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.

ST. LUKE'S HEALTH NETWORK, INC. v. LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL · filed 2019-09-13(c)(3)

Because we determined Plaintiffs do not have standing to sue under federal RICO statutes, and given the absence of a direct relationship between Defendants’ alleged conduct and Plaintiffs’ injury, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs pendent state law claims.

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

Brick v. Estancia Municipal School District · filed 2019-09-18(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims after ruling on Plaintiff's sole federal law claim.

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, including when dismissal occurs early in the case.

Williams v. Classic Security · filed 2019-09-19(c)(3)

Here, because all of Williams’s federal claims have been dismissed at an early stage of this litigation, the Court declines in its discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining city- and state-law 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.

Croskey v. Wheeler · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Having determined that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Croskey’s remaining state law claims and those claims are dismissed.

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.

Earles v. Cleveland · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

Upon consideration, the Court concludes in the exercise of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been adjudicated.

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

Saunders v. Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority · filed 2019-09-24(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Saunders’s state law discrimination claims as set forth in Counts Il, Ill and IV, and dismisses those 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.

INTERNAL MEDICINE NEPHROLOGY, INCORPORATED v. FRESENIUS BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF INDIANA, INC. · filed 2019-09-26(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plain- tiff’s remaining state-law claims, and those claims are 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.

BASKERVILLE v. STAPLETON · filed 2019-09-26(c)(3)

Because this Court will dismiss all of Plaintiffs claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, this Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after dismissing all federal claims on the pleadings, with those claims dismissed without prejudice.

Castiblanco v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 2019-09-29(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims on the pleadings and, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state and local causes of action, and they 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.

Escalante v. San Francisco Community College District, and Board of Trustees · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the federal claims, the Court, in its discretion, declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against the SEIU Defendants and the SFCCD Defendants in their individual capacities, unless and until Plaintiff can state a valid federal 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.

Friends of Lubavitch, Inc v. Baltimore County Maryland · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Mills v. Hassan · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the § 1983 claims over which it had original jurisdiction, 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; it ordinarily should do so, but retains discretion.

Reed v. Village of Wilmot · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court should ordinarily decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims when the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, although the decision remains discretionary.

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

WALDRON v. KOZACHYN · filed 2019-10-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims for the reasons above, and without any affirmative justification for deciding the remaining state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Wilson v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department · filed 2019-10-02(c)(3)

It is within this Court’s discretionary authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once it has dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, without analyzing the other factors in § 1367(c).

Sutherland v. Global Equipment Co., Inc. · filed 2019-10-04(c)(3)

Because it dismissed Sutherland’s federal claims and did not have diversity jurisdiction, the district court did not err in concluding that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) applied. This finding was sufficient to allow the court to exercise its discretion without analyzing the other factors in § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when that state claim substantially predominates over an ADA claim.

Theroux Jr. v. Lourdes Mexican Food Inc. · filed 2019-10-04(c)(2)

Thus, the state claim and the issues related thereto substantially predominate over the ADA claim, which appears to be a secondary claim included to justify filing the complaint in this Court, rather than a necessary (let alone predominant) claim in this lawsuit.

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

Sottile v. Freeman · filed 2019-10-04(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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.

Madison v. New York State Department of Corrections · filed 2019-10-04(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss related state-law claims without prejudice when all federal claims are dismissed.

ALLEN v. GLINES · filed 2019-12-02(c)(3)

The Court thus may appropriately decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims and to dismiss those remaining claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Feucht v. Triad Local Schools Board of Education · filed 2019-12-02(c)(3)

Given that the Court has dismissed all of the federal claims in the Complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims and claims that seek a type of relief. ... Therefore, the Court dismisses those claims without prejudice to refiling them in state court.

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

Long v. Underwood · filed 2019-12-04(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Long’s remaining state-law negligence-based claims because Long’s federal claims will be dismissed.

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.

