28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Locke v. ST. AUGUSTINE'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH · filed 2010-03-03(c)(3)

Yet, a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where the “court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses the state law claims without prejudice.

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

Figueroa v. Alejandro · filed 2010-03-04(c)(3)

Regardless, a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing "all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Alvarez-Torres v. Ryder Mem. Hosp., Inc., 582 F.3d 47, 53 (1st Cir. 2009).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially before discovery or trial preparation.

Murray v. Mulgrew · filed 2010-03-26(c)(3)

Dismissal is appropriate in this case because the claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed and the parties have not even begun to conduct discovery, let alone prepare for trial.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

McKnight v. Middleton · filed 2010-03-29(c)(3)

In the instant case, all federal claims have been dismissed against all Defendants and nothing counsels this Court to retain the state law claims. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Mesumbe v. Howard University · filed 2010-04-19(c)(3)

Because the parties are not completely diverse, and the federal claim in Count I has been dismissed, the only basis for jurisdiction over Counts II and III is pendent jurisdiction under § 1367. Taking into consideration factors including judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to allow the state law claims in Counts II and III to proceed.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state and municipal claims after it dismisses the federal claims.

Pabon v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2010-05-11(c)(3)

Retention and adjudication of these non-federal claims would thus necessitate the discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, this Court, as is its prerogative, declines to do so, finding that Pabon’s claims under the various State and municipal laws implicated here are more appropriately determined in a State forum.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss related state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Gerow v. State of Washington · filed 2010-06-14(c)(3)

After dismissing all federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing ZDI’s related state law 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 the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Travis v. Bradley · filed 2010-06-22(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Travis’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after it dismisses the claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

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

Madura v. Lakebridge Condominium Assn. · filed 2010-06-14(c)(3)

But a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which it has original jurisdiction are dismissed.

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

Woodward v. Morgenthau · filed 2010-08-09(c)(3)

Accordingly, because the Court has dismissed all of Woodward’s federal claims brought under § 1983, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pleaded in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows 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.

Robertson v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-08-16(c)(3)

Further, the court concludes that the balance of the factors under § 1367(c) weighs in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Bryant v. Pineda · filed 2010-09-07(c)(3)

The district court also properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bryant’s state law claims after dismissing his federal claims without leave to amend. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Rodriguez-Quiñones v. Lehigh Safety Shoe, Co. · filed 2010-09-09(c)(3)

Although defendants do not address Law 80, Article 1802, or Article 1803 in the motion for summary judgment, the jurisdictional basis to maintain those claims and the Law 100 claim in this Court has been eroded by the dismissal of Rodriguez’s federal claims. ... Accordingly, the supplemental claims pursuant to Law 80, Law 100, and Articles 1802 and 1803 are DISMISSED 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.

J & J PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Schmalz · filed 2010-09-17(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs sole claim against Defendant, the Court hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant’s state law counterclaim.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state wage claims intertwined with substantial federal ERISA claims, even when the state claims use Rule 23 opt-out procedures alongside an FLSA claim.

Gomez v. Rossi Concrete, Inc. · filed 2010-09-22(c)(2)

This does not appear to be a case where Plaintiffs are using the FLSA merely as a jurisdictional hook to assert state-law overtime claims in federal court. Plaintiffs have alleged significant ERISA violations in addition to their overtime claims, which supplies another basis for federal jurisdiction. And although the contradictory opt-in and opt-out procedures might be somewhat confusing to class members in some cases, it will not have that effect here because Plaintiffs are not seeking to certify the FLSA claim as a class action. The Court therefore exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Marschall v. Recovery Solution Specialists, Inc. · filed 2010-10-05(c)(3)

Finally, dismissal of the state claims against CSMC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was proper once the federal claims were properly dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when no claims within its original jurisdiction survive.

Swiatkowski v. Citibank · filed 2010-10-07(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims plaintiff is attempting to assert given the absence of any federal claims that survive.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially when the case is still in its early stages.

MacFall v. City of Rochester · filed 2010-10-27(c)(3)

Since the Court has dismissed all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, and this case has not progressed beyond its early stages, I decline to exercise the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and plaintiffs’ state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to any remedies that plaintiffs may have in state court.

