sole federal claim is found to be wholly lacking in merit.

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

At MASSEY COAL CO., INC. v. Meadows · filed 2007-03-01(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims where it has dismissed all of the claims that provided it with original jurisdiction. The determination not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in such a case is discretionary, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has made clear that "trial courts enjoy wide latitude in determining whether or not to retain jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims have been extinguished." Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir.1995). The court is of the opinion that plaintiffs' remaining claims would be more appropriately handled by a state court, and accordingly dismisses them without prejudice.

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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Leitgeb v. Kelley · filed 2007-03-06(c)(3)

That said, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... In the instant case, the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ only federal-law claims in the early stages of this litigation. The resolution of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims depends exclusively on determinations of state law. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Johnson v. Wright · filed 2007-03-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Kramer v. Kubicka · filed 2007-03-13(c)(3)

With respect to Appellants’ state law claims, because we affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Appellants’ federal claims, we conclude that the District Court could have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 983 F.2d 1277, 1284-85 (3d Cir. 1993).

When a federal claim is revived, a dismissal of related state claims under § 1367(c)(3) may be vacated so the district court can reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Sanders v. City & County of San Francisco · filed 2007-03-19(c)(3)

In light of our decision to partially vacate the district court’s order to give Sanders leave to amend his complaint, we also vacate the district court’s order to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice, and remand the matter so that the district court may again decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims have been resolved.

Christensen, Anita v. County of Boone · filed 2007-03-21(c)(3)

Because the federal claims have been resolved, the district court should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction so that the state-law claims may be resolved in state court.

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

Curran v. Cousins · filed 2007-03-30(c)(3)

Having disposed of the plaintiffs federal claim, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of remaining state law claims after the court disposes of all claims supporting original jurisdiction.

Hall v. Brown · filed 2007-04-25(c)(3)

With these other claims having been disposed of, there is no longer any basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. These state law claims are, therefore, dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal cause of action remains.

Wigell v. Nappi · filed 2007-05-03(c)

Because there is no federal cause of action in this case, it is appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand this action to state court.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after it has resolved all federal claims.

Oregon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaverton · filed 2007-05-03(c)

Because the district court correctly resolved all the federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim and remand it after granting summary judgment on the claim within its original jurisdiction.

Hartwell v. City of Montgomery, AL · filed 2007-05-10(c)(3)

This 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). Because summary judgment is due to be granted on Hart-well’s federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his common-law certiorari claim. Accordingly, this state-law claim will be remanded to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; a decision to relinquish jurisdiction is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Ross, Lindsey v. Bd Educ Township 211 · filed 2007-05-11(c)(3)

Those claims depended upon the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and the statute permits a court to dismiss such claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c)(3). We review the court’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction under an abuse of discretion standard. See Williams Electronics Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904, 906 (7th Cir. 2007). Lindsey offers no reason why we should find such an abuse here, especially given the fact that her federal claims were dismissed at such an early stage on a purely legal ground.

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

Lindsey Ross, by and Through Her Parents and Next Friends, Michael and Diane Ross v. Board of Education of Township High · filed 2007-05-11(c)(3)

Those claims depended upon the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and the statute permits a court to dismiss such claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss state law claims without prejudice after disposing of the federal claims against the relevant defendants and severing distinct claims against another defendant.

Cox v. Sugg · filed 2007-04-27(c)(3)

Therefore, we remand the case with directions to sever the claims against Mark Cory, to dismiss all federal claims against the remaining defendants with prejudice, and to dismiss all state law claims against the remaining defendants without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); cf. Fielder v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 188 F.3d 1031, 1039 (8th Cir. 1999).

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

Morales-Santiago v. Hernandez-Perez · filed 2007-05-23(c)(3)

Having properly dismissed the plaintiffs' federal claims,10 the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims brought under Puerto Rico law.

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

Lepe v. Banister · filed 2007-05-23(c)(3)

The district court had discretion to refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and it did not abuse that discretion here, Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir.2001).

