28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Hannah's Boutique, Inc. v. Surdej · filed 2015-07-02(c)(3)

A district court “may decline -to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if, among other reasons, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Here, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining non-federal claims.

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

Perry v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · filed 2015-07-15(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute further provides that “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). Because the court dismisses all federal claims, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s D.C. wage law claims, and dismisses Count II.

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

Ross v. Correction Officers John & Jane Does 1-5 · filed 2015-07-20(c)(3)

Because we hold that Mullings is entitled to qualified immunity on Ross’s federal claims, we also direct dismissal of the supplemental state law claims, 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 the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Sorias v. National Cellular USA, Inc. · filed 2015-08-27(c)(3)

In accordance with the guiding principle that district courts will not typically maintain state claims once the anchoring federal claims are dismissed, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims against the NC Defendants.

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

MAVL Capital, Inc. v. Marine Transport Logistics, Inc. · filed 2015-09-02(c)(3)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) “permits a district court in its discretion, to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all federal claims.” ... Given that. Plaintiffs federal claims against Defendants have all been dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 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.

Bohringer v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2015-09-10(c)(3)

Yet, that statute authorizes courts to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the FCCPA claim.

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

Sunpower Corp. v. Sunedison, Inc. · filed 2015-09-11(c)(3)

If an amended complaint is not filed within that timeframe, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining- -state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and will remand the case to state ... court.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that the federal claims have been dismissed when those claims survive dismissal.

Chime v. Peak Security Plus, Inc. · filed 2015-09-29(c)(3)

Having found, however, that the plaintiff’s FLSA claims survive dismissal, the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Michael v. Boutwell · filed 2015-10-07(c)(3)

The third statutory factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the federal claims will be dismissed by-this-order.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the court may consider the case’s stage and its familiarity with the remaining claims.

Wallert v. Atlan · filed 2015-10-26(c)(3)

The Court agrees that supplemental jurisdiction would not be properly exercised as to Wallert’s copyright-infringement claims based on foreign law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(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.” The factors relevant to this discretionary determination overwhelmingly favor not exercising 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.

Olejnik v. England · filed 2015-11-25(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(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.”

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.

McCracken v. Wells Fargo Bank NA · filed 2015-12-14(c)(3)

Nevertheless, a District Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim where it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, dismissal of any state law general breach of contract claim without prejudice, pursuant to the District Court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, would have been entirely proper and thus we will uphold the District Court’s determination on that basis.

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

Torres-Rivera v. Garcia-Padilla · filed 2016-01-15(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” have been dismissed.

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

Wheeler v. Wheeler · filed 2016-01-20(c)(3)

Because we affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the federal claims, and Wheeler points to no other potential abuse of the Court’s discretion, we also affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Wheeler’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional claim when all federal claims have been dismissed early in the case.

Filteau v. Prudenti · filed 2016-02-17(c)(3)

Because this case is at an early stage and all federal claims have been dismissed, and because New York State courts are better situated to assess claims brought under the New York State Constitution, the Court here, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fil-teau's state constitutional claim.

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

Meyer v. State of New York Office of Mental Health · filed 2016-03-28(c)(3)

Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining State law claims, those, too, must be dismissed, without prejudice.

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

Grubbs v. University of Delaware Police Department · filed 2016-03-29(c)(3)

Having concluded that dismissal of the federal claims against defendants City of Wilmington, Jennings, Brennan, Degliobizzi, NPD, Stanko, Buglio, Van Campen, City of Newark, Tiernan, Farrall, Feeney, UDPD, Odgen, Gates, Robinson, UD, and Udaily is appropriate, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining State law claims asserted against the aforementioned defendants.

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

Francis v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center · filed 2016-03-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims under the ADA, the only claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiffs remaining State law claims.

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

Aluru v. Anesthesia Consultants · filed 2016-03-31(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary-judgment to Consultants on all of Dr. Aluru’s claims arising under federal law, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these remaining claims. Although the Court has the discretion to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, it generally does not do so in these circumstances. ... Accordingly, the Court dismisses Dr. Aluru’s 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.

