28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Lee v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2019-07-25(c)(3)

Given that the only federal claim against the GAA Defendants has been dismissed well in advance of trial, the Court concludes that the remaining state law claims against the GAA Defendants should be dismissed as well.

Section 1367 generally calls for declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Behrghundi v. Save Our City - Mart, TX · filed 2019-12-20(c)(3)

Because the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s sole federal claim be dismissed, the Court recommends that the District Court follow the general rule and decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are eliminated before trial when judicial economy and comity favor dismissal of the remaining state-law claims.

(PC) Johnson v. Chau · filed 2019-12-20(c)(3)

The undersigned finds that the instant action is a “usual case” where the federal claims ... have been eliminated and the balance of factors points toward declining supplemental jurisdiction ... over plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after disposing of the federal claims before trial, even when discovery has concluded and the dispositive-motion deadline has passed.

MARTZ v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS · filed 2019-12-31(c)(3)

Even though discovery in this case has concluded and the dispositive motion deadline has passed (DE 48; DE 53), the action is still currently “before trial.” See Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726 (“Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well”) ... Those considerations, along with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and United States Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent, all support the conclusion that this Court should decline to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over this matter.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial and the remaining claims require interpretation of state law.

LEE v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY · filed 2019-08-30(c)(1), (c)(3)

Because Plaintiff's remaining claims concern interpretations of the New Jersey constitutional, statutory, and common law, and the federal claims have been dismissed before trial, the prudent course is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. For these reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

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; federalism, comity, and the availability of a state forum inform that choice.

Justice v. Rockwell Collins, Inc. · filed 2015-07-22(c)(3)

In this case, the values of federalism and comity weigh in favor of this Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Common law claims for assault and battery touch upon classic state issues, and the state court is a convenient forum for both parties in resolving the remainder of this dispute.

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

Epikhin v. Game Insight North America · filed 2015-11-11(c)(3)

Under § 1367(c)(3), however, a district court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Because judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of dismissal, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

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, fairness, and comity.

Kyle v. Bedlion · filed 2016-04-01(c)(3)

However, now that the federal claims must be dismissed, the Court has authority to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the state-law claims. Id. § 1367(c)(3); Robinson v. Pezzat, 83 F. Supp. 3d 258, 270 (D.D.C. 2015) (“Supplemental jurisdiction is not obligatory[.]” (citation omitted)). ... In light of that directive, and also because the state-law claims raise some unique issues—e.g., Kyle’s assault-and-battery claim is premised in part on Bedlion’s shove but it also contends that the officer’s pepper spray was unlawful—the Court will dismiss the remaining 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, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Satterlee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · filed 2016-07-05(c)(3)

The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is within a court’s discretion, Shekoyan v. Sibley Int’l, 409 F.3d 414, 423 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and a district court may decline to maintain such jurisdiction where it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... And the Court finds that the balance of the factors weighs against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims against the Tax Board.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favoring dismissal without prejudice when the case is still at an early stage.

McCrary v. Knox County · filed 2016-08-04(c)(3)

This litigation is in the early stages. Defendants have not yet even answered the allegations of Mr. McCrary’s Complaint, and no discovery has taken place. Accordingly, the Court concludes that all four factors—economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—strongly weigh in favor of it relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. McCrary’s state law claims and dismissing those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily favors declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal claim is dismissed early, after considering fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity.

Miller v. Town of Wenham · filed 2016-08-10(c)(3)

We have said that when a federal claim upon which supplemental jurisdiction is based is dismissed early on in the litigation, "the balance of competing factors ordinarily will weigh strongly in favor of declining jurisdiction over [the remaining state law claims]." Id. ... All in all, we find no basis for deviating from the ordinary course of remanding Miller's state law declaratory judgment count. See id.; Desjardins v. Willard, 777 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir. 2015).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after dismissing all federal claims; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guide that choice.

Floyd v. Pnc Mortgage · filed 2016-10-24(c)(3)

These factors weigh against retention here. The Court is dismissing both federal claims against Defendants. This case has not progressed in federal court past this Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court has developed no familiarity with the additional issues presented. ... Given that it was Defendants who removed the matter here, the fairer course is to remand the case to Superior Court, where Plaintiff may prosecute his local causes of action.

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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Sutton v. CitiMortgage, Inc. · filed 2017-01-12(c)(3)

That claim arises under New York State law, and the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over it. ... Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” pendent state-law claims “if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Judicial economy counsels in favor of dismissal, given the thin record in this case.