Harness v. California Highway Patrol · filed 2019-12-05(c)(3)

“[D]istrict 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). ... (3) This case is REMANDED to the Superior Court for the County of Kern.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed at an early stage of litigation.

IPPOLITO v. CARPENITO · filed 2019-12-05(c)(3)

When federal claims are dismissed at an early stage of litigation, courts generally decline to exercise supplement jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. ... As a result, the Court exercises its discretion pursuant to Section 1367(c) and declines supplemental jurisdiction at this time.

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

Park Yield, LLC v. Brown · filed 2019-12-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only claims over which it has original jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common law and state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that all federal claims have been dismissed when some federal claims remain for trial.

Carlos v. York County · filed 2019-12-09(c)(3)

However, since we have ... found that there is sufficient evidence to permit at least some of the plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims to go to a jury, we will not adopt Judge Saporito’s recommendation, and instead continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’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 over which it has original jurisdiction.

Juste v. Unit 23 · filed 2019-12-11(c)(3)

However, the Court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In this case, the Court has found that all federal claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law claim.

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

A.S. v. Lincoln County R-III School District · filed 2019-12-17(c)(3)

Because I will dismiss all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim and will remand the matter to the Circuit Court of Lincoln County for an appropriate trial de novo as provided by Missouri law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice when it dismisses all federal claims.

Patton v. Shelby County, TN · filed 2019-12-17(c)(3)

Because all of his federal claims are being dismissed, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental ... jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law. Those state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b)(3).

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

Sue A. Meyers, Inc. v. Illinois Department of Transportation · filed 2019-12-18(c)(3)

To the extent that Meyers, Inc. is also asserting state law claims (the First Amended Complaint is not clear), this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)(3); See Wright v. Associated Ins. Companies, Inc., 29 F.3d 1244 (7th Cir. 1994).

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

Doe v. County of Sonoma · filed 2019-12-20(c)(3)

In the absence of a viable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Doe’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim at an early stage unless and until a viable federal claim is pleaded.

Torres v. Becton · filed 2019-12-20(c)(3)

Where a court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In this instance, given the early stage of the proceedings, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claim, unless and until plaintiff pleads a viable federal claim.

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

Mejia v. Birmingham City of · filed 2024-08-08(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), 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.” ... In accord with the guidance supplied by the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit, the court DISMISSES Ms. Mejia’s vicarious-liability claim against Luxe WITHOUT PREJUDICE to her ability to refile in state court.

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

Thompson v. Mericle · filed 2024-08-20(c)(3)

Because the Court will grant summary judgment to Defendants on all of Plaintiff's claims brought under federal law, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state wrongful death claim. “Section 1367(c) enables a federal district court to forgo exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim if ‘the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Crane v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 15 F.4th 1296, 1314 (10th Cir. 2021) (quoting 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.

Riles v. Oklahoma Attorney General's Office · filed 2024-08-20(c)(3)

With the dismissal of all federal claims under § 1983, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims alleged by plaintiff Brandon Riles. ... Accordingly, any state law claims alleged by plaintiff Brandon Riles against defendants will be 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 federal claims; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Fraser v. Pennsylvania State University · filed 2024-08-22(c)(3)

Because it dismissed all of Fraser’s federal claims, the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). We review such decisions for abuse of discretion. Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 175 (3d Cir. 1999). The District Court did not abuse its discretion here.

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

Rodriguez v. City of Deming · filed 2024-08-26(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for personal injury and dismisses this case 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.

Bloodgood-Loper v. Loper · filed 2024-08-27(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bloodgood-Loper’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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Aylward v. City of Charlotte · filed 2024-09-04(c)(3)

As to the remaining state law claims for negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. Thus, those claims will be 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.

Pereira v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2024-09-09(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims and, unless the Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, it is appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any 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.

Sims v. Shapiro · filed 2024-09-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims for loss or destruction of property that Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Matthews v. NYPD · filed 2024-09-10(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and city claims after dismissing all federal claims, including when relevant state law is still developing.