Estate of Martinez v. Taylor · filed 2016-03-31(c)(3)

In addition to providing supplemental jurisdiction, § 1367 also provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” § 1367(c)(3). ... Because I am dismissing Claims One and Two, there are no remaining federal questions.

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

Mastellone v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. · filed 2016-04-05(c)(3)

Having found the' federal claims should be dismissed on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to § 1367(c), and in the exercise of its discretion and in the interests of comity, the Court will decline to exercise continuing “pendent” or supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff claim and defendant’s counterclaim.

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.

Trent v. Huff · filed 2016-04-15(c)(3)

Accordingly, now that the federal question claims have been dismissed, the Court may dismiss the remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court dismisses the remaining state-law claims in this matter without prejudice because those claims are properly and best reserved to the sound discretion of the Kentucky state courts.

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

Ibn-Sadiika v. County of Allegheny Department of Court Records · filed 2016-04-19(c)(3)

And in any event, with no viable federal claim pleaded in the complaint, it would also have been appropriate for the District Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claim. 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 claims.

Hlista v. Safeguard Properties, LLC · filed 2016-05-05(c)(3)

In any event, because the District Court properly dismissed the Hlistas' federal claims, it acted well within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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 dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lorene Foreman v. Freedman · filed 2016-06-02(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Foremans’ state law claims and dismissing them without prejudice.

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

Tong v. State of New Mexico · filed 2016-06-06(c)(3)

Having done this much, it was within the district court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that remained.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially when the action is at a very early stage.

Noonan v. Kane · filed 2016-07-19(c)(3)

All the federal claims are being dismissed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Seven and Eight. The action is in a very early stage. Consequently, Counts Seven and Eight will be dismissed without prejudice to the right of plaintiffs to reassert these claims in the appropriate state court.

Section 1367 allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal claim survives dismissal.

A.G. ex rel. Sassak v. City of Park Ridge · filed 2016-07-27(c)(3)

Because a federal claim has survived, the Court of course will not relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Kane v. New Ipswich , et al. · filed 2016-08-04(c)(3)

In the absence of federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Kane may have intended to bring.

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

Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL · filed 2016-08-24(c)(3)

In addition, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Israeli state law claims in light of its dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs’ federal law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain remaining state claims after the claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed, and a party waives review of that discretion by failing to raise it in the district court.

Globeranger Corp. v. Software AG United States of America, Inc. · filed 2016-09-07(c)(3)

What such a dismissal does is create a question of whether the remaining state law claims should be retained as a discretionary exercise of the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction. Hook, 38 F.3d at 780; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Yet Software AG never asked the district court to exercise that discretion after the dismissal of the potentially preempted claims, so it is foreclosed from raising that possibility now.

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.

Comite Fiestas de la Calle San Sebastian, Inc. v. Cruz · filed 2016-09-13(c)(3)

The district court has discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction and may decline to do so if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... In light of this and after consideration of the supplemental jurisdiction factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiffs Commonwealth contract claims.

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

New England Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n v. Massachusetts Thoroughbred Horsemen's Ass'n · filed 2016-09-28(c)(3)

While this Court retains the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, see Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, it will decline to exercise that 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.

Werkheiser v. Pocono Township · filed 2016-09-28(c)(3)

As there are no remaining claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, pursuant to'28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs pendent state law claims, which will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Soules v. Town of Oxford · filed 2016-10-06(c)(3)

Once a district court dismisses all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may, within its discretion, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims or decline to exercise such jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts wide discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed.

Harvey v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 2016-10-19(c)(3)

Moreover, because “[d]istrict courts enjoy wide discretion in determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over . . . state claim[s] once all federal claims are dismissed,” we conclude that the district court did not err in remanding the Harveys’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the usual pretrial dismissal of federal claims favors declining jurisdiction over remaining state claims.