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

Curtis & Associates, P.C. v. Law Offices of Bushman · filed 2010-12-15(c)(3)

The federal RICO claims — the basis for this court’s federal question jurisdiction — having been dismissed, the court is left with a discretionary choice as to whether it will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the Complaint’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the Complaint’s state law claims and those claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

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

McKIVITZ v. Township of Stowe · filed 2010-12-22(c)(3)

Nevertheless, § 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims under circumstances in which it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction ...” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Since the Court has determined that the Plaintiffs’ federal claims should be dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction over their state constitutional claims will be declined.

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

Chubirko v. Better Business Bureau of Southern Piedmont, Inc. · filed 2011-02-10(c)(3)

However, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims, which provided the original jurisdiction necessary to assert statutory supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, the Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remand them to state court after considering fairness, comity, and judicial economy.

JS Ex Rel. Simpson v. Thorsen · filed 2011-02-25(c)(3)

Lastly, since the case is at a relatively early stage in the litigation, with discovery yet to commence, it would not offend notions of judicial economy to remand the case to the original state court from which it was removed. Consequently, the Court REMANDS counts III, IV, V, VIII, IX and X to the Circuit Court for the City of Suffolk.

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

Medina & Medina v. Rico · filed 2011-03-09(c)(3)

District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Having dismissed plaintiffs’ federal law claims against defendant Commonwealth, here is no claim remaining in this case over which the Court has original jurisdiction. ... Therefore, defendant Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss the article 1802 and article 1803 supplemental claims is GRANTED and plaintiffs Puerto Rico Civil Code’s article 1802 and article 1803 supplemental claims against the Commonwealth 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.

Hopkins v. Deveaux · filed 2011-03-16(c)(3)

In the present matter, having dismissed plaintiffs two federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs numerous remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, even when it grants leave to amend the federal claims.

Grimes v. Fremont General Corp. · filed 2011-03-31(c)(3)

Here, the Court has currently dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims. Because the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend some of their federal claims, the Court finds that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness would not be served by this Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims until Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a federal cause of action, and to do so would be inconsistent with the principle of comity.

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

Thornton v. City of Pittsburgh · filed 2011-04-06(c)(3)

Where the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... The court finds that the balance of factors points toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. Therefore, plaintiffs’ state law claims will be remanded to state court.

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

Walsh v. Mitchell · filed 2011-05-04(c)(3)

A district court enjoys discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to its original jurisdiction.

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.

European Community v. RJR NABISCO, INC. · filed 2011-05-13(c)(3)

Where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the supplemental jurisdiction statute counsels the court to decline jurisdiction. ... Therefore, as counseled by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of Plaintiffs’ case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, and those claims may be dismissed without prejudice.

Parent v. New York · filed 2011-05-24(c)(3)

To the extent any state law claims remain against any defendants, supplemental jurisdiction will be declined pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and any such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Seeman v. GRACIE GARDENS OWNERS CORP. · filed 2011-06-27(c)(3)

The only remaining claim is a pendent state law claim for overtime violations. Since all federal claims are dismissed, I exercise my discretion to dismiss this pendent state law claim without prejudice to its being filed in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits remand of remaining state-law claims after dismissal of the claims within original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor remand.

Beckinger v. Township of Elizabeth · filed 2011-06-29(c)(3)

Here, because the two remaining claims are state-law claims, judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties counsel against retaining supplemental jurisdiction over them. Accordingly, we find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in remanding these claims to the state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with the choice guided by comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Doe v. City of Demopolis · filed 2011-06-30(c)(3)

Nonetheless, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is not a kneejerk action once all federal claims are dismissed; rather, “the court should take into account concerns of comity, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the like.”

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.

Ashland Hospital Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 575 · filed 2011-07-19(c)(3)

Because KDMC’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its remaining state-law claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim based on comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Technology Licensing Corp. v. Technicolor USA, Inc. · filed 2011-07-28(c)(3)

Comity weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the state court is competent to hear the state law claim and may have a better understanding of the relevant state law. As for judicial economy, although the action has certainly been pending in this court longer than the “usual case,” Technicolor’s state law claim itself has not been the subject of extensive litigation. Judicial economy does not weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Lastly, convenience and fairness do not weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. The state and federal fora are equally convenient for the parties. There is no reason to doubt that the state court will provide an equally fair adjudication of the issues. Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss Technicolor’s remaining state law counterclaim.