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

Aflalo v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. · filed 2018-03-30(c)(3)

A district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim" once it has "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." ... Because I have dismissed Plaintiff's FLSA claim, the only claim remaining is Plaintiff's NYLL claim for retaliation over which I would only have supplemental jurisdiction. ... Because the balance of factors weigh towards declining to exercise jurisdiction, particularly considering the fact that the NYLL is more broadly worded than the FLSA, ... I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and they are dismissed without prejudice to filing in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, guided by judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Eblen v. City of Kansas City, Missouri · filed 2018-07-18(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where the court “has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants, the Court exercises its discretion to remand Plaintiff’s state-law breach of contract claim to the state court this case originated from.

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

Shoap v. City of Crossville · filed 2018-07-23(c)(3)

After weighing the relevant factors, the Court does not find any reason to depart from the general rule, and therefore declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Shoap's state law claims against Crossville and Kerley.

When all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only after meaningfully balancing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp. · filed 2018-08-08(c)(3)

When § 1367(c)(3) applies, the district court must still meaningfully balance the supplemental jurisdiction factors.

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.

Deppner v. Spectrum Health Care Resources, Inc. · filed 2018-09-11(c)(3)

But when a court dismisses all federal claims in a suit, it has the discretion to exercise—or decline to exercise—supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims that remain. ... In exercising that discretion, courts consider “judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants.” ... In this case, the factors weigh against retaining Deppner’s state-law claims. ... Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Deppner’s state-law claims, it will dismiss Counts I, IV, and V for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

Barnes v. City of N.Y. · filed 2018-09-07(c)(3)

Because the remaining claims assert claims under New York common law, principles of judicial economy, fairness, convenience and comity will be served best by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining ... state law claims and, accordingly, all such claims are 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, taking account of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Tubbs v. Stony Brook Univ. · filed 2018-10-30(c)(3)

Here, the Court has "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. S 1367(c)(3). Further, whilst Verdejo has submitted an answer and raised counterclaims, he has not engaged in any substantive motion practice or other time-intensive litigation related to those claims. Accordingly, declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims would neither prejudice Verdejo nor impinge the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

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

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. PLL · filed 2019-03-22(c)(3)

The Court will therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been sent to arbitration and comity and judicial economy favor state-court resolution.

Ware v. Golden 1 Credit Union, Inc. · filed 2019-03-25(c)(3)

Given all other claims are submitted to arbitration, concerns of comity and judicial economy both counsel this Court to dismiss the remaining PAGA claim. It is better suited for resolution in state court. Lacking original jurisdiction over the only remaining claim in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Herman v. Town of Cortlandt, Inc. · filed 2019-05-30(c)(3)

Having determined that all of the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law causes of action. See id. (citing 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, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Ross v. Georgetown University · filed 2019-06-12(c)(3)

Here, with the dismissal of plaintiff’s Title VII claims, no claim remains over which the Court has original jurisdiction. And the Court finds that the balance of the factors weighs against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining District of Columbia law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants after dismissing all federal claims against them, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Snow v. Kentucky State Reformatory · filed 2019-06-27(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims against these Defendants, the Court concludes that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims.

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

Dinkins v. Region Ten CSB · filed 2019-07-29(c)(3)

The Court finds that for reasons of judicial economy and comity it will decline supplemental jurisdiction over any State law claims that might be stated in the amended complaint.

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

Goings v. Baldwin · filed 2019-08-15(c)(3)

One such circumstance is when as here, the district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, courts must balance judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. at 172-73. Weighing those factors, this Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction as to Plaintiff’s state law claims for battery, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and spoliation (Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10), and they too will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over common law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh against retaining them.

United States v. Strock · filed 2019-09-24(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the FCA claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the balance of several factors, including judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh against this Court’s continued exercise of jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Sykes v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services · filed 2019-09-25(c)(3)

Here, subsection (3) applies because the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court may exercise its discretion to decline 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Whitehead v. Washington County · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim arising under federal law, meaning it has dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3). ... The Court finds there is no compelling reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and thus will decline to do so.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed when comity and fairness favor state adjudication and the litigation is still in its early stages.

Givens v. Dillard University · filed 2019-12-03(c)(3)

These factors weigh in favor of dismissal without prejudice of the Louisiana law claims so that the plaintiffs may assert those claims in Louisiana state court. 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 after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, federalism, and comity supporting dismissal of the remaining state claims without prejudice.

Derouen v. Hebert · filed 2019-12-09(c)(3)

However, a district court may, and the general rule is that it should, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Given the dismissal of Derouen’s § 1983 claims and having considered those factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, federalism, and comity, the Court finds that these claims should be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy and fairness favor adjudication in state court.

Kline v. Elite Medical Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2019-12-13(c)(3)

The interests of judicial economy and fairness compel me to decline to exercise jurisdiction over his remaining state law claim—trespass to chattels.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal claim is adequately pleaded and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh against exercising jurisdiction.

Caldwell v. Wartena · filed 2019-12-18(c)(3)

As Plaintiff has failed to plead a federal claim, the factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. ... Balancing these factors, the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims where Plaintiff has failed to plead a federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claim is adequately pleaded and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh against retaining the state claims.