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

Machado v. Cty. of Carroll · filed 2007-06-06(c)(3)

we affirm the dismissal without prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims if court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

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

Orgain v. City of Salisbury · filed 2007-06-25(c)

The rulings above dispose of Plaintiffs’ federal claims. The state law claims (Counts VI-V) remain. This Court could retain the state law claims only by exercising its supplemental jurisdiction. This case does not, however, present a compelling reason for this Court to decide claims that arise solely under state law. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Counts VI-V. The dismissal is without prejudice so that they may be refilled in state court if Plaintiffs so elect.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the sole federal claim when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not warrant retaining the state claim.

Cunningham v. Lenape Regional High District Board of Education · filed 2007-06-25(c)(3)

Plaintiffs second claim under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:6-1 is also dismissed because the sole federal claim over which the court has jurisdiction is dismissed and the interests of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness to the litigants do not warrant review of that claim in this forum.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims were dismissed when federal claims remain against other defendants.

DeFazio v. Wallis · filed 2007-07-14(c)(3)

Because the Court retains original jurisdiction over the RICO causes of action against the non-moving defendants, the Court declines to dismiss the plaintiffs’ state law claims ... against Aquino, Ryan, Wallis, and Green-berg.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss remaining supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after disposing of the federal claims.

Pilot Corp. of America v. Fisher-Price, Inc. · filed 2007-07-24(c)(3)

Fisher-Price’s motion for summary judgment (doc. # 123) with respect to the claims for trademark and trade dress infringement (Count I), and the federal unfair competition claim (Count II) is GRANTED. Fisher-Price also sought summary judgment on PCA’s common law unfair competition claim (Count IV), as well as partial summary judgment on its Connecticut Unfair Practices Act claim (Count III) and breach of contract claim (Count V). My ruling does not directly address those state-law claims. Rather, those claims, as well as the remaining pendent state-law claims delineated in the complaint, are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court within 30 days from the date of this order.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims; ordinarily, state claims should then be dismissed without prejudice if the federal claims end before trial.

Cardon v. TestOut! Corp. · filed 2007-08-10(c)(3)

Under normal circumstances, these factors counsel in favor of dismissing state law claims without prejudice if the federal claims are dismissed before trial. ... We hold that the court abused its discretion in reaching the merits of these state claims.

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

Ames v. Miller · filed 2007-09-06(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the remaining state claims after all federal claims had been dismissed.

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

Hankins v. New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church · filed 2007-09-28(c)(3)

Having found that the allegations in the Complaint do not support federal jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Crosby v. City of Walterboro, SC · filed 2006-06-02(c)(3)

It is further ORDERED that the remaining state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for refiling in state court.

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.

Field v. Zimmerman · filed 2007-12-12(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Field’s state-law claims because it “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 all federal claims have been dismissed.

Rosa v. California · filed 2007-12-12(c)(3)

Finally, the district court dismissed Rosa’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which allows a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all of the federal claims have been dismissed. As discussed above, the district court properly dismissed all of Rosa’s federal claims. Accordingly, we conclude the district court properly dismissed Rosa’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Plock v. Board of Education of Freeport School District No. 145 · filed 2007-12-18(c)(3)

Because the single federal claim is dismissed, the court will not reach the remaining state law claim under the Illinois Eavesdropping Act. ... This case is remanded to the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Illinois 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 the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Mahogany v. Muwwakkil · filed 2007-12-19(c)(3)

Although Mahogany also argues that the defendants misapplied Louisiana statutes and prison regulations and violated the Louisiana Constitution, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those 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, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. · filed 2007-12-21(c)(3)

In the exercise of a district court’s discretion under Section 1367(c)(3), the court is to balance the traditional “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” ... In this instance, the Court finds that this is the “usual case” where the federal claims have dropped out well before discovery, let alone before any trial of this case. Moreover, the Court is aware that Plaintiff has filed an action against Defendants in Connecticut state court involving similar allegations as those in this case, thus highlighting the efficiency and comity interests that support the Court’s non-involvement in the state law causes of action. Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion and decline to keep the state law causes of action.

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

Ogunsalu v. Nair · filed 2008-01-22(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ogunsalu’s state-law claims where it “dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; when a federal claim is reinstated on appeal, a dismissal of the remaining state law claims based on the loss of original jurisdiction is reversed.