Eves v. LePage · filed 2016-11-22(c)(3)

In our view, the district court should have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. A district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" if the court "has 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 it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction.

MG Design Associates, Corp. v. CoStar Realty Information, Inc. · filed 2016-12-01(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the copyright claims over which it has original jurisdiction at this time, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over MG’s state law claims.

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

Jones v. Clark County, Ky. · filed 2016-12-19(c)(3)

The district court below declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Jones’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. We interpret this ruling as extending to claims based on the scope of the Kentucky statute, notwithstanding the district court’s discussion of the issue as part of its due process analysis. See Jones, 2016 WL 1050743, at *6. Declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state law issues was appropriate.

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

Hinshaw v. Moore · filed 2016-11-14(c)(3)

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

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

Dandridge-Barnett v. Barnes and Noble, Inc. · filed 2016-11-23(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dandridge-Barnett’s state law claims after...dismissing her federal claims.

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

Whitsitt v. Hedy Holmes Staffing Services · filed 2016-12-22(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Whitsitt’s state law claims in the absence of any cognizable federal claims.

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

Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. Anthem, Inc. · filed 2017-01-18(c)(3)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 permits a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims where the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hill’s state law claims against Blue Cross and will therefore dismiss the remainder of Hill’s Amended Complaint against Blue Cross.

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

Turner v. Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services · filed 2017-02-14(c)(3)

Count 1 served as the sole basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Parent v. Pittsford Central School District · filed 2017-02-17(c)(3)

The Court having dismissed all claims over which it purportedly had original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs 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 law claims when it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Doe v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center · filed 2017-03-07(c)(3)

A court may do so under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 174 (3d Cir. 2009). But we hold that Doe’s Title IX retaliation and quid pro quo claims endure. We will therefore reverse dismissal of her state law claims and remand them for consideration in the first instance.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, ordinarily dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice when no exception applies.

Aberman v. Board of Education · filed 2017-03-17(c)(3)

If the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court’s supplemental jurisdiction persists, but the court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... In these circumstances, the usual rule applies and dictates dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiffs state law-claims in Count I, II, and VII.

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.

Wayne Watson Enterprises, LLC v. City of Cambridge · filed 2017-03-20(c)(3)

Because the Court is granting summary judgment to the City on all of Wayne Watson’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Wayne Watson’s supplemental state-law claim 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 it dismisses all federal claims.

Arroyo v. City of New York · filed 2017-03-21(c)(3)

Because the District Court correctly dismissed all of Arroyo’s federal claims, it was entitled to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 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.

Myhrna Black v. Young · filed 2017-03-23(c)(3)

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

Romine v. Big O Tires Corporate Hdqrtrs · filed 2017-03-23(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Romine’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction); Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).

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

Ingram v. Mooney · filed 2017-03-13(c)(3)

Moreover, ... because Ingram’s federal claims were properly dismissed, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims against Stephenson. See Heggemeier v. Caldwell Cty., Texas, 826 F.3d 861, 872 (5th Cir. 2016); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Humphreys v. McCabe Weisberg & Conway · filed 2017-04-13(c)(3)

And, with no properly pleaded federal counts in that complaint, it was appropriate for the District Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the proposed state law counts.

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

Hill v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. · filed 2017-05-03(c)(3)

Even so, because the District Court correctly dismissed all of Hill’s federal claims, it was entitled to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Jalal v. Lucille Roberts Health Clubs Inc. · filed 2017-05-22(c)(3)

A district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims brought under state and local law where the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state and local law claims. These claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Flexborrow LLC v. TD Auto Finance LLC · filed 2017-06-16(c)(3)

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

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

Amistad Christiana Church v. Life is Beautiful, LLC · filed 2017-07-03(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Appellants’ state law nuisance claim against Life is Beautiful, as the Appellants’ federal claims were properly dismissed.

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.