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

Barber v. Quarterman · filed 2011-08-03(c)(3)

Finally, because all of Barber’s federal claims were properly dismissed, the magistrate judge did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Barber’s state-law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 226-27 (5th Cir. 1999), and in dismissing those claims without prejudice, see Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 246 (5th Cir. 1999).

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, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Howell v. Redus · filed 2011-08-12(c)(3)

We further conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Howell’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction); Moots v. Lombardi, 453 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review).

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.

Handi-Van, Village Car Service, Inc. v. Broward County Florida, Ilene Lieberman · filed 2011-08-24(c)(3)

The statute that governs supplemental jurisdiction authorizes district courts to “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).

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; it may dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

Fox v. City of Greensboro · filed 2011-08-27(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a federal district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over such state-law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Because this court will dismiss all Plaintiffs’ federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims, which will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Hudes v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. · filed 2011-08-30(c)(3)

By the same token, they “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such] claim[s] . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” § 1367(c)(3). ... Here the factors weigh against retention of the case. All federal claims against all Defendants are being dismissed. ... The Court therefore will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Kolbe & Kolbe Health & Welfare Benefit Plan v. Medical College of Wisconsin, Inc. · filed 2011-09-02(c)(3)

On remand, the district court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Reardon v. Midland Community Schools · filed 2011-09-02(c)(3)

Although Defendants also argue that the Court should dismiss the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim with prejudice, at this early stage of the case there is no justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claim. Accordingly, it will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; the court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in exercising that discretion.

Mekuria v. Bank of America · filed 2011-09-23(c)(3)

By the same token, they “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such] claim[s] . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” § 1367(c)(3). ... Here the factors weigh against retention of the case.

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.

Y. Dockens v. Dekalb County School System, Dr. Crawford Lewis · filed 2011-09-28(c)(3)

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Once the district court properly granted summary judgment for the School System on the FMLA claims, no federal claims remained. It was not abuse of discretion for the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

Williams v. Hobbs · filed 2011-10-07(c)(3)

A federal district court has discretionary power to decline jurisdiction where it has "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Shaw v. District of Columbia · filed 2011-11-18(c)(3)

With the dismissal of plaintiff’s federal claim, the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction disappears. Although the Court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining claims, it will instead remand those claims to Superior Court.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (c)(3) allow a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an unsettled state law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Zaragoza v. Bennett-Haron · filed 2011-12-05(c)(1), (c)(3)

Because, as discussed below, the Court will grant Respondents’ motion to dismiss those claims, the Court will sever and remand the separation of powers claim and decline to exercise supplemental authority over that remaining state law claim.

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.

Luberda v. Regions Bank · filed 2011-12-07(c)(3)

We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over Luberda’s state-law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

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

Marshall v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. · filed 2011-12-21(c)(3)

As to the state-law claim, it appears that the District Court had intended to dismiss that claim without prejudice, and in fact the court did not fully dispose of the claim on the merits. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to reflect that the dismissal of the state-law claim is without prejudice, and we affirm the judgment as modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (giving district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction where all original-jurisdiction claims have been dismissed).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, unless and until a viable federal claim is stated.

Felber v. Yudof · filed 2011-12-22(c)(3)

As urged by defendants, the Court declines to reach the viability of plaintiffs’ claims under state law unless and until there is a viable federal claim stated.

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

Fowkes v. Wayne County · filed 2011-12-29(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Count I and II because, as discussed above, the Court is dismissing Count III.

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

Montilla v. Prison Health Services, Inc. · filed 2012-01-12(c)(3)

We likewise conclude that the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Montilla’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 181 (3d Cir. 1999).

After dismissing the federal claims, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Gatson v. State of Nj · filed 2012-01-10(c)(3)

Finally, we conclude that the District Court acted within its discretion in declining ... to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gatson’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 181 (3d Cir. 1999).

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

Paper Thermometer v. Murray, et al. · filed 2012-01-23(c)

Plaintiffs’ state law claims against the Duerigs, however, are dismissed without prejudice as the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, consistent with the usual rule and the parties’ express wishes.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, taking judicial economy and federalism into account.