Maxius v. Mount Sinai Health Systems Inc. · filed 2024-09-12(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims as well as the common law defamation claim. ... Here, all federal claims have been dismissed. The requirements of the NYSHRL after the 2019 amendment are still developing. ... The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state and city claims.

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.

Stevens v. AtriCure, Inc. · filed 2024-09-12(c)(3)

Rather, the Court will dismiss Relator’s claims arising under state and local laws without prejudice to assertion in the appropriate forums.

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

THOMAS v. DAVIS · filed 2024-09-13(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims against Sheriff Davis in accordance with the considerable discretion afforded the Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when no federal claim remains.

Blackwell v. Circle K · filed 2024-09-20(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has failed to establish a federal cause of action, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 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; an early stage of litigation favors declining it.

JONES v. SHANDROFF · filed 2024-09-20(c)(3)

Consequently, the Court adopts Judge Wettre’s recommendation that it decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Seagraves v. Department of Children Youth and Families · filed 2024-09-20(c)(3)

Plaintiffs have failed to state any federal claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses them 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.

Ford v. Sanchez-Galvan · filed 2024-09-26(c)(3)

Because all federal claims have been dismissed from this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims at this time.

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.

Rodriguez-Ortega v. Rich · filed 2024-09-26(c)(3)

For reasons of judicial comity and principles of federalism, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will remand the case to the First Judicial District Court of New Mexico.

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

Cohen v. Hill · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

While district courts have discretion to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims have been dismissed, district courts are “encouraged…to dismiss any remaining state claims when, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.” Silas v. Sheriff of Broward Cnty., Fla., 55 F.4th 863, 866 (11th Cir. 2022). This Court hereby finds the state law claims against Defendants are due to be REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County.

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.

Associated Professional Educators of Louisiana v. E D U 20/20 L L C · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Here, with the federal claims and LUTSA claim dispensed of, we decline to exercise our 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.

Doll v. Trellis Walnut Towers LLC · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

The second question concerns how best to address Plaintiffs’ two state-law claims, and the better answer is to dismiss these claims without prejudice, leaving Plaintiffs the chance to pursue them in state court.9 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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rimini’s breach of contract, implied duty of good faith, defamation, slander, and tortious interference claims, and dismisses those causes of action without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after judgment has been entered on the federal claim.

Doeman Music Group Media And Photography LLC v. DistroKid, LLC · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Thus, because judgment has already been entered as to the federal claim, 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 dismissing all federal claims and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Prows v. City of Oxford · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

It is therefore appropriate for this Court not to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and to dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction when there is no affirmative justification to retain them.

Casa Bella Luna, LLC v. The Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Finally, having found that all of plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, there is no longer any basis for original jurisdiction in this Court, and no affirmative justification for the Court to continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’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.

McGhee v. Grant County · filed 2024-10-01(c)(3)

And this is discretion the Court undeniably has. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it is original jurisdiction”). ... As a result, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

THORNTON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2024-10-08(c)

Further, since there are no longer any federal causes of action, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Gleason v. Zmuda · filed 2024-10-09(c)(3)

... because no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and, accordingly, dismisses Plaintiff'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.

Taylor v. Wellpath Medical · filed 2024-10-10(c)(3)

But the aforementioned factors weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims. So the Court agrees with the R&R that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Shadmani v. Barnes · filed 2024-10-11(c)(3)

Because the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, the Court has the authority under § 1367(c) to decline to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law battery claim. ... As such, the Court will decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim in Count IV of the Complaint, and this count will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

LINDABERRY v. ATLANTIC COUNTY JUSTICE FACILITY · filed 2024-10-15(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s potential state law claims.

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

King v. Sequatchie County Government · filed 2024-10-16(c)(3)

Because this Court finds that King’s federal claims are without merit, the Court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims (Count I).