N'Jai v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 2017-07-27(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Leonard v. George Washington University Hospital · filed 2017-08-07(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over other related claims “if [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 over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Soler v. County of San Diego · filed 2017-08-11(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims based on the dismissal of the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

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

Clark v. Philadelphia Housing Authority · filed 2017-08-14(c)(3)

Because she has not shown that she has a viable federal claim, the District Court acted well within its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Norton v. City of Whiteville · filed 2017-08-31(c)(3)

Further, the court appropriately declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Norton’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of a state law claim when the related claims within the court’s original jurisdiction fail.

John R. Griffin, Jr. v. NH DOC, et al. · filed 2017-09-21(c)(3)

This state law claim should be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a state court action, as Griffin has failed to state any related claim for relief within this court’s original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Stinnett v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2017-09-30(c)(3)

As no federal claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and common law claims.

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

Golian v. N.Y.C. Admin. for Children Servs. · filed 2017-10-16(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise such jurisdiction because it has dismissed Golian's federal claims.

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

Randall v. Facebook, Inc. · filed 2017-11-30(c)(3)

Because no federal claim was actionable, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to entertain Randall’s state law claim for defamation or Randall’s state law claims for defamation asserted against defendants in their individual capacity.

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

Lu v. Samra · filed 2018-01-03(c)(3)

Now that the court is dismissing the sole count supporting original jurisdiction, however, the court “must reassess its jurisdiction,” Camelio v. Am. Fed’n, 137 F.3d 666, 672 (1st Cir. 1998), and may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

Jordan v. Secretary, Florida Department of Children and Family Services · filed 2018-01-19(c)(3)

Because, as we have discussed, the district court properly dismissed the federal claims, it had the discretion to dismiss the pending state law claims.

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

Gilbert v. U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives · filed 2018-01-23(c)(3)

Here, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Shen v. City of N.Y. · filed 2018-02-09(c)(3)

On remand, given the dismissal of all claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this remaining state law claim.

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

Kinney v. Nob Hill Grill · filed 2018-02-09(c)(3)

Given the absence of any available relief under federal law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal claim survives dismissal.

The Segerdahl Corp. v. Ferruzza · filed 2018-02-10(c)(3)

Since this Court has concluded that, at minimum, Segerdahl’s CFAA claim in Count II survives dismissal, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

St. Joan Antida High Sch., Inc. v. Milwaukee Pub. Sch. Dist. · filed 2018-02-28(c)(3)

Having disposed of SJA's only claim arising under federal law, the wiser exercise of discretion in such matters is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, resulting in dismissal without prejudice.

Sandberg v. Englewood, Colorado · filed 2018-03-07(c)(3)

Since the district court only had supplemental jurisdiction over the Colorado Constitution claim, see United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the dismissal of all federal causes of action means “the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). As we have done before in similar situations, see Bauchman for Bauchman v. W. High Sch., 132 F.3d 542, 549–50 (10th Cir. 1997), we conclude the district court erred by exercising jurisdiction over the state law claims after it had dismissed the federal causes of action.

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

The Lake Hills Motel, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Benton County Sewer District 1 · filed 2018-03-14(c)(3)

The Court further finds that the question of whether Defendants Board of Trustees, James, or Meyer may have violated the Missouri constitution, a state statute, or state law, is a question that should be resolved in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction).

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

Cook v. H.S.B.C. Bank USA. N.A · filed 2018-03-19(c)(3)

Because the complaint fails to allege facts that plausibly establish liability under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cook’s state law claims at this ... time. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“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.”).

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

Daniels v. Grady · filed 2018-04-02(c)(3)

But because all of his federal claims have been dismissed, I relinquish my jurisdiction over these remaining state-law claims.

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

Testa v. CareFusion · filed 2018-04-03(c)(3)

Having determined that the federal claim does not survive summary judgment, the Court concludes that retaining jurisdiction over any state law claims is unwarranted.

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

United States v. Catholic Health Initiatives · filed 2018-05-16(c)(3)

A district court can decline to exercise that jurisdiction if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." ... Under the circumstances, it is appropriate for those courts, and not this one, to decide whether it should be so interpreted.