Veale, et al. v. Furness, et al. · filed 2012-02-02(c)(3)

Because those claims form part of the same "case or controversy" as the Veales' federal claims, however, this court is empowered to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Whether or not to do so lies wholly within the discretion of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1177 (1st Cir. 1995). As a general principle, though, "the unfavorable disposition of a plaintiff's federal claims at the early stages of suit, well before the commencement of trial, will trigger the dismissal without prejudice of any supplemental state-law claims." Id.; see also United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) ("Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well."). With this instruction in mind, and taking into account concerns of both judicial economy and federalism (in particular the concern of interpreting state law in a matter devoid of any federal interest) , the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law claims. Plaintiffs' state-law claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

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

Long v. Safeway, Inc. · filed 2012-02-03(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any non-federal claims arising from plaintiff’s termination.

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

Hammond v. Jacobs Field Services · filed 2012-02-09(c)(3)

The plaintiffs state law claims are dismissed without prejudice because the Court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 not to assume federal jurisdiction over these claims.

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.

Johnson v. VCG Holding Corp. · filed 2012-03-09(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court dismisses, without prejudice, the Plaintiffs’ state law claims in Claim Two of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

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

Lopez v. Tri-State Drywall, Inc. · filed 2012-03-20(c)(3)

In this case, all of Mr. Lopez’s claims over which this court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this is sufficient reason to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Lopez’s state law claims.

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

Pooler v. Nassau University Medical Center · filed 2012-03-23(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims given the absence of any federal claim that survives the motion to dismiss and dismisses any such claims without prejudice.

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

Hall v. Valeska · filed 2012-03-28(c)(3)

Having concluded that the federal claims are due to be dismissed, the court agrees that it is appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and that those claims are due to be 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 claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Quiles-Santiago v. Rodriguez-Diaz · filed 2012-04-02(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the Commonwealth law claims. Plaintiffs’s supplemental Commonwealth law claims are therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. v. Wynne · filed 2012-04-02(c)(3)

In light of the fact that there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction in this matter, I will exercise my discretion to dismiss a case in which all federal claims have been dismissed and only state law claims remain.

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

International Creative Talent Agency, LLC v. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus · filed 2012-04-24(c)(3)

By the same token, they “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such] claim[s] . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” § 1367(c)(3). ... Here the factors clearly weigh against a retention of the case.

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.

Ross ex rel. S.R. v. Lamberson · filed 2012-06-12(c)(3)

The Court finds that it does not have pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to address the remaining state law claims asserted against Lamberson.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; that ground does not apply while federal claims remain.

Basile Baumann Prost Cole & Assocs., Inc. v. BBP & Assocs. LLC · filed 2012-06-19(c)(3)

When a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline” to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). But the Court has not dismissed all federal claims. Accordingly, § 1367(c) is inapplicable, and the Court will deny summary judgment on Counts IV-VI.

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

Cannon v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-07-06(c)(3)

Since all of the federal claims are being dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 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.

Kahraman v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. · filed 2012-08-08(c)(3)

In the instant case the Court, in its discretion, “‘declinefs] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ ” over plaintiffs state law claims because “it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original 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.

Marshall v. Regions Bank · filed 2012-08-20(c)(3)

A district court 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), and “[w]e have encouraged district courts to dismiss any remaining state claims when . . . the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial,” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004). Nothing in the record suggests that the district court abused its discretion in declining 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 the federal claims.

Pawlowski v. Scherbenske · filed 2012-08-28(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claim is dismissed as unripe; that choice is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Capeheart v. Terrell · filed 2012-08-29(c)(3)

And nothing about the district court’s investment or the nature of Capeheart’s state-law claims is so extraordinary to make its decision not to retain those claims an abuse of its discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Garrity, 479 F.3d at 906-07.

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

Anderson v. Usher · filed 2012-09-17(c)(3)

Fourth, this Court may, and will, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs surviving claims arising under District of Columbia law and the common law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(€)(3) (authorizing such action when "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction").

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

Rivera-Freytes v. Rico · filed 2012-09-28(c)(3)

Because the Court denies in part defendant Somoza’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, plaintiffs federal claims remain to ground jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims pursuant to Commonwealth law.