Fernandez v. Tampkins · filed 2019-12-18(c)(3)

As Plaintiff has failed to plead a federal claim, the factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims (negligence and violation of California Government Code Sections 815 and 830). ... Balancing these factors, the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims where Plaintiff has failed to plead a federal claim.

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

Miller v. The City of Fort Myers · filed 2020-01-06(c)(3)

Federal courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Generally, a reexamination of supplemental jurisdictional is proper after dismissing all federal claims before trial. Raney v. Allstate Ins., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004). This is no less true because last federal claim was disposed of through summary judgment. ... After weighing the above, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. So the state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not favor retaining the state claims.

SHERRILL v. CITY OF HOBOKEN · filed 2020-01-06(c)(3)

The Court finds that none of the factors favor retaining jurisdiction, since the Court has had minimal involvement with these state law claims. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, and instead remands the same to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint fails to state a federal claim.

Wilson v. Dearie · filed 2020-01-08(c)(3)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any potential supplemental state law claims.

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.

MENSAH v. MANNING · filed 2020-01-08(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, “it ha[s] the authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state-law claims. See Petrossian v. Cole, 613 F. App’x 109, 112 (3d Cir. 2015); see also Obuskovic v. Wood, 761 Fed. App’x 144, 148–49 (3d Cir. 2019) (“A District Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)) (internal quotation mark omitted)). Here, in its discretion, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims for violations of the NJCFA, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conspiracy to commit a tort.

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

Rodriguez v. Williams · filed 2020-01-13(c)(3)

However, because Plaintiff has not stated any colorable claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor dismissal of the state law claims without prejudice.

Galanova v. Portnoy · filed 2020-01-13(c)(3)

A Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over non- federal claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under “is within the sound discretion of the district court.” Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 117 (2d Cir. 2013). Having dismissed the federal claims, Judge Chen declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under New York state law because the balance of factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity pointed away from exercising jurisdiction. See Galanova, 2018 WL 3824126, at *8. For the same reasons that Judge Chen declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case. Accordingly, the state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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.

Stock v. Stanislaus County · filed 2020-01-14(c)(3)

If Plaintiff has complied with the CTCA, jurisdiction over her claims under 22 California law will only be exercised by this Court as long as she has federal claims pending.

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

Jack v. County of Stanislaus · filed 2020-01-14(c)(3)

Considering judicial economy, ... convenience, fairness, and comity, and because summary judgment has been granted on all of ... Jack’s federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ... remaining state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed without leave to amend.

Petitphait v. Officer Christensen 1632 · filed 2020-01-15(c)(3)

However, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed without leave to amend.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when the case remains in its earliest stages and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor declining jurisdiction.

Gilliam v. Galvin · filed 2020-01-16(c)(3)

Here, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims. The Court dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction and although the Court has addressed multiple dispositive motions, the case is still in its earliest stages.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor dismissal of the remaining state-law claims.

Rodriguez v. N.Y. State Dept. of Parole · filed 2020-01-17(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff raises any claims under state law, the Court agrees with Judge Cott and Defendants that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction following the dismissal of all federal claims is appropriate in this case. ... Given that, the Court finds that declining jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) is the fairest outcome for all parties. For those reasons, supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims will be declined as a matter of discretion.

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

Hudson v. Forman · filed 2020-01-17(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 Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Pinkney v. Moultrie · filed 2020-01-22(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss Pinkney’s federal constitutional claim, the Court may, and will, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Pinkney’s state law claims.

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

Alvey v. Kentucky Commission on Human Rights · filed 2020-01-23(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal-law claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff seeks to bring against Defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Thus, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state-law claims without prejudice.

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

Smith v. Washtenaw Intermediate School District · filed 2020-01-24(c)(3)

The Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Count V and Count VII are dismissed only without prejudice.

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

Morgan v. Oklahoma State of · filed 2020-01-24(c)(3)

Finally, Judge Purcell recommends that the Court decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED in its entirety and the petition herein is 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.

Gillum v. High Standard, LLC · filed 2020-01-27(c)(3)

But now having disposed of the claim over which original jurisdiction exists, 1.e. the claim against Defendant Danco, the Court hereby exercises its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Mesadieu v. City of Linden · filed 2020-01-27(c)(3)

Furthermore, given that Mesadieu failed to state a claim regarding his federal causes of action, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Brown v. Martin · filed 2020-01-27(c)(3)

But where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. ... Therefore, Brown’s state-law ordinary negligence claims will be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, for further proceedings on the surviving state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed, with remand the preferred disposition of remaining state-law claims in a removed action.