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; the choice is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

The Regents of the Uc v. Aisen · filed 2018-07-13(c)(3)

In granting UCSD’s second motion to remand, the district court expressly cited 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) as the basis for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, indicating that the district court understood it “dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] removal jurisdiction.” ... The district court acted within its discretion by doing so.

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

Jones v. Harrington Police Department · filed 2018-07-16(c)(3)

Nor, in light of the foregoing, do we find error with its decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any alleged state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; see also Maher Terminals, LLC v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 805 F.3d 98, 104 (3d Cir. 2015).

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

Vaught v. Quality Corr. Care, LLC · filed 2018-06-21(c)(3)

The Court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" over state-law claims if the Court "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." ... None of these circumstances apply to the instant case, and the Plaintiff remains free to pursue her state-law claims against the remaining Defendants in state court. ... The Court DENIES the Motions with respect to all state-law claims, RELINQUISHES supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims, and REMANDS the case to the Huntington Superior 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.

Dukuly v. Rives-East · filed 2018-07-26(c)(3)

Because the FERPA claim was the only claim over which this court had original jurisdiction,2 the court exercises its discretion and dismisses the 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.

Asah v. N.J. Dep't of Educ. · filed 2018-07-27(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs' remaining claims arise solely under state law, and therefore are not claims over which I have original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those 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.

Thomas v. Union Pacific Railroad Company · filed 2018-08-07(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Thomas’s FELA claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common-law negligence claim. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims 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) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; exercising that jurisdiction is generally discouraged in that situation.

Pappalardo v. Stevins · filed 2018-08-10(c)(3)

But exercise of that authority is generally discouraged where, as here, the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); 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, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.” (citation omitted)).

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

Pepke v. Fla. Dep't of Families · filed 2018-08-20(c)(3)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts XI through XXXVI as the only claims raising a federal question have been dismissed 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.

French v. Wash. State Dep't of Health · filed 2018-08-21(c)(3)

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

Shetty v. Greenpoint Mta Trust 2006-Ar2 · filed 2018-08-28(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims after dismissing Shetty’s FDCPA 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.

Udoh v. MN Dept. of Human Services · filed 2018-08-30(c)(3)

We further conclude that the federal claims the Udohs asserted on behalf of themselves were subject to dismissal, that it was proper for the court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims, that the Udohs failed to assert a viable basis for declaratory relief, and that leave to amend the complaint was appropriately denied on futility grounds.

Section 1367(c)(3) creates a presumption that a federal court should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Resnick v. Schwartz · filed 2018-09-03(c)(3)

The presumption is that if federal claims have been dismissed, and the only remaining claims are state law claims, then a federal court ought to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; when a federal claim remains pending after appeal, the court may reconsider jurisdiction over the state law claims.

United States v. Omnicare, Inc. · filed 2018-09-04(c)(3)

Because we conclude that Silver’s FCA claim is not foreclosed by the public disclosure bar and that his federal claim will remain pending before the District Court, we will also vacate ... and remand the District Court’s order as to supplemental jurisdiction, to give the District Court an opportunity to consider exercising its jurisdiction over the claims brought under state 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.

Jaye v. Oak Knoll Village Condominium · filed 2018-09-13(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). As discussed above, the District Court properly rejected Jaye’s claims under federal law. Therefore, it plainly acted within its discretion in declining to hear her 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.

Abdulrazzak v. Smith · filed 2018-09-26(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Because the § 1983 claim against the other defendants was the only claim over which this court had original jurisdiction, the court exercises its discretion and dismisses the state-law claim against Kaufman.

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

Brock v. McGough · filed 2018-09-27(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) provides no basis to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction remains.

Lynch v. City of N.Y. · filed 2018-09-28(c)(3)

Because this Court concludes that Plaintiffs have stated a plausible constitutional claim, § 1367(c)(3) provides no basis for dismissal.