Garcia v. Dykstra · filed 2008-01-24(c)(3)

By statute, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) where it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “Supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right,” and the decision to dismiss supplemental claims is subject to reversal only if the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the claims. Habich v. City of Dearborn, 331 F.3d 524, 535 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ state law claims in light of its decision to grant summary judgment on their § 1983 claim. As we reverse the dismissal of Smutz as to the § 1983 claim, we reverse the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the claims supporting federal jurisdiction have been dismissed, considering judicial economy and whether the claim belongs in state court.

Gavin v. AT&T CORP. · filed 2008-02-12(c)(3)

All that is now left of this case is a state-law fraud claim. Under these circumstances, the Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claim. ... For these reasons, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining 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.

Husain v. Casino Control Commission · filed 2008-02-20(c)(3)

Accordingly, the District Court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state-law claims after it dismissed all claims “over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Conemaugh Star Plan Welfare Benefit Plan & Trust v. Fisher · filed 2008-02-25(c)(3)

However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), I may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if I have dismissed all claims over which federal jurisdiction exists. ... I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and dismiss the state law claims without prejudice to repleading in state court within thirty days of this ruling.

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.

Staco v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2008-02-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in the absence of a viable federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims when it dismisses the sole federal claim.

Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc. · filed 2008-02-29(c)(3)

Although Schering-Plough did not address some of the arguments raised against its state law claims, because the court is obliged to dismiss Schering-Plough’s sole federal claim, the court will ... relinquish jurisdiction over the remaining state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; state law claims generally should be dismissed when federal question claims end before trial.

Kirkland v. Luken · filed 2008-03-06(c)(3)

The general rule is that when federal question claims are dismissed before trial, the state law claims should be dismissed as well. ... Plaintiffs state law claims are 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.

Saxe v. Dlusky · filed 2008-03-10(c)(3)

If a district court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction then the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

SBT HOLDINGS, LLC v. Town of Westminster · filed 2008-03-25(c)(3)

The Court concludes that with one exception, noted below, concerns of “comity, judicial economy, convenience, fairness and the like” disfavor the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction here. ... Accordingly, as to the Town of Westminster, the Westminster Conservation Commission, Lois Luniewicz, and Karen Murphy, the Court will decline to exercise § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction.

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

In Re Morgan Stanley Derivative Litigation · filed 2008-03-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ remaining common law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim, with comity favoring state-court resolution of novel and complex state-law issues.

MacKin v. City of Coeur D'Alene · filed 2008-03-27(c)(3)

Now that Plaintiffs’ federal claim is to be dismissed, the Court must consider whether it is appropriate to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... Here, Plaintiffs’ state law claims raise novel and complex issue of Idaho law which the Court finds as a matter of comity should be addressed by the state courts. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims and will remand this action to state court.

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

Costello v. Town of Warwick · filed 2008-04-17(c)(3)

Nor did it abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the appellant’s remaining state law claims after the dismissal of all federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) makes supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims discretionary once the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction are dismissed.

American Family Mutual Insurance v. Rickman · filed 2008-04-18(c)(3)

The Court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over these claims is discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) once claims over which it has original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; that choice is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Medina-Salas v. Tyson Fresh Meats · filed 2008-05-07(c)(3)

We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Medina-Salas’s state-law claim, see Johnson v. City of Shorewood, Minn., 360 F.3d 810, 819 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction where it has dismissed all original-jurisdiction claims; generally, when court eliminates all federal-law claims before trial, balance of factors to be considered under § 1367 will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims), and that Medina-Salas’s assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable, see Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (there is no statutory or constitutional right to effect assistance of counsel in civil case).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss a state-law claim after it has dismissed all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Yaklich v. Grand County · filed 2008-05-07(c)(3)

Because the district court had dismissed the federal claims ... with prejudice, the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Claim 10.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over local tort claims to continue when the federal claims survive a motion to dismiss.

MacHado v. Sanjurjo · filed 2008-06-03

The court having declined to dismiss the FCA claims, our supplemental jurisdiction remains unaltered.