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

Burnette v. Jensen · filed 2024-10-22(c)(3)

Because the complaint does not state a federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any putative claims arising under state law. The court will dismiss any state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Thompson v. Akhavi · filed 2024-10-24(c)(3)

To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks to assert claims under North Carolina law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them because no federal claim has passed initial review.

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

Paschalidis v. The Airline Restaurant Corp. · filed 2024-10-28(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s federal claims, it “decline[s] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over Plaintiff’s 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 when no federal claims remain.

Idlibi v. Conn. Dep't of Pub. Health · filed 2024-11-01(c)(3)

Finally, with no federal claims remaining, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Idlibi’s state law claims.

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

Fiorito v. Prodigal Company, The · filed 2024-11-07(c)

Because Fiorito has failed to plead a viable federal claim, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of his state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims supplying original jurisdiction have been disposed of.

Ajang v. Ajackog · filed 2024-11-14(c)(3)

Without a viable federal question to decide, the Court will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

Howard v. Run Hope Work Inc · filed 2024-11-19(c)(3)

In exercising this discretion, courts consider “judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants.” ... The relevant factors weigh against retaining Howard’s state-law claims. ... Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Howard’s state law claims, it will dismiss without prejudice Counts II, III, IV and V for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal basis for the action falls away, including at an early stage of litigation.

Saphilom v. Fairfax County Police · filed 2024-11-21(c)(3)

Considering the early stage of this litigation, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Saphilom’s state common law claims against VSP and OCME and will dismiss those claims against them.

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

Pennington v. Tuscaloosa County, Alabama · filed 2024-11-26(c)(3)

But given the court’s dismissal of all federal claims in the case, there is no longer an independent basis for jurisdiction over Mr. Pennington’s state law claims against Sheriff Abernathy, the fictitious defendants, and Tuscaloosa County. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court WILL DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and WILL DISMISS Counts Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, and Sixteen 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.

Bentley v. Dietz · filed 2024-12-05(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if that court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim Plaintiff may have asserted.

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.

Grijalva v. Coward · filed 2024-12-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed Grijalva’s federal claims for the reasons set forth above, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 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, and to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

Fisher v. Columbus · filed 2024-12-11(c)(3)

Since the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims, they are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Page v. Clark County Fire District 6 · filed 2024-12-17(c)(3)

Having considered the principles of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court finds dismissing the remaining claims without prejudice is warranted.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when all federal claims are eliminated before trial.

Miller v. Dunn · filed 2025-01-06(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Miller’s remaining state law claims. Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc., 554 F.3d at 602 (recognizing the “general rule . . . that a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial”).

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

Richards v. Nassau County · filed 2025-01-08(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of a plausible federal claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any state law claims that may be reasonably construed from the amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims contained in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the case is in its early stages.

Brown v. South Shore University Hospital · filed 2025-01-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Amended Complaint’s claims for religious discrimination under the NYSHRL, and those claims are therefore 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.

OWNER/AGENT @DUDEOFNEWYORK v. Hochul · filed 2025-01-10(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed the federal claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Lipscomb v. Tennessee Department of Correction · filed 2025-01-15(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants on the federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims by dismissing these 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.

Renick v. Annapolis High School · filed 2025-01-16(c)(3)

Nonetheless, section 1367(c) confers discretion upon district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... No such circumstances are present here. The state law claims will be 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.

CRIST v. FSB · filed 2025-01-23(c)(3)

As it is early in this case and the State Claims predominate over the dismissed Federal Claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the State 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.

Baker v. Town of Hamden · filed 2025-01-27(c)(3)

But in the absence of any remaining claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, the adjudication of the state law claims is properly left, in the first instance, to the state court.