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

United States ex rel. Vierczhalek v. Medimmune, Inc. · filed 2018-09-28(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Vierczhalek's federal claim at this early stage of litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims and therefore dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Johnson v. Oystacher · filed 2018-10-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed Johnson’s two federal claims, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and following well-established Seventh Circuit precedent, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims set forth in Counts III through VI of the amended complaint.

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.

Chris H. v. State · filed 2018-10-29(c)(3)

As to Chris H.’s state law claims, a federal 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); see Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006). Because the district court properly dismissed Chris H.’s federal claims against New York and against Justice Dawson in her official and individual capacities, the district court did not abuse its discretion by also dismissing Chris H.’s state law claims against those defendants.

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

McCullough v. Advest Inc · filed 2018-11-05(c)(3)

And because it dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the McCulloughs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the state courts are better suited to decide them.

J.R. v. Penns Manor Area Sch. Dist. · filed 2019-01-02(c)(3)

At best, Counts II and III could only be heard in this forum if this Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction. It will not do so because J.R. cannot state a plausible constitutional claim, and the remaining state law claims implicate matters more appropriately determined by the state courts.

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

Obuskovic v. Wood · filed 2019-01-11(c)(3)

A District Court has discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... (3) 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 court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims remain pending.

D.M. v. Bd. of Educ. Toledo Pub. Sch. · filed 2019-01-18(c)(3)

Because I have not dismissed the federal claims, I will not "decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" over the common 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.

Baptista v. Hodgson · filed 2019-01-24(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of all federal claims, Counts I – VI, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, Counts VII – IX. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The 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.”).

When federal claims are reinstated, the reason for declining supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims may disappear; if those federal claims are later dismissed, the district court may reconsider whether to decline jurisdiction.

Hanson v. La Flamme · filed 2019-01-30(c)(3)

Because we are reversing the district court’s dismissal of Claims 1 and 2, however, “the reason for dismissing the remaining supplemental claims no longer exists.” Fang v. United States, 140 F.3d 1238, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998). We therefore vacate the dismissal of Claims 9 and 10. If Claims 1 and 2 are subject to dismissal on some other ground, the district court may once again consider whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Craig v. The City of Mobile · filed 2019-02-08(c)(3)

By statute, however, “[t]he 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Upon careful consideration, the Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claim against the remaining, non-diverse defendant.

Section 1367 permits a district court to remand remaining state law claims after it dismisses the federal claims that supported supplemental jurisdiction.

Moore v. Shelby County, Kentucky · filed 2019-02-22(c)(3)

Having already dismissed the claim arising under federal law, any remaining state law claims are best reserved for the state courts.

Section 1367(c)(3) no longer supports dismissing a supplemental state claim when the federal claims have been reinstated.

Jesus Christ is the Answer v. Baltimore County, Maryland · filed 2019-02-25(c)(3)

Given our decision on Plaintiffs’ federal claims, § 1367(c)(3) no longer provides a basis for dismissing the state constitutional claim.

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.

Warciak v. Subway Restaurants, Inc. · filed 2019-02-28(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Wright v. Associated Ins. Companies, Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1250–51 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted), citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Seventh Circuit has adopted the general rule that “when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims rather than resolving them on the merits.” Id. at 1251. Accordingly, having dismissed Warciak’s TCPA claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Torro v. Mark Goldberg, Marilyn Gordon, and the Town of Bradford · filed 2019-03-22(c)(3)

The federal claims in this case are being dismissed early in the case, leaving only state law claims. Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Torro’s remaining state law claims, which are a claim against Gordon in Count III and against all defendants in Count IV.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when efficiency, fairness, and convenience do not favor retaining them.

Anderson v. Smith · filed 2019-03-28(c)(3)

At this early stage of proceedings, no interests of efficiency, fairness, or convenience would be served by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Anderson’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.

Teno v. Iwanski · filed 2019-03-29(c)(3)

The third rationale of § 1367(c) applies here because the Court will dismiss all of the 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.