Evans v. Claiborne County Board of Education · filed 2020-01-27(c)(3)

Here, the Court will dismiss all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. When all federal claims are dismissed, the preferred disposition of state-law claims that came into federal court on removal is remand to state court. ... Because the Court will grant summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s federal claims the Court will REMAND Plaintiff’s remaining claims back to state court.

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.

Fan v. US Zhimingde International Group, LLC · filed 2020-01-28(c)(3)

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

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

Stephens v. National City Corporation · filed 2020-01-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state claims in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Padilla v. Geico Insurance Co. · filed 2020-01-29(c)(3)

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court agrees and will remand Plaintiff's state-law claims to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction, and ordinarily favors doing so, once all claims within its original jurisdiction have been resolved.

Decker v. 'Murica LLC · filed 2020-01-30(c)(3)

As 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) explains, the Court may – “and usually should” -- decline to continue to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction once it has resolved all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Lucero v. Gordon, 786 Fed.Appx. 833, 836-37 (10th Cir. 2019). Thus, the Court dismisses the CMWA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed early in litigation when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not favor retaining jurisdiction.

Williams v. New York City Department Of Correction · filed 2020-01-30(c)(3)

Here, declining jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims would not disserve the principles of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here and thus does not address whether Plaintiff has stated a claim for relief under state or municipal law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed at the earliest stage of the proceedings.

EZELL v. JPMORGAN CHASE, N.A. · filed 2020-01-31(c)(3)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Here, the Court has dismissed the federal claims at the earliest possible stage of the proceedings and exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction at this time.

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

Gary v. Shelby County Government · filed 2020-02-03(c)(3)

Because all of the 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(c)(3).

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

Crane v. Utah Department of Corrections · filed 2020-02-04(c)(3)

Plaintiff's last remaining claim derives from the Utah Constitution. Supplemental jurisdiction was exercised over the claim while the above federal claims were pending (that have now been dismissed). ... The Utah-Constitution-based unnecessary-rigor claim is therefore 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 when no reasons justify retaining them.

De Rossitte v. Vowell. · filed 2020-02-05(c)(3)

The Court had original jurisdiction over his denial of medical care and retaliation claims, but those claims have been dismissed. A federal district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” when it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court finds there are no reasons to justify its consideration of De Rossitte’s state law claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

After all federal claims are dismissed, section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over local-law claims requiring a separate inquiry in an evolving area of law when convenience, comity, and judicial economy favor state-court resolution.

Yagudeav v. Credit Agricole Securities (USA) Inc. · filed 2020-02-05(c)(3)

Given the “slow development of case law regarding the appropriate standard by which to evaluate NYCHRL claims at the summary judgment stage,” EEOC v. Bloomberg L.P., 967 F. Supp. 2d 816, 835 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), the wholly separate and independent inquiry the Court would need to undertake in this “evolv[ing]” area of law, see id. at 835 n.6, and the parties’ failure to brief separately and adequately the NYCHRL claims, the factors of convenience, comity, and judicial economy point the Court toward declining jurisdiction over Yagudaev’s NYCHRL claims. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Yagudaev’s remaining state law claims. Yagudaev’s age discrimination and retaliation claims pursuant to the NYCHRL are therefore dismissed, without prejudice to Yagudaev’s right to re-file them in state court.

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

Wenzke v. Munoz · filed 2020-02-06(c)(3)

As Wenzke failed to state a claim regarding his federal causes of action, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wenzke’s state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Jones v. Wal-Mart Stores East I, LP · filed 2020-02-06(c)(3)

Therefore, in accordance with § 1367, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, and instead will dismiss them for lack of jurisdiction.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction after the sole federal claim becomes moot, and a remaining state-law damages claim may substantially predominate over that moot claim.

Langer v. Nenow · filed 2020-02-12(c)(2), (c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” and may now decline to hear the first cause of action. Also, as the Court has found that Defendants remedied the alleged wrongful conduct such that it is not reasonably likely to recur, Plaintiff’s insistence that the Court now retain jurisdiction and enforce the state law claim’s damages remedy suggests that the state law claim “substantially predominate[d] over the” now-moot ADA claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

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

Dixon v. Corcoran · filed 2020-02-12(c)(3)

Where all of Dixon’s federal claims will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims and thus will dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Kenney v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2020-02-12(c)(3)

A district court's decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction is discretionary. ... This Court is dismissing all federal claims in this case. To the extent the Complaint alleges claims under New Mexico law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Kenney’s remaining state-law claims and will remand this case to the State of New Mexico, County of Bernalillo, Second Judicial District Court.

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

Jenkins v. Hutton · filed 2020-02-13(c)(3)

The Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining AMLA claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss that claim without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when it dismisses all federal claims at the outset of litigation.