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

Scola v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. · filed 2012-10-09(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, thus the third rationale of § 1367(c) applies. ... Taking § 1367(c) into account, the Court concludes Plaintiffs state law claims should be DISMISSED.

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

Bello v. Howard University · filed 2012-10-16(c)(3)

Because Count V is the only count over which this Court had original, federal question jurisdiction, the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this action, which concern issues of District of Columbia statutory and common law.

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; retaining the state claim generally requires unusual circumstances.

Board of Education v. County of St. Clair · filed 2012-10-25(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... As none of these rare circumstances exist in the present case, the Court, within its broad discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim for request for judicial review.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to the district court’s discretion once all federal claims have been dismissed.

Roman v. Jefferson at Hollywood Lp · filed 2012-10-30(c)(3)

The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Appellant’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Such jurisdiction is “purely discretionary” once all federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Guaranteed Rate, Inc. v. Barr · filed 2012-12-12(c)(3)

Finding no justification to depart from the general rule requiring dismissal of supplemental state law claims in these circumstances, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy and related factors guide that decision.

Son Ly v. Solin, Inc. · filed 2012-12-17(c)(3)

Here the factors clearly weigh against retention of this case. This Court has handled little in the case beyond the current Motions to Dismiss and has not dealt at all with the supplemental state claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc. · filed 2013-01-07(c)(3)

Though the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the fair representation claim, this does not revive the Stewards’ state law claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing. The District Court indicated that even if it if had original jurisdiction it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Stewards’ state law claim. We need not disturb this disposition. See Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004) (“We have encouraged district courts to dismiss any remaining state claims when . . . the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.”).

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

Republic of Iraq v. AG · filed 2013-02-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed Iraq’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the only federal claim, with the early stage of the case weighing against retention.

Jones v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority · filed 2013-02-13(c)(3)

Here, the factors weigh against retention of the case. This Court is dismissing the only federal claim against Defendant. This case has not progressed in federal court past Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and the Court has developed no familiarity with the issues presented. ... The Court, therefore, will dismiss the wrongful-termination and DCHRA claims without prejudice, and Plaintiff may bring such claims, if not barred, in the appropriate local court.

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

Sanchez v. Pitre, Inc. · filed 2013-02-26(c)(3)

The Court has discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction where, as here, the court dismisses “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Taking into consideration the relevant factors, and following Tenth Circuit precedent, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over either of Defendant’s 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, particularly when it has invested little time in the case.

Manolov v. Borough of Manhattan Community College · filed 2013-02-26(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Such an exercise of discretion is appropriate here, where the Court has not invested any appreciable time in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed the federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Novak v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · filed 2013-03-01(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Novak’s federal claim, it may "decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over her state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). To determine whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction, courts balance the “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” ... The court finds that those factors weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction over Novak's state common law claims.

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

Ali v. Amoroso · filed 2013-03-07(c)(3)

We add that the District Court properly dismissed the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it dismisses all federal claims, but reinstatement of a federal claim also reinstates the associated state-law claims.

Roe v. Diamond · filed 2013-03-20(c)(3)

The District Court recognized its discretion to retain jurisdiction over Roe‘s remaining state-law claims but, having dismissed all of the federal claims, properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Though the District Court correctly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, because the federal LMRA claims are reinstated following remand, the state law claims are necessarily reinstated as well.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims based on factors including the stage of litigation and the suitability of a state forum.

Magee v. Trustees of Hamline University · filed 2013-03-29(c)(3)

Considering all of these factors, the Court concludes that federal district court is not the most suitable forum for adjudicating Magee’s 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.

WJ Global LLC v. Farrell · filed 2013-04-17(c)(3)

Though it may have jurisdiction to consider the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367 and 1441(c), the Court finds “no good reason to do so.”

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

Grand Manor Health Related Facility, Inc. v. Hamilton Equities Inc. · filed 2013-04-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed the Interpleader Complaint and the Third Party Complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, namely the claims asserted by Grand Manor against Hamilton Equities and the counterclaim by Hamilton Equities against Grand Manor, and remands 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.

Pelcher v. City of Miami · filed 2013-05-08(c)(3)

Pursuant to section 1367(c), the Court has discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise jurisdiction over these pendent state claims.