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

Saunders v. Gwendolyn Bright · filed 2008-06-03(c)(3)

The District Court properly exercised its discretion to deny the motion to amend the complaint because any amendment would have been futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), and properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Jones v. Luthi · filed 2008-06-09(c)(3)

This court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the state law claims be dismissed pursuant to § 1367(c)(3). The court therefore expresses no opinion on the Magistrate Judge’s substantive analysis of the state law claims but instead dismisses them pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

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

Showalter v. Brubaker · filed 2008-06-13(c)(3)

Finally, the District Court acted within its discretion when it declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Showalter’s various state tort claims. See 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.

Romero v. Pinnacle Equities · filed 2008-07-11(c)(3)

We further hold that the district court did not err in dismissing Romero’s two remaining state-law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, and whether the state law issues are novel.

Appleton v. Intergraph Corp. · filed 2008-07-30(c)(3)

Discovery has not yet commenced in this case, therefore neither the interests of judicial economy nor convenience of the Parties would be advanced by retaining jurisdiction over the state law claims. Finally, some of the claims appear to be novel and are therefore better addressed by the appropriate state court. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over these claims and they are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

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

Kehm Oil Co. v. Texaco, Inc. · filed 2008-07-31(c)(3)

The District Court could have, in its discretion, chosen to dismiss the state law ... claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), after dismissing Kehm’s PMPA claim.

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

Hardin County Savings Bank v. City of Brainerd · filed 2008-09-18(c)(3)

However, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367 allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction and provides for tolling when those claims are refiled in state court.

Owens v. United States · filed 2008-10-16(c)(4), (d)

Once a district court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and tolls any relevant statute of limitations until the Plaintiffs file suit in the appropriate state court, in accordance with the 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

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

Gaston v. Ploeger · filed 2008-10-23(c)(3)

Under those circumstances, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) expressly permits a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims, and we have repeatedly recognized that this is the preferred practice.

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

White v. Martel-Moylan · filed 2008-11-19(c)(3)

“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over White’s state law claims.

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

Smith v. Encore Credit Corp. · filed 2008-12-09(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) lets a district court decide whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Hall v. Schaefer · filed 2009-03-02(c)(3)

We vacate the judgment as to the state law claims and remand for the district court to determine whether to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Arshad v. Congemi · filed 2009-03-09(c)(3)

Because we find that the district court did not err in dismissing the Arshads’ federal claims with prejudice, we also find that the district court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) creates a presumption that a court should relinquish a supplemental state-law claim when the federal suit is dismissed before trial, especially when an identical state case is closer to resolution.

Beck v. Dobrowski · filed 2009-03-20(c)(3)

But insofar as the plaintiff based federal jurisdiction over that claim on the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction, invocation of the doctrine of Colorado River was unnecessary, in view of the presumption that when a federal suit is dismissed before trial the court should relinquish any supplemental state-law claim to the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The presumption is strengthened when, as in this case, an identical case is already pending in state court and is nearer final resolution than the claim in the federal suit.

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

Ross v. Advance America Cash Advance Centers, Inc. · filed 2009-03-24(c)(3)

Ross’s federal claims have been dismissed. If the district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Out of deference and respect for the courts of the State of Arkansas, this Court will exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to Ross’s state-law claims.

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

Williams v. United States · filed 2009-04-08(c)(3)

Section 1367 expressly provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a” state claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Since we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Appellant’s claims against the United States, we cannot say that the Court abused its discretion in also dismissing her remaining claims against the Borough of National Park.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and the court ordinarily should dismiss remaining state-law claims when that dismissal occurs at the outset.

Lopez v. ML 3, LLC · filed 2009-04-15(c)(3)

When, as here, a district court dismisses at the outset the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court ordinarily should also dismiss the claims over which it has only supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Martin v. Waring Investments Inc. · filed 2009-04-20(c)(3)

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Martin’s state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all of Martin’s federal claims.

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

Young v. City and County of Honolulu · filed 2009-04-29(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court declines jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims (Counts IV-XI) and DISMISSES these claims without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing in Hawaii state court.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims after it grants summary judgment on the federal claim.