J.K.J. v. City of San Diego · filed 2020-02-13(c)(3)

Here, because the Court is dismissing the only federal claims at the outset of the 10 litigation, it is more appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law 11 claims than to wade into the plainly state law issues that remain in this case.

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

Padilla v. Mann · filed 2020-02-13(c)(3)

This Court is dismissing all federal claims in this case. To the extent the Complaint alleges any claims under New Mexico law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Padilla’s remaining state-law claims and will remand this case to the State of New Mexico, County of Union, Eighth Judicial District Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, even when granting leave to amend the federal claims.

Joseph v. Clayton · filed 2020-02-18(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all Joseph’s federal claims but will grant him leave to amend, it declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over his purported state law claims at this time.

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.

Hill v. PC · filed 2020-02-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hill's state law claims and they will be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when the remaining claims depend solely on state law.

Loescher v. Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No. 320 · filed 2020-02-26(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state-law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... As such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining counts in Loescher’s complaint, which are based entirely on Minnesota law.

After resolving all federal claims before trial, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, and dismiss them without prejudice.

Woods v. Dunn (DEATH PENALTY) · filed 2020-03-02(c)(3)

As set forth herein, judgment is due to be granted to the State on Woods’ federal claims. Where all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, district courts are encouraged to dismiss any remaining state law claims. ... Before dismissing the remaining state law claims, the federal court must consider the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... The Court has considered these factors and determines that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Woods’ state law claims. Accordingly, Woods’ state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to his right to pursue them in state court.

Section 1367 permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed when the case remains at the pleading stage and fairness and judicial economy do not justify retaining the state-law claims.

DEL TURCO v. RANDOLPH TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2020-03-02(c)(3)

This case is in the early pleading stages. The federal claims are not substantial (and indeed may never have truly been intended as federal claims at all). No substantial considerations of fairness or economy weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction. I will therefore exercise my discretion to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over all remaining state-law claims.

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

Burridge v. City of Farmington · filed 2020-03-05(c)(3)

But a district court may also “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c). The Tenth Circuit has advised that when only state law claims are left for decision, the court should usually exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction. See VR Acquisitions, LLC v. Wasatch Cty., 853 F.3d 1142, 1149–50 (10th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Officer Burridge’s remaining state law claims.

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

Hill v. City of Bryan · filed 2020-03-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, and there being no other basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim.

Escalera v. Samaritan Village Men's Shelter · filed 2020-03-06(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims suggested by the alleged facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Tso v. Murray · filed 2020-03-09(c)(3)

However, as the Court has already dismissed the causes of action that raise a federal question, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims that remain.

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

Landon v. Vallandingham · filed 2020-03-10(c)(3)

Further, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Dixon v. Bishop · filed 2020-03-11(c)(3)

Where all of Dixon’s federal claims will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims and thus will dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Diaz v. Richardson · filed 2020-03-12(c)(3)

Here, the court has dismissed plaintiff’s single federal cause of action. As a result, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) applies, and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims.

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.

Rodriguez v. Winski · filed 2020-03-12(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Therefore, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims predicated on NPPA members’ rights under New York law that NPPA seeks to assert on behalf of its members.

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

Villanueva v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2020-03-13(c)(3)

As the Court is recommending the dismissal of Villanueva’s federal claims, to the extent that Villanueva’s claims relating to the medical treatment he received while in BOP custody in May and June 2018 are cognizable under state law, the Court will further recommend that the District Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

M.S. v. United States · filed 2020-03-13(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant United States are hereby settled, and shall therefore be dismissed, it is no longer a party to this action. The only claims that remain are state law claims against Defendant Kaweah Delta, over which the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Crosby v. Topeka Police Department · filed 2020-03-17(c)(3)

Because the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under federal law, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to address Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after disposing of all federal claims.

Johnson v. Holden · filed 2020-03-18(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Unruh Act Claim and dismisses Plaintiffs state law claim without prejudice.

When federal claims are dismissed before trial, a court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims absent compelling reasons to retain them.

Chavez v. McDonald's Corporation · filed 2020-03-20(c)(3)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if there is a jurisdictional basis for doing so, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Plaintiffs do not argue that the Court should retain jurisdiction over their state law claims if their federal claims are dismissed, and the Court does not find any compelling reason to do so.

When the sole claim supporting federal jurisdiction fails, the court may decline to address the sufficiency of supplemental claims.

Hall v. Hilderbrand · filed 2020-03-23(c)(3)

Given that federal jurisdiction in this case is predicated solely upon Plaintiff’s FHA claim (Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 1 at 3), there is no need to address the sufficiency of the supplemental claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims at the earliest stage of litigation where doing so causes no prejudice to the parties.

CASTELLANE-JACONETTA v. FORNORO · filed 2020-03-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the federal claims at earliest possible state of the litigation, and finding no prejudice to the parties, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a court must decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for retaining them.