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

Orea v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding · filed 2013-05-21(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Oreas’ state law claims after dismissing their federal claims.

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

Reyes v. Krasdale Foods, Inc. · filed 2013-05-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining NYSHRL claims against Krasdale and against Patton individually.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are eliminated before trial when the balance of relevant factors favors dismissal.

Young v. County of Hawaii · filed 2013-05-22(c)(3)

Because the federal claims in this case have been eliminated before trial, the balance of factors tips in favor of dismissal.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with comity favoring dismissal when the local law has a distinct standard of proof.

Thomas v. City of New York · filed 2013-07-12(c)(3)

This inquiry attracts the provisions of section 1367 of the Judicial Code, which permits district courts to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if the district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the NYCHRL 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.

Irish v. Ferguson · filed 2013-09-03(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Counts One through Twenty, only state law claims remain. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides: “The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

Morrison v. George Holding · filed 2013-09-24(c)(3)

Finally, because we conclude that Morrison’s remaining claims are meritless, supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims is not warranted.

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

Simes v. Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission · filed 2013-10-31(c)(3)

The district court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is reviewed for abuse of discretion. ... As to the second point, Simes does not meaningfully challenge the district court’s exercise of discretion and, even if Simes has not waived the issue, the district court did not abuse its discretion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining local law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of the court’s prior involvement, prejudice, and the local court’s interest in the issues.

Yancey v. St. Elizabeths Hospital · filed 2013-11-06(c)(3)

The factors enumerated in Section 1367(c) therefore weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in Dr. Yancey’s complaint.

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

Waters v. City of Culver City · filed 2013-11-12(c)(3)

Because dismissal of the § 1983 claim was proper, we do not disturb the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Waters’s state law claims against Brotman and Narimatsu.

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.

Bessinger v. Indian Valley Greenes, Inc. · filed 2013-11-14(c)(3)

With no remaining federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and will dismiss the case in its entirety.

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

Richardson v. Capital One, N.A. · filed 2013-11-22(c)(3)

The District Court also did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Richardson’s pendent state-law claims.

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

Davis v. Yeroushalmi · filed 2013-12-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed all the federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and the state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and predominance of state issues typically favor doing so.

Zimmerman v. Bellows · filed 2013-12-04(c)(3)

But the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, and where all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, the factors to be considered in deciding whether to exercise such jurisdiction — judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and predominance of state issues — typically militate against doing so.

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

Alston v. Kean University · filed 2013-12-19(c)(3)

Further, having dismissed Alston’s federal claims, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Alston’s state-law claims against Blood.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a district court should generally dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice absent a compelling reason to retain them.

Rocha v. Fedex Corp. · filed 2014-01-17(c)(3)

Where all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the “usual practice” is that a federal district court should generally dismiss the supplemental claims. ... There is no compelling reason for this Court to retain jurisdiction. As a result, the Court dismisses Counts VIII through XVI without prejudice to their refiling in 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.

Damond v. LeBlanc · filed 2014-01-20(c)(3)

The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims since it had dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It was well within its power to do so.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, subject to abuse-of-discretion review.

Landess v. Baton Rouge Marine Contr · filed 2014-01-20(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by remanding the remaining state-law claims to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) after the dismissal of all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; reinstating a federal claim warrants vacating a prior declination.

Hayes v. County of Nassau · filed 2014-02-07(c)(3)

Having concluded that the dismissal of the Jones Act claim was in error, we also vacate the portion of the judgment declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hayes’s state law claims. See Loeffler v. Staten Isl. Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268, 279 (2d Cir. 2009) (vacating order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over common law negligence claims because court vacated dismissal of federal claims); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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, with economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing the decision.

McNeal v. Frontier AG, Inc. · filed 2014-02-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... In summary, after due consideration, the court shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs breach of contract claim against Frontier.

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

Brady ex rel. Estate of Murray v. City of Westland · filed 2014-02-18(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a court may decline tó exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where, as here, the court has determined that the federal claims in the case are subject to dismissal. ... The Court elects to follow this customary practice here and dismiss Plaintiffs state-law claims without prejudice, where Defendants have left the Court largely to its own devices in determining whether summary judgment should be granted in their favor on these 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.