Phan v. Colorado Legal Services · filed 2019-04-16(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) creates a presumption that a district court will relinquish jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses all federal claims early in the litigation.

Phillips v. Baxter · filed 2019-04-23(c)(3)

As to the state-law claims, after dismissing Phillips’s federal claims at such an early stage of litigation, the district court should have followed the presumption of relinquishing jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Howlett v. Hack, 794 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2015).

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.

Cornfield v. Thompson · filed 2019-04-23(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Parker’s state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (the district court may in its discretion “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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bruce v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2019-05-02(c)(3)

Because 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) explicitly grants the district court the power to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” we cannot say that an abuse of discretion on the part of the district 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.

Republic of Kaz. v. Stati · filed 2019-03-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiff's federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims of fraud and civil conspiracy.

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

Doe v. City of Miami Gardens · filed 2019-04-09(c)(3)

In this case, § 1367(c) applies because the court "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[,]" namely Plaintiff's § 1983 claim.

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

Smith v. City of N.Y. · filed 2019-06-13(c)(3)

For all these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the limited part of Plaintiff's NYCHRL claim for disability-based discrimination that has survived summary judgment. That claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Stokes v. Santander Consumer USA (MAG+) · filed 2019-06-18(c)(3)

Because the undersigned is recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, it is further recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and that they be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Epley v. Gonzalez · filed 2019-06-24(c)(3)

Furthermore, Plaintiffs state law claims are hereby 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 against defendants after dismissing the federal claims against them.

Dismukes v. Brandeis University · filed 2019-06-26(c)(3)

The remaining state law claims against defendants Storms and Flynn are dismissed without prejudice as well. “[A] district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing ‘all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction.’” Figueroa v. Alejandro, 597 F.3d 423, 431 n. 10 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). This court, in its discretion, declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Ball v. Nilsson · filed 2019-06-27(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed each of Plaintiff’s putative federal law claims and neither judicial economy, convenience, nor fairness to the litigants weighs in favor of this Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Seeley v. Kansas Employment Review Board · filed 2019-06-28(c)(3)

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when the claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... Here, the proceedings are at an early stage, the federal claims have been dismissed, and the only remaining cause of action is a purely state law claim. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law benefits-denial claim.

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

Williams v. United States of America · filed 2019-07-03(c)(3)

And because Plaintiff does not state any claims falling within the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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.

Cissell v. Myers · filed 2019-07-08(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “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.” Having determined that the federal claims, which provide the jurisdictional basis of this suit, should be dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.

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

Lawson v. Hedgespeth · filed 2019-07-09(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, and they will be dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Haller v. County of Dundy, Nebraska · filed 2019-07-02(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this case is remanded to the District Court of Dundy County, Nebraska.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim after dismissing the related federal claim, where the state claim does not overlap in proof with surviving federal claims and no circumstance warrants retaining jurisdiction.

Walker v. Wallace · filed 2019-07-19(c)(3)

In addition, under § 1367(c)(3), a federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims once federal claims have been dismissed. ... The court is dismissing Walker’s federal claim against McArdle. Walker’s only remaining federal claims are against Wallace and Hill, who did not move for summary judgment. ... Accordingly, the proof required for Walker’s state informed consent claim against McArdle will not overlap with the proof required for his federal deliberate indifference claim against Wallace and Hill. ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Walker’s state claim against McArdle, and will dismiss that claim without prejudice to Walker filing it in state court.

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.

Patrick Doheny, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2019-07-23(c)(3)

Here, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to do so since it “dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction.”

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

Ventura v. Massachusetts General Hospital · filed 2019-07-25(c)(3)

In the absence original jurisdiction under § 1331 or § 1332, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Snellgrove v. Common Bond Title, LLC (MAG2) · filed 2019-07-31(c)(3)

It is the further RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this Court decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, see 28 U.S.C. §1367; that the motions to dismiss (Docs. 35, 37) filed in this court be denied as moot; and that this matter be remanded to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including at an early stage of litigation.