BERNARD v. WEBB-MCRAE · filed 2020-03-23(c)(3)

But the Third Circuit has held that where all federal claims are dismissed before trial, “the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). No such affirmative justification is apparent here. Consequently, these claims must also be dismissed, without prejudice to refiling in a court of competent jurisdiction.

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

Ollie v. Williams · filed 2020-03-23(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims and, there being no other basis for original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

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

Day v. Headrick · filed 2020-03-23(c)(3)

For the reasons outlined below, the Court agrees and grants the motions to dismiss as to all federal claims only,2 declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and remands the case to the District Court of Washita County.

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

Comer v. McCracken County Detention Center · filed 2020-03-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed Council’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his various state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are subject to dismissal.

Stroud v. Farr Rentals, LLC · filed 2020-03-24(c)(3)

As explained above, all of plaintiff’s claims premised upon federal law are subject to dismissal. Therefore, at this time, the Court declines to exercise 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 over which it has original jurisdiction.

Gunn v. Betivegna · filed 2020-03-24(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 Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Bento v. New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services · filed 2020-03-24(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal-law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state- and city-law discrimination claims.

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

Thornton v. Gromer · filed 2020-03-24(c)(3)

Because this court has dismissed all § 1983 claims against defendants under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Thornton’s state law negligence claims.

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

McBride v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID · filed 2020-03-25(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over a state law claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because the Court is dismissing all of plaintiff’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over any state law claims he may have raised in this lawsuit.

When all federal claims are disposed of before trial, supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims is presumptively relinquished unless circumstances justify retaining jurisdiction.

Mohr v. Newrez LLC · filed 2020-03-25(c)(3)

In the absence of any remaining federal claim, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this matter any further. ... Principles of comity encourage the court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all of the federal claims are disposed of prior to trial. ... In fact, in this circuit, there is a “presumption” that federal courts will relinquish jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims when the federal claims drop out of the case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state negligence claims after disposing of the federal claims as meritless or unexhausted, dismissing the state claims without prejudice.

Tackett v. Jess · filed 2020-03-26(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiff’s constitutional claims are either without merit or unexhausted, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claims involving Dr. Krembs, Vasquez, and Frazier. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

(PS) Strojnik v. Wickstrom Hospitality, LLC · filed 2020-03-26(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Because plaintiff’s lack of standing defeats federal subject matter jurisdiction over his ADA claim, the court need not entertain any of the other claims that plaintiff raises. If plaintiff fails to cure the pleading defect and establish his standing on the ADA claim, this court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and CDPA claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the only federal claim is dismissed early in the litigation and no other factors favor retaining jurisdiction.

Tolbert v. Rochester City School District · filed 2020-03-26(c)(3)

Because Tolbert’s only federal claim is being dismissed, the lawsuit is in its early stages, and there no other factors favoring the retention of jurisdiction over the state law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to address the breach of contract claim.

Under § 1367(c), elimination of the sole federal claim and the resulting predominance of state law claims favor declining supplemental jurisdiction and remanding the case.

Highland Lakes Title, Ltd. v. Wooten · filed 2020-03-27(c)

In this case, the statutory factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Because the Court finds that the balance of factors weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, the undersigned recommends that the District Court grant the motion to remand.

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

MITCHELL v. WINSTON SALEM STATE UNIVERSITY · filed 2020-03-30(c)(3)

Because the court has disposed of Plaintiff’s sole federal law claim, the court has discretion to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining seven state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The court will decline to do so.

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

Calvillo v. Paik · filed 2020-03-30(c)(3)

As a result, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) applies, and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed when judicial investment has been limited, discovery remains incomplete, and the remaining state-law claims are not ripe for summary judgment.

Moghtader v. GEO Group, Inc. · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

This case has been pending since 2018. The Court has invested some judicial resources, but only limited discovery has been conducted, and the remaining state-law claims of negligence, gross negligence, and medical malpractice2 have not completed discovery and are not ripe for disposition via summary judgment. ... Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion to dismiss all remaining state-law causes of action against Dr. Gordon, Blake, and GEO.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, courts must consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity before declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismissing them without prejudice.

Mt. Hebron District Missionary Baptist Association of AL, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

Where all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, district courts are encouraged to dismiss any remaining state law claims. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004). Before dismissing the remaining state law claims, the federal court must consider the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. See Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Labs., Inc., 803 F.3d 518, 537 (11th Cir. 2015). ... The Court has considered these factors and determines that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Alexander’s state law counterclaims. Accordingly, Alexander’s state law counterclaims will be dismissed without prejudice to his right to pursue them in state court.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over an undeveloped state-law claim when judicial economy, fairness, and comity favor dismissal.