Isaacson v. SABA COMMERCIAL SERVICES CORP. · filed 2009-06-09(c)(3)

For the reasons stated below, the court grants summary judgment for defendant on Count I, and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the remaining counts.

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

Gc v. School Bd. of Seminole County, Florida · filed 2009-06-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed G.C.'s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when claims giving rise to original jurisdiction have been dismissed).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to leave a state-law issue undecided when no viable federal claims remain.

Tallman v. County of Chautauqua · filed 2009-06-17(c)

Because we hold that Tallman has no viable federal claims, we need not decide this issue of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Kim v. Federal Way Post Office Postmaster · filed 2009-07-07(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to retain jurisdiction over Kim’s state law tort claim once the Bivens claims were dismissed.

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.

Harrison v. University of Colorado Health Sciences Center · filed 2009-07-10(c)(3)

Because we find that the district court properly dismissed Mr. Harrison’s federal claims, it could properly dismiss any state-law claims alleged by Mr. Harrison. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Maduforo v. Urban Service Systems Corp. · filed 2009-07-14(c)(3)

Defendant's motion for summary judgment will accordingly be granted as conceded, and, since the parties are non-diverse and I have dismissed all of plaintiff's claims over which I had original jurisdiction, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over counts II and IV and dismiss them mea sponte for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Simms v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT · filed 2009-08-18(c)(3)

Moreover, because the federal claims were dismissed at an early stage in the proceedings, the Court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the District of Columbia claims.

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

Chang v. Rockridge Manor Condominium · filed 2009-08-31(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Chang’s state law claims against the attorney 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, taking federalism and comity into account.

John Chism Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Pennington · filed 2009-08-31(c)(3)

The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under § 1367(a) if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Out of respect for the principles of federalism and for the courts of the State of Arkansas, the Court will exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to Chism Bail Bonds’ 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.

Alvarez-Torres v. Ryder Memorial Hospital, Inc. · filed 2009-09-04(c)(3)

Nevertheless, the district court also dismissed without prejudice "plaintiffs' state law claims against defendants," which plainly includes state-law claims against the individual physicians. The district court was entitled to do this. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it has "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction").

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims when it stays federal damages claims that remain in the action.

Gilbert v. North Carolina State Bar · filed 2009-09-14(c)(3)

However, counts four and five are both federal section 1983 claims against Edmonson in his individual capacity, and Gilbert seeks damages under both counts. Thus, the court stays the federal damage claims and cannot, at this stage of the proceedings, dismiss the state-law claims pursuant to section 1367(c)(3).

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; judicial economy informs that decision.

BIG DIPPER ENTERTAINMENT, LLC. v. City of Warren · filed 2009-09-17(c)(3)

The Court does not believe that interests of judicial economy outweigh the concern over needlessly deciding issues of state law here. This Court therefore declines to exercise 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 claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy, fairness, and comity informing that choice.

BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF GA. v. City of Dalton · filed 2009-10-13(c)(3)

Even though the Court’s decision to dismiss Plaintiffs federal claim does not rob the Court of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367, the Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining non-diverse state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; when a case is at its inception, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity can favor declining it.

Cleary Building Corp. v. David A. Dame, Inc. · filed 2009-12-01(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Because this case is at its inception, these factors weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Coastal Outdoor Advertising Group, LLC v. Township of Union · filed 2009-12-29(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a related state law claim when “it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... As Plaintiff has not asserted any basis for the exercise of diversity jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

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

Rev. Tom Walker, II v. SunTrust Bank of Thomasvill · filed 2010-01-19(c)(3)

Because the court dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction, it then had discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Walker’s state law claims against the other defendants who did not file a motion to dismiss.

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

Jm Martinac Shipbuilding Corpo v. State of Washington · filed 2010-01-29(c)(3)

A district court may properly decline supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction (here, the RICO claims).

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

Hancock v. Hood · filed 2010-02-18(c)(3)

A district court’s decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the sole asserted federal claim has been dismissed.

Stengel v. Black · filed 2010-03-02(c)(3)

Furthermore, as the due process claim was the only alleged basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, it was proper for the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Appellant’s replevin claim arising under state law.