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

Smith v. Battle Creek, City of · filed 2025-01-28(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); specifically, Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims therein, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Chappel v. Hunter · filed 2025-01-29(c)(3)

Because there are no federal questions left and the case has not proceeded beyond the filing of the complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bass v. Arizona Motor Vehicle Division · filed 2025-01-29(c)(3)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiff’s state-law claim because Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Gatz v. Fabian · filed 2025-01-29(c)

But because the court has dismissed the only federal claims in the complaint, the court declines 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 it has disposed of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hinton v. Grieco · filed 2025-01-30(c)(3)

After granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim against Defendants—the only federal claims in this action—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims which lack an independent jurisdictional basis.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial when judicial economy does not justify retaining them.

Corhn 611013 v. Cooley · filed 2025-01-31(c)(3)

This case presents no “overwhelming interest in judicial economy” justifying the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim.

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

Dearing v. Morristown Police Department (JRG2) · filed 2025-02-06(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Fullilove v. City Of Chicago · filed 2025-02-12(c)

But because the court has disposed of the only federal claim in the complaint, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

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

TILLOEVA v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2025-02-25(c)(3)

I have dismissed all of Ms. Tilloeva’s federal claims, and I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims at this point of the ...proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Gu v. Didonato · filed 2025-02-27(c)(3)

Second, this Order dismisses all federal claims, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Donkor v. Weill Cornell Medical College · filed 2025-02-27(c)(3)

I do not have original jurisdiction over these claims, and I have discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. ... Thus, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, and they are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, even if no defendant requests dismissal of the state law claims.

Tinoco v. City of Hidalgo · filed 2025-02-28(c)(3)

For this reason, we hold that, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction over Tinoco’s state law claims after it dismissed his federal 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.

Lauderdale v. Brady · filed 2025-03-04(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment for QCC as to the federal law claims against it, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges a state law negligence claim (DN 1, PageID.6), the Court will dismiss it as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after disposing of all claims within its original jurisdiction, upon balancing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Smith v. Tishman · filed 2025-03-04(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court would need further briefing to address these issues, which reinforces that declining jurisdiction is appropriate.

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

Petty v. Garden City Public Schools · filed 2025-03-06(c)(3)

Given that no federal claims remain against the GCPS Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims against these Defendants.

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

Wilhelm v. Livonia Public Schools · filed 2025-03-06(c)(3)

Given that no federal claims remain against the GCPS Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims against these Defendants.

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

Sheedy v. Thompson · filed 2025-03-10(c)(3)

Sheedy’s federal claims have been dismissed. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims against the defendants. Any state law claims are dismissed without prejudice under 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.

Industrial Welding Company Inc v. State of Washington · filed 2025-03-13(c)(3)

Here, not only has the Court dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction, but state law claims abound this case, making up the factual background of most of the suit. As such, for the purposes of comity and fairness, the Court finds the remaining issues better addressed by the Spokane County Superior Court.

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

Brown v. City National Bank · filed 2025-03-19(c)

The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Brown’s state law 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.

Gill-Drayton v. New York State Education Department · filed 2025-03-20(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law NYSHRL claims.

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

Prince v. District of Columbia · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

A district court, in its discretion, may choose not 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); see also Mead v. City First Bank of D.C., N.A., 616 F. Supp. 2d 78, 81 (D.D.C. 2009). ... The court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction on Plaintiff’s common law claims for Count II (invasion of privacy), Count III (destruction of property), Count IV (trespass), Count V (false imprisonment), and Count VI (negligence).

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

Brummell v. Talbot County Board of Education · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

However, § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” when it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... In weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 350 n.7, this Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of remanding the remaining state law claims back to state court.

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

Moore v. Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc. · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)

After weighing those factors, the Court concludes that it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in the absence of a viable federal question.

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

Gesell v. Cottonwood, City of · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)

Now that Count Six has been dismissed, the Court may, in its discretion, decline to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. ... The Cohill factors counsel against retaining supplemental jurisdiction here. ... Accordingly, Counts One through Five are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Rosario v. Natividad Medical Center · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)

The defendant County’s waiver argument fails because it does not address the core question presented: whether the Court should continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 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.