Haggard v. Jackson · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

The interests of judicial economy, fairness, and comity with state courts weigh heavily in favor of dismissal or remand of this action. This court sees no reason to retain jurisdiction over this case; under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the court declines to retain jurisdiction.

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

Haney v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc. · filed 2020-04-01(c)(3)

Because Haney’s remaining claim arises under state law and the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction, rather than original jurisdiction, over those claims, they will be dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Keating v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 660 F.3d 1014, 1018-19 (8th Cir. 2011).

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

Harley v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-06(c)(3)

However, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that when a Court dismisses all the federal claims presented in a case, the state law claims should be remanded to be resolved in state court. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims and will remand those claims for resolution in state court.

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

Sutherland v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-06(c)(3)

However, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that when a Court dismisses all the federal claims presented in a case, the state law claims should be remanded to be resolved in state court. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims and will remand those claims for resolution in state court.

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

Pooler v. Wilson · filed 2020-04-03(c)(3)

A district court has discretion to dismiss remaining state claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, the court declines to retain jurisdiction over Pooler’s remaining state law causes of action and remands them to state court.

Under § 1367(c)(3), a district court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial and no compelling reason supports retaining jurisdiction.

Leonhard v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC · filed 2020-04-07(c)(3)

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

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

JACOBS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2020-04-09(c)(3)

As discussed above, we have dismissed all asserted federal causes of action in the amended complaint. When a court has done so, it has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining 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 after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Fonck v. Semple · filed 2020-04-10(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fonck’s state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where all federal claims have been dismissed).

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

Bell v. Drakeford · filed 2020-04-10(c)(3)

This Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if . . . [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because all of Bell’s federal-law claims have been dismissed, all state-law claims are also dismissed.

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

Prather v. HCA Far West Division · filed 2020-04-14(c)(3)

Given that the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claim over which it had original jurisdiction.

Harlas v. Barn LLC, The · filed 2020-04-15(c)(3)

Because the Court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s federal claim over which the Court had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims (ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 103–132) and dismisses them.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims when all federal claims are withdrawn early in litigation.

Nanavati v. The New School for Social Research · filed 2020-04-15(c)(3)

Because this action is still in the early stages of litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remands the case to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed early in the litigation and doing so would not disserve judicial economy, convenience, or fairness.

Berrian v. New York City Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-15(c)(3)

Because the Court addressed and dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims early in the litigation, declining jurisdiction here would not disserve the principles of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness. For this reason, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim and need not address it.

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

(PC) Hafiz v. Yates · filed 2020-04-16(c)(3)

Since defendants are entitled to either qualified immunity or quasi-judicial immunity, plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim must be dismissed. Furthermore, the undersigned agrees with the recommendation that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s premises liability claim brought solely under California law.

Under § 1367(c)(3), courts generally should relinquish jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial unless refiling is time-barred, substantial judicial resources have been expended on the state claims, or their resolution is clearly apparent.

Baldwin: Carleton v. Village of Evergreen Park · filed 2020-04-16(c)(3)

“As a general matter, when all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, the federal court should relinquish jurisdiction over the remaining [supplemental] state claims.” Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 404 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Dietchweiler ex rel. Dietchweiler v. Lucas, 827 F.3d 622, 631 (7th Cir. 2016). That general rule has three exceptions: “when the [refiling] of the state claims is barred by the statute of limitations; where substantial judicial resources have already been expended on the state claims; and when it is clearly apparent how the state claim[s] [are] to be decided.” Williams, 509 F.3d at 404; see also RWJ Mgmt. Co. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 672 F.3d 476, 480 (7th Cir. 2012). ... Because no exception applies, relinquishing jurisdiction over the state law claim is the appropriate course under § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits declining supplemental jurisdiction and remanding remaining state-law claims when all federal claims have been removed early in litigation and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor remand.

SUMBRY v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2020-04-17(c)(3)

Here, the federal claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction no longer remain and the only remaining claims arise under state law. This case is also in the earliest stages of litigation and there have been no substantive decisions affecting the claims or positions of the parties. Therefore, considering the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness. and comity. this Court finds it appropriate to remand the matter to state court where it was filed.

After all federal claims are dismissed, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor dismissal, including where virtually no discovery has occurred.

Davis v. Willheim · filed 2020-04-17(c)(3)

Here, all factors weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims. There has been virtually no discovery in this case; there have been no initial disclosures, no case management plan has been entered, no depositions have been taken, no expert discovery completed, and there is no trial date. Accordingly, sending the pendent claims to state court would not result in the wasteful and duplicative expenditure of resources. Further, the matter does not involve preemption issues. Plaintiff can seek redress in state court, where he would be able to bring his state-law claims. Accordingly, all of the facts and circumstances of this case weigh strongly in favor of this Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. For this reason, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims. Those claims are dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff is free to pursue them further in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim early in the case when economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor remand.