Wight v. D’Amante Pellerin Associates et al. · filed 2019-07-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims at this early stage of the litigation, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Cianfano v. Village of Tuckahoe · filed 2019-07-31(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims have all been dismissed, the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that have not been 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.

Freedman v. Children, Youth and Families Department · filed 2019-08-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims arising under federal law and noting that there is not complete diversity between Plaintiff and Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismisses this case without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the case is at an early stage and the claims can be pursued in state court.

Reynolds v. Ward · filed 2019-08-12(c)(3)

Thus, where there is already a pending state court action where Reynolds may be able to assert his state law claims and this case has not yet proceeded to discovery, the Court declines 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 it dismisses all federal claims.

Cox v. The City of New Rochelle · filed 2019-08-12(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims asserted by Plaintiff, the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against a defendant after dismissing the federal claim against that defendant, particularly early in the case when doing so causes no prejudice.

Barber v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2019-08-13(c)(3)

Barber concedes both that it is within this Court’s discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over these state law tort claims (Pl.’s Opp’n to Def. Jarashow’s Mot., ECF No. 28, at 30 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)), and that, given the circumstances presented here, she would suffer no prejudice if the Court did so (see Hr’g Tr. at 24:6–25:13). Based on these concessions, and in light of the early stage of this litigation, this Court will “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the tort claims against Jarashow, and as a result, it will grant Jarashow’s motion to dismiss Counts VI and VII of Barber I.

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

Kocher v. Borough of Kingston · filed 2019-08-13(c)(3)

Since plaintiff’s federal claims over which this court had original jurisdiction shall not be permitted to proceed to trial, the court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state common law claim, Count I, against defendants. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Verdecchia v. Prozan, 274 F.Supp.2d 712, 728 (W.D. Pa. 2003).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when a parallel state case is well advanced.

Walker v. City of Rochester · filed 2019-08-14(c)(3)

Accordingly, to the extent that Walker asserts any State law claims in this Complaint, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. Such claims are dismissed 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, with the decision informed by statutory and common law factors.

Holden v. Perkins · filed 2019-08-15(c)(3)

In determining whether to relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state law claims, district courts look to the statutory factors set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... Here, the Court finds that the factors cited above militate in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissal of the federal claim, with the early stage of litigation and suitability of a state forum favoring that choice.

Utah Division of Consumer Protection v. Stevens · filed 2019-08-19(c)(3)

Even if this court had discretion to entertain the state law claims, moreover, it would decline to do so: this case is not yet two months old, no discovery has been completed, and state courts are the ideal forum to adjudicate state law claims brought by a State against its citizens. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bannister v. Melton · filed 2019-08-19(c)(3)

There being no federal subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Bannisters’ claim under Arkansas law that the sales contract was broken and that Mark was harassed based on his disability.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, absent a compelling reason to retain them.

Doe v. University of Denver · filed 2019-08-20(c)(3)

Plaintiff does not argue that the Court should retain jurisdiction over his state law claims if his federal claims are dismissed, and the Court does not find any compelling reason to do so. Accordingly, plaintiff’s third, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims for relief will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

BRYANT v. SPIRES · filed 2019-08-20(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff also intended to raise a state law claim for negligence in his complaint, this Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over any such claim as all claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction are being dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gros v. Walker County Hospital Corporation · filed 2019-08-22(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law defamation and breach of contract claims.

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

Helms v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2019-08-26(c)(3)

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

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

Drake v. the Niello Company · filed 2019-08-27(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over the one state law claim it found was not barred by claim preclusion.

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

Floyd v. Broward County Sheriff's Department · filed 2019-08-28(c)(3)

In sum, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state-law claims (Counts I and II) and hereby DISMISSES those claims—without prejudice, of course, to the Plaintiff’s ability to refile those claims in state court.

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.

Hernandez v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC · filed 2019-09-05(c)(3)

So, consistent with the preferred practice of district courts in the Tenth Circuit, the Court does not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claims against these remaining entity Defendants.