Tentandtable.com, LLC v. Aljibouri · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

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.” ... This Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Jones v. Frost · filed 2025-03-31(c)

Finally, to the extent that any other state law claims remain unaddressed in the preceding paragraph, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). I will dismiss all state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it disposes of the federal claims.

Brown v. FCA US LLC/Stellantis · filed 2025-03-31

Because the Court grants FCA’s summary judgment motion as to the federal claims, the Court will use its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

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

Nance v. New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted summary judgment to Defendants on all of Plaintiff’s federal law claims and Plaintiff’s state claims are governed by a different standard, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims.

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

Hamlin 969016 v. Froberg · filed 2025-04-03(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Hamlin’s federal claims are sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and all state claims are sua sponte DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 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.

Connolly v. Wilkening · filed 2025-04-04(c)(3)

However, § 1367(c) specifically provides that a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... In the absence of any circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption, the Court declines 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 all federal claims have been eliminated.

Miller v. Woofter · filed 2025-04-08(c)(3)

Because Miller has failed to prevail on any federal law claim, the Court declines to exercise its jurisdiction over Miller’s state law claim.

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

Rocket City Showgirls, LLC v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board · filed 2025-04-14(c)(3)

And because the court resolves the only claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court WILL DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and WILL DISMISS those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gelin v. Baltimore County, State of Maryland · filed 2025-04-21(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims which gave it original jurisdiction. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Mercedes Benz Financial Services USA, LLC v. City of Chicago · filed 2025-04-21(c)(3)

With the dismissal of MBFS’s constitutional claims against the City, no federal claim survives. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Jackson v. Mel Trotter Minstries · filed 2025-04-25(c)(3)

The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on April 2, 2025, recommending that this Court dismiss the federal-law claims for failure to state a claim and dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court and the complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.

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

Tashawn Hunter v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2025-04-28(c)(3)

Given Hunter’s failure to state a claim under federal law, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over his supplemental state-law claim.

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

Williams v. The City of New York · filed 2025-05-07(c)(3)

Pursuant to its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, and these claims are likewise dismissed without prejudice.

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

Chey v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2025-05-07(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal causes of action, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remand those claims to the Superior Court.

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

Salido v. Hill · filed 2025-05-08(c)(3)

As to the state law negligence claim, the Court once again declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this supplemental state law claim 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Smith v. Adams · filed 2025-05-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state-law claims after the federal claims have dropped out, considering the statutory factors and the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Prime Healthcare Services - Mesquite v. Cigna Healthcare of Texas Inc · filed 2025-05-14(c)

To determine whether to exercise jurisdiction or to remand, the court should balance “the statutory factors set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c),” “the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” and the threat of “improper forum manipulation.” ... The statutory factors support remanding the case. ... Accordingly, after considering all of the factors, the court sees no reason to depart from the general rule that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remand the state-law claims.

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

(PS) Eswaran v. Awoniyi · filed 2025-06-09(c)(3)

As plaintiff has not stated a federal claim, the court will not at this time exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint fails to state a legally cognizable federal claim.

Cuttler v. Allegheny County · filed 2025-06-20(c)

And because the complaint failed to state a legally cognizable federal claim, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Sifuentes v. Corewell Health · filed 2025-07-01(c)(3)

Because the two federal claims fail, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court conclude the state law claims would not survive the screening restriction because the Court should decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 7) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

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

Robbins v. Neal · filed 2025-07-18(c)(3)

As a final matter, to the extent Robbins is asserting state law claims against the defendants, they will not be considered because his amended complaint does not state a federal claim, and this court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in the absence of a federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claim fails, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Mumin v. Case Manager Carroll · filed 2025-08-08(c)(3)

The Court could exercise its discretion to retain a pendant claim even without the federal "hook," considering principles of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. See City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). But those considerations weigh against retaining this claim—particularly when, as explained above, it was misjoined in the first place.

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

(PS) Faruki v. Housing Authority for the County of Sacramento · filed 2025-09-03(c)(3)

Since plaintiff has not stated a federal claim upon which relief can be granted, the court will not at this time exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no viable federal claims remain.