Dean v. Colonial Bank, National Association · filed 2020-04-21(c)(3)

The Court finds that the principles of economy, convenience, fairness and comity are best served by remanding the remaining state law claims to the Circuit Court of Lee County, Alabama, especially since the sole federal claim has been dismissed at the early stage of this case. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Deans’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state and municipal claims when all federal claims are dismissed early and judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not favor retaining jurisdiction.

Anderson v. New York City Department of Finance · filed 2020-04-21(c)(3)

Here, the Court has already granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to all of the federal claims. Because the Court addressed and dismissed these claims early in the litigation, declining jurisdiction over the remaining state and municipal claims would not disserve the principles of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness. For this reason, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff fails to state any cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Turner, Jr. v. Salorio · filed 2020-04-24(c)(3)

As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, it will be recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and that those claims be dismissed.

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

Escobar v. Moyer · filed 2020-04-29(c)(3)

Because Escobar’s constitutional claim fails, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Jones v. Hogue · filed 2020-04-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over a state law claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

(PC) Frazier v. Matteson · filed 2020-04-30(c)(3)

Moreover, even if Plaintiff had alleged compliance with the Government Claims Act, because Plaintiff has failed to state plausible federal claims, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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 a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Brooke v. Grand Hyatt SF LLC · filed 2020-04-30(c)(3)

Where, as here, the district court will "dismiss all claims over which it has original jurisdiction," the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In this instance, as the case remains at the pleading stage, and there are no apparent considerations weighing in favor of retaining jurisdiction over the state law claim, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to said claim.

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

Reed v. Burton · filed 2020-04-30(c)(3)

The Court, however, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. That is because the Court concludes that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining jurisdiction over those 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.

Bunnell v. Village of Shiocton · filed 2020-05-01(c)(3)

With the federal claims gone, Plaintiffs’ state law claims, including their claims arising under the Wisconsin Constitution, will be remanded to the Circuit Court for Outagamie County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). That section provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Curtis v. Embrace Home Loans, Inc. · filed 2020-05-04(c)(3)

Without the federal claims, the Court needs to reassess its jurisdiction over Counts IV and V. “Where a federal court has dismissed the anchoring federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ over the remaining state-law claims.” Desjardins v. Willard, 777 F.3d 43, 45 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)); Camelio v. Am. Fed'’n, 137 F.3d 666, 672 (1st Cir. 1998). This decision “depends on a ‘pragmatic and case-specific evaluation of a variety of considerations,’ including ‘the interests of fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity.” Desjardins, 777 F.3d at45 (quoting Camelio, 137 F.3d at 672). The Court has evaluated all the factors and balanced the competing interests and finds that Mr. Curtis should litigate the remaining state claims in state court, the court where Mr. Curtis brought his claims originally. So, the Court remands this matter to the Rhode Island Superior 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.

Bennett v. Cielo Homeowners Association, Inc · filed 2020-05-05(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claim.

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

Bradley v. St. Landry Parish · filed 2020-05-07(c)(3)

Since Bradley’s § 1983 claims failed, dismissal of the pendant state-law claims was within the district court’s discretion.

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

Reno v. Nielson · filed 2020-05-08(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion and declines supplemental jurisdiction over these additional 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.

Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc · filed 2020-05-11(c)(3)

The Court declines to retain jurisdiction over Silbersher’s remaining state law claims.

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

Diamond v. U.S. Bank N.A. · filed 2020-05-11(c)(3)

Although the Court could assert supplemental jurisdiction over the Diamonds’ remaining state law claims, it will exercise its discretion to decline to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (providing that a district court may dismiss a claim over which it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction when “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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Boyle v. North Salem Central School District · filed 2020-05-11(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

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

Revitalizing Auto Communities Environmental Response Trust v. National Grid USA · filed 2020-05-12(c)(3)

A district court may, however, "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 these circumstances, the balance of factors, particularly judicial economy and fairness, make it appropriate to allow plaintiffs' position to settle itself before considering their state law claims. Thus, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims, and those claims will also be dismissed without prejudice.

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

TOMASELLO v. GREENZWEIG · filed 2020-05-13(c)(3)

When all federal claims in a case are dismissed, courts may, at their discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Carson v. Wolfe Street Foundation Inc · filed 2020-05-15(c)(3)

No federal question remains in this case. And the Court declines, in the circumstances, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law core dispute. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the claims supporting federal jurisdiction are gone.

Gordy v. CareMore Health Plan · filed 2020-05-15(c)(3)

However, if the claims which would support jurisdiction are no longer in the case, the Court has discretion whether to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims under its supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Given that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, it declines to hear the motion to dismiss.

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

Saidin v. The City of New York · filed 2020-05-19(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 Plaintiff may be asserting.