Macauley v. Estate of Nicholas · filed 2014-03-25(c)(3)

However, where a district court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because the Court finds no such considerations to be present here, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Macauley’s state law claims.

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.

Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority · filed 2014-04-07(c)(3)

The court will not exercise jurisdiction over the purported violations of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams law. 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that all original-jurisdiction claims were dismissed when a federal claim is reinstated on appeal.

Pratt v. New York & New Jersey Port Aut · filed 2014-04-08(c)(3)

Because our decision to remand this matter as to Pratt’s excessive-force claim under § 1983 means that not all claims over which the District Court has original jurisdiction have been denied, we will also vacate and remand the District Court’s order as to supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Granger v. Williams · filed 2014-04-18(c)(3)

Nor did the District Court abuse its discretion in declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to retain supplemental jurisdiction over some state law claims while declining it over others.

Sussman-Automatic Corp. v. Spa World Corp. · filed 2014-04-25(c)(3)

In this regard, nothing in the text of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) prevents a Court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over some, but not all, of the relevant state law claims. Rather, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) merely requires the dismissal of all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction, a precondition satisfied here.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims even if they form a common case or controversy with federal claims when the state law claims substantially predominate.

NetApp, Inc. v. Nimble Storage, Inc. · filed 2014-05-12(c)(2)

Second, even if the claims against the employees were sufficiently related to the CFAA claims to form a common case or controversy under § 1367(a), the Court exercises its discretion under § 1367(c)(2) to decline supplemental 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.

Lawtone-Bowles v. City of New York · filed 2014-05-30(c)(3)

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

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

Blackmon v. Escambia County School Board · filed 2014-06-12(c)(3)

The district court did not err when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Blackmon’s claims under state law. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Mikhail v. Kahn · filed 2014-07-09(c)(3)

In addition, the District Court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mikhail’s state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Cruz-Caraballo v. Rodriguez · filed 2014-07-13(c)(3)

A district court is authorized to decline adjudication of lingering state-law claims after it has dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... With no valid federal-law claims against defendants .remaining, the Court, having considered these factors, declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Turner v. Corrections Corporation of America · filed 2014-07-18(c)(3)

By the same token, they “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such] claim[s] . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the factors weigh against retention of the case.

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

Jian Long Li v. Zhao · filed 2014-08-08(c)(3)

The district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction,” if, among other things, it has already “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Having dismissed Li’s FLSA claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after it grants summary judgment on all federal claims.

Lundgren v. Ameristar Credit Solutions, Inc. · filed 2014-08-18(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs pendent state law claims and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Schneller v. Philadelphia Newspapers Inc · filed 2014-08-25(c)(3)

Because no federal claims were actionable, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to entertain Schneller’s state law claims. 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Barrentine v. New Jersey Transit · filed 2014-09-02(c)(3)

When a court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the supplemental jurisdiction statute grants the court discretion to dismiss the remaining state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, even when leave to amend leaves its viability unresolved.

United States ex rel. Modglin v. DJO Global Inc. · filed 2014-09-02(c)(3)

Relators’ federal FCA claim provides the sole basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Because it is presently unclear whether relators can state a viable federal claim, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over relators’ state law claims at this time.

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

Doe I v. Cisco Systems, Inc. · filed 2014-09-05(c)(3)

As all of Plaintiffs’ federal law claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, including the claim arising under the UCL.

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, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

O'Brien v. Yugartis · filed 2014-09-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs sole federal claims, the Court turns to consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims or whether to remand them to state court. ... Accordingly, retaining jurisdiction over the case would be inappropriate, and this Court exercises its discretion to remand the remaining claims to New York State Supreme Court, St. Lawrence County.

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

Fox v. Regional Transportation Authority · filed 2014-09-23(c)(3)

Under § 1367(c)(3), the 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.” ... For these reasons, the court declines to 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guiding that decision.

Cartica Management, LLC v. CorpBanca, S.A. · filed 2014-09-25(c)(3)

Because Cartica’s federal claims are herein dismissed and none of the Cohill factors supports exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim, plaintiffs state law claims will be dismissed 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, considering judicial efficiency, fairness, and comity.