Charbonneau v. Alaska Family Court, Third Judicial District at Anchorage · filed 2025-09-24(c)(3)

And because Plaintiffs have no viable federal claims against these individual defendants, the Court cannot and will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.

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

McCoy · filed 2025-10-14(c)(3)

To the extent McCoy may be trying to assert state law claims related to the search and/or seizure, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint states no viable federal claim.

JEWETT · filed 2025-11-25(c)

However, Ms. Jewett fails to state a claim to relief on any federal claims. So, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), I will not exercise the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the only federal claim fails.

Pilger · filed 2025-12-16(c)

Having found that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under RICO, the only federal claim in this action, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

CCHCS · filed 2025-12-30(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s state law claim cannot proceed because his federal claims fail for the reasons described above. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (“[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.”).

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

Northcraft · filed 2026-01-07(a)

Finally, the Court again declines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) to exercise supplemental over the Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims now that it has found the Plaintiff fails to state any federal claims pursuant to Section 1983.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claim fails at screening.

Russo · filed 2026-01-14(c)(3)

Regardless, because the case has not progressed past screening, the Court would decline to use its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. ... Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.

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

TALBERT · filed 2026-03-23(c)(3)

Having resolved all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims set forth at Counts 5 and 6.

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

Olivieri · filed 2026-05-28(c)(3)

In the exercise of its discretion, the Court will decline any further consideration of Plaintiffs’ state law claims, leaving the merits of those claims – on which this Court expresses no view – to be determined in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, leaving the local claims to be dismissed without prejudice.

Colbert Ex Rel. Colbert v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-01-12(c)(3)

In cases where all of the federal law claims are dismissed before trial, courts usually decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining local law claims. ... Thus, the Court addresses only the federal law claims in this Opinion. In the event that all of the federal law claims are dismissed, the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the D.C. law claims, and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Boisseau v. Town of Walls · filed 2015-10-08(c)(3)

In a case such as this one, where all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) gives this court, discretion, to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... In light of the foregoing, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims and dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction before trial.

Craven v. Leach · filed 2016-04-28(c)(3)

Although the District Court did have the authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, we agree with its decision declining to do so.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with a presumption favoring relinquishment before trial unless an exception applies.

Hunte v. Safeguard Properties Management, LLC · filed 2017-06-06(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3), however, provides that “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... None of the exceptions apply here. ... Given all this, relinquishing jurisdiction over the state law claims is the appropriate course under § Í367(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; the usual practice before trial is to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Wheeler v. Piazza · filed 2018-02-13(c)(3)

With the granting of Defendants’ motion to dismiss the three federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court addresses whether to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, Counts IV–VII. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Seventh Circuit consistently has stated that “it is the well-established law of this circuit that the usual practice is to dismiss without prejudice state supplemental claims whenever all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.” Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999); Alonzi v. Budget Constr. Co., 55 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1995); Brazinski v. Amoco Petroleum Additives Co., 6 F.3d 1176, 1182 (7th Cir. 1993). Finding no justification for departing from that “usual practice”9 in this case, Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Higdon v. Judge Gail S. Tusan · filed 2018-08-14(c)(3)

This decision is wholly consonant with the Supreme Court direction to lower federal courts to avoid, “[n]eedless decisions of state law,” especially when federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial, with a presumption favoring dismissal of the state-law claims.

Kinzy v. Howard and Howard, PLLC · filed 2019-01-03(c)(3)

This Court will exercise that discretion according to the statutory presumption that if the federal claims drop out before trial, so too should the state-law claims. See id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

Section 1367 permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state claims without prejudice when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial.

Clayborn v. Walter Investment Management · filed 2019-03-05(c)(3)

And “it is the well-established law of this circuit that the usual practice is to dismiss without prejudice state supplemental claims whenever all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.” Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Thus, the only way that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining ICFA claim is if Plaintiff may proceed under this Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.