Vallejo v. Garda CL Southwest, Inc. · filed 2014-09-29(c)(3)

This case has been on file for an extended period, but the focus has been on threshold issues wholly unrelated to the plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Judicial efficiency, fairness to the parties, and comity all support allowing the remaining state-law claims to be resolved in state court. This court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismisses them without prejudice so that the plaintiffs may file in state court if they wish.

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 judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Cranel Inc. v. Pro Image Consultants Group, LLC · filed 2014-09-29(c)(3)

“A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” ... Having considered the “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” ... the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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.

Castaneda v. Burton-Cahill · filed 2014-12-04(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Castaneda’s remaining state law claims against Hunter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Hamilton v. Home Sales Inc. · filed 2014-12-18(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the Hamiltons’ state law claims after dismissing the federal claims with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “[a] court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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

Reyes v. Professional Hepa Certificate Corp. · filed 2015-01-23(c)(3)

Regarding Plaintiffs state law claims, in its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims, the court declines 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.

Klaper v. Cypress Hills Cemetery · filed 2015-02-10(c)(3)

As to Klaper‟s claim that the district court erred in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, the district court was under no obligation to do so.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party claim when the federal claims no longer sustain the case.

Lary v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. · filed 2015-02-10(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over third-party plaintiff CCG’s third-party complaint against third-party defendant Healthcare Data Experts, LLC and, accordingly, CCG’s third-party complaint against Healthcare Data Experts, LLC is dismissed 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.

Ngemi v. County of Nassau · filed 2015-02-20(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over any state law claims given the absence of any federal claims that survive the motion to dismiss, and dismisses such state claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Article 78 claim when no federal claims remain in the case.

Village of West Hampton Dunes v. New York · filed 2015-03-02(c)(3)

However, courts in this Circuit have uniformly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where, as here, there are no federal claims left in the case. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs third cause of action under Article 78 of the NYCPLR and dismisses that claim without prejudice.

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

McDonald v. School District No. 1 · filed 2015-03-17(c)(3)

While courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if there is otherwise a jurisdictional basis for doing so, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) states that a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over such claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Finding no compelling reason here to retain jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs remaining 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, including when proceedings are at an early stage.

Maynor v. Mt. Washington Pediatric Hospital · filed 2015-03-17(c)(3)

Concluding that it lacks subject matter over Plaintiffs federal claims and given the early stage of these proceedings, the Court will 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 the federal claims, subject to abuse-of-discretion review.

Sula v. William Stephens, Director · filed 2015-03-27(c)(3)

As the district court properly dismissed Sula’s federal claims, its decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims was not an abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Batiste v. Island Records Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 226 (5th Cir. 1999).

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 the stage of litigation, judicial resources spent, prejudice, and the availability of a state forum.

Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC · filed 2015-03-30(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal 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.” ... Considering the above factors, the Court concludes that this is not the appropriate forum for adjudicating the state law claims of defamation and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

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

Johnston v. University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education · filed 2015-03-31(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Van Tassel v. Piccione · filed 2015-04-01(c)(3)

Once the District Court properly dismissed Appellant’s federal claims, it then properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all her 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, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Montgomery v. Aparatis Dist Co · filed 2015-04-10(c)(3)

As we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed all claims falling within its original jurisdiction, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Zaslow v. Coleman · filed 2015-05-05(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), we will also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

King v. Deputy Attorney General Delaware · filed 2015-06-11(c)(3)

Because no federal claim was actionable,7 the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to entertain King’s state law claim for defamation.8 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Desir ex rel. Estate of G.D. v. Steward Health Care Systems, LLC · filed 2015-06-15(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims brought against the Non-Federal Defendants.

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

Rubio v. Rush Card · filed 2015-07-02(c)(3)

Dismissal of Rubio’s state law claims was not an abuse of discretion in the absence of any cognizable federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims upon the dismissal of the federal claims); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (setting forth requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction); Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel- Las Vegas, Inc., 802 F.2d 362, 364 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining the legal certainty standard for the amount-in-controversy requirement); cf. Zhang v. Superior Court, 304 P.3d 163, 167 (Cal. 2013) (under California’s Unfair Competition Law, a private plaintiff’s relief is generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution).