28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after all federal claims are resolved before trial, with judicial economy and comity weighing in favor of dismissal.

Raydo v. City of New York · filed 2020-05-20(c)(3)

There is no reason in this case to depart from the ordinary practice of dismissing the remaining state law claim. All federal claims have been resolved before trial and judicial economy and comity weigh in favor of the dismissal.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims supporting its original jurisdiction and to remand those claims in a removed action.

Gilmore v. Burch · filed 2020-05-21(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff alleges state law claims (see ECF No. 1-1 at 13), having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims (the only basis for the court’s original subject matter jurisdiction identified in Defendants’ Notice of Removal), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over those claims, which are better resolved by the Ohio state courts.

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

Robinson v. Geisinger Hospital · filed 2020-05-22(c)(3)

Finally, because the District Court properly dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Robinson’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not justify retaining the state claim.

TAYLOR v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2020-05-26(c)(2), (c)(3)

Therefore, there are no considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties that provide an affirmative justification for retaining jurisdiction over the matter. Thus, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim under § 1367(c)(2) and (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.

Saal v. City of Wooster · filed 2020-05-26(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... After considering all the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Saal’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss a remaining state-law claim without prejudice when the federal claims have been dismissed before trial.

Marshall v. McWhorter · filed 2020-05-28(c)(3)

Additionally, because the Eleventh Circuit has “encouraged district courts to dismiss any remaining state claims, when, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial,” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted), the plaintiff's state law claim is due to be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Brooks v. Kumer · filed 2020-05-29(c)(3)

To the extent that any of Brooks’s claims can be interpreted as state law tort claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over them in light of the dismissal of his federal claims. 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Shepard v. San Diego Sheriff Department · filed 2020-06-01(c)(3)

Thus, because the Court has found Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state any plausible claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it hereby exercises its discretion to dismiss all Plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

CLAIBORNE v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC · filed 2020-06-01(c)(3)

Rather, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and DISMISSES Count II of Mr. Claiborne’s Complaint without prejudice “so that [he] may pursue the claim in state court” should he so choose, which will properly allow the state to be “the final arbiters of state law.”

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

Tibbs v. Bryan · filed 2020-06-01(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with a strong presumption favoring that choice.

Wales v. Parker · filed 2020-06-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s only federal claim against Defendant, the Court will not ... retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Defendant because, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), there is a “strong presumption in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state-law claims after dismissing federal anchor claims[.]” Martinez v. City of Cleveland, 700 F. App’x 521, 523 (6th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law negligence claim after dismissing the federal claim against that defendant.

Wand, Armin v. Kramer, Beckey · filed 2020-06-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, Wand’s deliberate indifference clam against Patterson must be dismissed without prejudice, and the court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Wand’s related negligence claim against him as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Ditlefson, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

Alkarawi v. Foley · filed 2020-06-03(c)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, with the stage of proceedings and comity informing that choice.

Simmons v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · filed 2020-06-03(c)(3)

Here, these factors do not compel the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction because the case remains in a relatively early stage of proceedings as discovery has not yet ended, no motions on the merits have been decided, and the “interests of comity militate[] in favor of remand because the case [is] predominantly a matter of state law.” Chapman v. Crane Co., 694 F. App'x 825, 829 (2d Cir. 2017) (affirming remand of personal injury case where District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after “effectively excis[ing] any claim on which a government-contractor defense could be premised and thereby extinguish[ing] the basis on which this action was originally removed”).

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.

FALLECKER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2020-06-03(c)(3)

Therefore, in its discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against GCS, and accordingly will dismiss the claims without prejudice, so that they may be filed in an appropriate court within the thirty-day time period provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

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

Blevins v. Marion County · filed 2020-06-05(c)(3)

District courts have the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Rosado v. County of San Diego · filed 2020-06-09(c)(3)

Once the district court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Therefore, “the district court did not err in declining to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.” Sweaney v. Ada Cty., 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1997).

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

UNITED AERIAL ADVERTISING INC. v. TOWNSHIP OF LAKEWOOD · filed 2020-06-11(c)(3)

In addition to rejecting Plaintiff’s position that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under Garble and ancillary jurisdiction, I further decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the remaining state law claims without a federal claim to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court.

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

The United States of America v. Safeway, Inc. · filed 2020-06-12(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Montemayor v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2020-06-17(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Powers v. Mad Vapatory LLC · filed 2020-06-19(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Randolph v. Carter County Board of County Commissioners · filed 2020-06-19(c)(3)

All federal claims having been dismissed, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s state-law claim for defamation without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Brooks v. Gaenzle, 641 F.3d 1213, 1229-30 (10th Cir.2010).

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.

Keystone Associates LLC v. Fulton · filed 2020-06-23(c)(3)

The state law claims are also dismissed because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that 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’).

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

WAKEFIELD v. PASTORE · filed 2020-06-24(c)(3)

Taken together, no federal claims remain against the Defendants. Consequently, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim for malicious prosecution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

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.

Montez II v. Oliver · filed 2020-06-25(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, and because summary judgment has been granted on Montez’s one and only federal claim, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Christensen v. Saint Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2020-06-26(c)(3)

However, the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over such claims if the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As set forth above, the FCRA claims are dismissed, and the Court is required by § 1332(d)(4)(B) to decline to exercise CAFA jurisdiction over the matter. Consequently, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Alkarawi v. Grace · filed 2020-06-29(c)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, 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 a state-law claim when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Watson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Revenue · filed 2020-06-29(c)(3)

Because Shelley’s federal claims over which this court had original jurisdiction shall not be permitted to proceed to trial, the court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claim against the Department. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (authorizing a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

WILLIAMS v. DAVIDSON · filed 2020-07-01(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.’” Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 181 (3d Cir. 1999). Here, the Court exercises its discretion to decline 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Glover v. City of St. Paul Police · filed 2020-07-06(c)(3)

Under the federal supplemental-jurisdiction statute, the Court may dismiss state- law claims when all other claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 28 USC §1367(c)(3). The Court will do so here.

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.

Holston v. Solano Carolina Partners LP · filed 2020-07-08(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 negligence claims.

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

Rivera v. Town Of Cicero · filed 2020-07-09(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Having dismissed all federal claims against Defendant Perez, we grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss the remaining state law claims in Counts VII, IX and X as to Defendant Perez only.

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

Coon v. L.W. Miller Diversified, Inc. · filed 2020-07-09(c)(3)

The Court determines that it should not, i. e., that its discretion under Section 1367 would be best exercised by declining to retain the case under its supplemental jurisdiction and instead dismissing the Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims without prejudice.

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

Stevens v. Holler · filed 2020-07-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” ... All of these factors favor dismissal here. Plaintiffs’ remaining claims arise under Maryland state law, and there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction, as the federal claims in this lawsuit have been dismissed, i.e., the claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction.

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

Fleming v. Warren · filed 2020-07-13(c)(3)

And, in light of this conclusion, the court acted within its discretion in declining to hear the state-law claims.

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

Silk v. Hutcheson · filed 2020-07-16(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, I will summarily dismiss this action under § 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim. Although it does not appear that there are additional facts Silk could allege to render either of his claims viable, I will nonetheless dismiss his claims without prejudice. To the extent that Silk’s complaint is intended to assert a state-law claim against either defendant, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any such claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims against those defendants, with the state-law claims dismissed without prejudice.

Perry v. Warden Warren Correctional Institution · filed 2020-07-16(c)(3)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over any state-law claims against dismissed Defendants ODRC, ODRC Director, BOSC, John Doe of BOSC, WCI, WCI Investigator’s Office, Chamblin, and Bullock and DISMISSES any such claims without prejudice; and 5. The Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore Plaintiff is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

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

The Georgia Electronic Life Safety & System Association, Inc. v. The City of Sandy Springs, Georgia · filed 2020-07-17(c)(3)

And we affirm the dismissal of Count V, because the district court did not abuse its discretion in ... declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim, since the federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Balderrama v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2020-07-24(c)(3)

The Court has original jurisdiction solely over Balderrama’s federal law claims brought under Section 1983, which should be dismissed for the reasons set forth above. “Where a district court dismisses every claim over which it had original jurisdiction, it retains pure discretion in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.” Lacey v. Maricopa County, 649 F.3d 1118, 1137 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal citation, alterations, and quotation marks omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). As set forth above, Balderrama’s federal law claims are subject to dismissal. The Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Balderrama’s state law claims at this time. Accordingly, Balderrama’s state law claims are subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Alexander v. Storage Properties, Inc. · filed 2020-07-24(c)(3)

Where the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

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

Morataya v. Metro RTA · filed 2020-07-28(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction[,]” if it 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 federal claims are dropped, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and possible forum manipulation.

Burton, D.O. v. Kettering Adventist Healthcare · filed 2020-07-30(c)(3)

Therefore, after having considered and weighed applicable factors, this Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Burton’s 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.

Hernandez (ID 71264) v. Corizon, Inc. · filed 2020-07-31(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants on each of Hernandez’s Eighth Amendment claims, the Court no longer has original jurisdiction over any of Hernandez’s claims. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all of Hernandez’s medical malpractice claims.

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

Cummings v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction · filed 2020-07-31(c)(3)

That statute contains an express provision that permits the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim substantially predominates over the federal claim.

Cota v. Tory Burch LLC · filed 2020-08-04(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 permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims when it dismisses the federal claims before trial.

Inline Utilities, LLC v. Schreiber · filed 2020-08-04(c)(3)

Because these claims were granted supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Because the federal law claim has been dismissed, the remaining claims are dismissed as well.

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

Austin v. Hall · filed 2020-08-04(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff alleges negligence, defamation, or other state-law claims, having determined that the federal claims, which provide the jurisdictional basis of this suit, should be dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

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

Sun v. New York City Police Department · filed 2020-08-06(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims except her Fourth Amendment claim against the Doe Defendants that arises from the January 20, 2019 incident. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of all Plaintiff’s state law claims except for those that arise from the seizure aspect of theJanuary 20, 2019 incident, which the Court will hold in abeyance pending identification of the Doe Defendants and further proceedings.

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

Futia v. Boykin · filed 2020-08-06(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); Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006). Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Schulz’s and Futia’s state law claims.

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

Greenkraft, Inc. v. Walters Auto Sales and Service, Inc. · filed 2020-08-07(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides, in relevant part, that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if— . . . (c) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court finds, consistent with these principles, that the best course of action is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Jackson v. Doe · filed 2020-08-08(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim of infliction of emotional distress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]”).

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

Robinson v. San Bernardino County · filed 2020-08-10(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Robinson’s state law fraud claims because the court dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Bell v. Maricopa, County of · filed 2020-08-10(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim in the Second Amended Complaint, as discussed above, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Conquistador v. Cook · filed 2020-08-10(c)(3)

As all federal claims have been dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any supplemental 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.

Williams v. O'Conor · filed 2020-08-12(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court can decline to exercise jurisdiction over a supplemental claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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.

Chapman v. United States Of America · filed 2020-08-19(c)(3)

Here, the court will relinquish jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law tort claims because all of Plaintiffs’ FTCA claims, which the court has original jurisdiction over, have been dismissed.

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

Wallace v. Cecil County Fair, Inc. · filed 2020-08-24(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged in Counts III, IV, and V.

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

Cosby v. McDonald · filed 2020-08-25(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that may have been asserted by the plaintiff.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a district court must decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness affirmatively justify retaining them.

K. K.-M. v. GLOUCESTER CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2020-08-25(c)(3)

The Court does not have original jurisdiction over this claim and may only hear it through the Court’s supplement jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... As the Court is granting the District summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s federal law claims, and as the Court lacks any affirmative justification for retaining jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s NJLAD claim must be dismissed.

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

Thomas v. Martin-Gibbons · filed 2020-08-25(c)(3)

... the extent these plaintiffs seek to bring a claim under state law through the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines jurisdiction because the Court has dismissed all of the Thomas plaintiffs’ federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

(PC) Cyprian v. Lozano · filed 2020-08-27(c)(3)

The court declines to review plaintiff’s state law claims in the absence of a cognizable federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Affordable Aerial Photography, Inc. v. Beycome Brokerage Realty LLC · filed 2020-08-27(c)(3)

Instead, the decision of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is a matter of 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.

Bonadies v. Town of Amenia · filed 2020-08-31(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); Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006). Having dismissed the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Talley v. Wetzel · filed 2020-09-01(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction rests in the court’s discretion. City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). Upon review, the court agrees with Judge Mehalchick that the discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction should be declined over Talley’s state law claims.

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

Lopez v. Baker · filed 2020-09-03(c)(3)

Additionally, where the Court has dismissed all federal claims against a Defendant—J. Baker (Lopez), B. Baker (Rodriguez), Westerfield, Gorton, and Weathers—it will decline 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 the federal claims.

Jones v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · filed 2020-09-08(c)(3)

As to any state-law claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over those claims, 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3), and they will be dismissed.

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

Essington v. Monroe County Transit Authority · filed 2020-09-11(c)(3)

Accordingly, the plaintiff's state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially at an early stage of litigation.

AUSTINO v. CITY OF VINELAND · filed 2020-09-14(c)(3)

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)(3). Where, as here, the federal claims are dismissed at an early stage of litigation, declination of supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate.

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

Phazr Inc v. Ramakrishna · filed 2020-09-14(c)(3)

But the Court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if it dismisses the federal claim that gives the Court original jurisdiction. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Phazr’s remaining state-law claims, and so it DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Phazr’s 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.

Castang v. Geimano · filed 2020-09-15(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), I have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Since plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, I decline to maintain jurisdiction over the remaining city 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.

Essington v. Monroe County Transit Authority · filed 2020-09-15(c)(3)

Accordingly, the ‘plaintiff state-law claims 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 a remaining state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering the early stage of the case.

Weseman v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company · filed 2020-09-11(c)(3)

Because this case is in the earliest stages of development, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claim and sua sponte dismisses this claim without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain pending against other defendants.

East Coast Service Industry Companies, Inc. v. New Hampshire State Liquor Commission · filed 2020-09-17(c)

Although the court has dismissed all the federal claims brought against the employees, it has not dismissed the federal claims as against the City of Manchester, the Manchester Police Department, or their officers and employees. Because at this point federal claims remain pending, it is not appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed at the case’s earliest stage.

MCNEIL v. RAMOS-PERSAUD · filed 2020-09-17(c)(3)

Further, because this case is at its earliest stage and the federal claims have been dismissed, supra Section II.B, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Thornberry v. Powell County Detention Center · filed 2020-09-22(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over her 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.

Branch v. Carroll County, Mississippi · filed 2020-09-22(c)(3)

Having determined that summary judgment is warranted on the federal claims, no federal question remains. ... These issues would be better addressed by the state court. This Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Milner v. Team Health · filed 2020-09-23(c)(3)

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

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

STEVENS v. DICKEY · filed 2020-09-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed Stevens’ only remaining federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

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

Singh v. City of New York · filed 2020-09-24(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this state law claim against Hansen.

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.

Bank v. Spark Energy, LLC · filed 2020-09-24(c)(3)

As an initial matter, having dismissed Plaintiff’s TCPA claims, the Court need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim for violation of the GBL.

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.

Wise v. Piedmont/American Airlines · filed 2020-09-24(c)(3)

The court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the court must “consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Chicago v. Int’l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Mindful of those values and the early stage of this litigation, and considering the circumstances of this particular case and the nature of the state law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

VASQUEZ v. WALMART · filed 2020-09-25(c)(3)

The Court, therefore, considering the factors of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the State Law Claims and dismisses the remainder of the Complaint 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 when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not justify retaining them.

Thompson v. State of Delaware Department of Services for Children Youth and Families · filed 2020-09-28(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Thompson’s state law contract claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state and local claims after dismissing all claims independently qualifying for federal jurisdiction.

Merisier v. Kings County Hospital · filed 2020-09-29(c)(3)

“When district courts dismiss all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, they ordinarily dismiss as well all related state claims.” Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S. Ct. 594, 597–98 (2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over and dismisses the state and local law claims without prejudice.

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

Olympian Group, LLC v. Blevins · filed 2020-09-30(c)

But since several federal-law claims ... survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Burrell v. Concept Ag. LLC · filed 2020-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims giving rise to the court’s jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ Tennessee state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if … (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

Section 1367 permits a court to keep related state-law claims under consideration while at least one federal claim survives.

Domino v. Kentucky Fried Chicken · filed 2020-10-01(a)

While the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over these claims if all federal claims end up being dismissed, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled one federal claim. The Court thus will address these claims at the motion to dismiss or summary judgment stage.

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

Banks v. Martirano · filed 2020-10-01(c)(3)

Having determined that it will dismiss the only federal claims raised in the complaint, the court has the discretion to remand this action to state court.

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

Podiatry In Motion, Inc. v. Interviewing Service of America, LLC · filed 2020-10-05(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the TCPA claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Eastman v. Tuolumne County Jail · filed 2020-10-07(c)(3)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, it is recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to hear state-law claims alongside federal claims and to decline supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claims remain.

Hamilton v. United States of America · filed 2020-10-07

The Court may hear state-law claims in conjunction with federal claims through the exercise of “supplemental jurisdiction” pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1367. As the Plaintiff has failed to assert federal claims, 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 within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not justify retaining them.

Clemons v. New Castle County · filed 2020-10-08(c)(3)

This Court will therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law contract claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims that would support original jurisdiction.

Cangelosi v. Sheng · filed 2020-10-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims that would give rise to original jurisdiction, the Court also 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 federal claims.

EDWARDS v. LEHIGH COUNTY PRISON · filed 2020-10-09(c)(3)

To the extent that Edwards intended to raise state law claims based on these allegations, because I have dismissed Edwards’s federal claims against all Defendants, I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over 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.

Adler v. Loyd · filed 2020-10-14(c)(3)

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction in some circumstances, including if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Thus, the Court chooses to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining local law claims.

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

Whitelaw v. Horton · filed 2020-10-15(c)(3)

Now that I have granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the federal claims, I decline to continue to exercise that 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.

Van Soeren v. Disney Streaming Service · filed 2020-10-16(c)(3)

Here, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining claims brought under state law and therefore dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.’

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

Calcano v. The Finish Line, Inc. · filed 2020-10-19(c)(3)

In any event, having determined that Calcano has no standing to press his federal claim, this Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state and city claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Boim v. American Muslims for Palestine · filed 2020-10-20(c)(3)

Thus, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Tucker v. Alvis, Inc. · filed 2020-10-20(c)(3)

Because it is recommended that Plaintiff’s federal-law claims be dismissed, it is further RECOMMENDED that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, and wrongful termination claims and that the Court DISMISS those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing in state court.

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

Kilayko-Gullas v. East End Temple · filed 2020-10-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims under federal law over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any claims under state law that Plaintiff is asserting.

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

Max-George v. Houston Police Department · filed 2020-10-28(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) specifically grants a district court the discretion to retain or decline supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, such as plaintiff’s section 1983 claims here. ... For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims in this case.

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

Fennix v. Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. · filed 2020-11-03(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may ... decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

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

Sanzone v. Mercy Health · filed 2020-11-04(c)(3)

Because I will dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining constitutional claim for lack of Article III standing, I continue to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ alternative state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and will not reinstate them to this action.

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

Feaster v. Watts · filed 2020-11-04(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff intended to raise claims under state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at this time because no federal claim has passed initial review.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, absent an affirmative justification for retaining them.

KANAUSS v. KOWNATSKY · filed 2020-11-05(c)(3)

Thus, because there is no final pre-trail order in this case, the Court has no affirmative justification for retaining supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and hereby remands this case to New Jersey state court.

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

Lopez v. West Elm, Inc. · filed 2020-11-06(c)(3)

In any event, having determined that Lopez has no standing to press his federal claim, this Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state and city claims.

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

Mendez v. Edelman Shoe, Inc. · filed 2020-11-06(c)(3)

In any event, having determined that Mendez has no standing to press her federal claim, this Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state and city claims.

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

968 Franklin Manor LLC v. Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning · filed 2020-11-09(c)(3)

Having determined that it will dismiss the only federal claim raised in the complaint, the court has the discretion to remand this action to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (stating 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”); see also Farlow v. Wachovia Bank of N.C., N.A., 259 F.3d 309, 316 (4th Cir. 2001).

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

Alston v. Herring · filed 2020-11-09(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at this time because no federal claim has passed initial review.

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

Smith v. New Orleans City · filed 2020-11-10(c)(3)

These factors weigh in favor of dismissal of the Louisiana state law claims without prejudice so that 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). ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

MURRAY v. NEWARK HOUSING AUTHORITY · filed 2020-11-10(c)(3)

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1367 permits federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims, “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” ... Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff raises claims under state law for breach of contract and wrongful termination, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those 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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Montanez v. Town of Highland · filed 2020-11-13(c)(3)

A court has discretion in deciding whether to relinquish jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367(c)(3). ... When deciding whether to retain jurisdiction, courts should consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... The Court finds that declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims is proper and remands the Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Town of Highland.

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

Khan v. St. Mary Hospital · filed 2020-11-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claims in this action, 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.

Chibuzor v. Corwin · filed 2020-11-23(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 federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

BEY v. KRANZ · filed 2020-11-25(c)(3)

Finally, because Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed with prejudice for the reasons set forth above, the Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

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

Mengesha v. Rice · filed 2020-11-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

THE ESTATE OF LAURA CHRISTINE SEMPREVIVO v. ATLANTIC COUNTY · filed 2020-11-30(c)(3)

The statute also provides that “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.A. § 1367(c)(3). If a district court decides not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and therefore dismisses state-law claims, it should do so without prejudice.” Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 650 (3d Cir. 2009). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Arther v. Corizon Health Incorporated · filed 2020-12-03(c)(3)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim because Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff has abandoned the federal claims.

(PC) Bruce Brown v. CDCR · filed 2020-12-04(c)(3)

As it appears that Plaintiff has abandoned his federal claim(s),2 the Court finds that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims is not appropriate.

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

Jones v. Deca Realty · filed 2020-12-04(c)(3)

All of plaintiff’s claims premised upon federal law are subject to dismissal. To the extent plaintiff Jones is seeking to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over state law tort claims, the Court declines to exercise its jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Adams v. City of Memphis · filed 2020-12-08(c)(3)

After finding that Plaintiff’s federal claims should be dismissed, the R. & R. advised the Court to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. (Id.) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). The Court agrees, and in the absence of objection by either party, finds that the R. & R. should be adopted.

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

Servidio Landscaping, LLC v. Stamford · filed 2020-12-09(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim, taking account of the statutory and common law factors.

American Biocarbon, LLC v. Keating · filed 2020-12-10(c)(3)

The third factor weighs in favor of dismissal because the federal claim will be dismissed by this Order, subject to AB’s right to amend. ... Upon consideration of the statutory and common law factors, the Court will follow the Fifth Circuit's general rule and decline at present to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over AB’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) favors remand of state-law claims when all original-jurisdiction claims are dismissed at the outset and no substantial considerations of economy or fairness support retaining them.

DIRAUF v. BERGER · filed 2020-12-11(c)(3)

Because the claim of federal subject matter jurisdiction was so insubstantial as to require dismissal at the very outset, there is no strong reason of federal policy or judicial economy favoring retention of state claims. ... I conclude now, as I did then, that the § 1367(c) factors did not overcome the presumption in favor of remand.

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

(PC) Jones v. Wong · filed 2020-12-15(c)(3)

Thus, the Court concludes that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims is supported by the interests of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

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

Franco v. Mesa Public Schools · filed 2020-12-16(c)(3)

When a court dismisses each federal claim before trial, it may and should decline jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... The Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand this action to Maricopa County Superior Court, unless Plaintiff files an amended complaint addressing her original Complaint’s deficiencies.

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

Rico v. Eveland · filed 2020-12-17(c)(3)

Based upon the following analysis, the court concludes that (1) Ascent Law and Mr. Anderson are entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Rico’s FDCPA claim against them, and based upon that conclusion, the court (2) declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Rico’s remaining claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Packer v. Lamour · filed 2020-12-17(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Packer’s state law medical malpractice 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 when no viable federal claim remains.

Carter v. Reynold · filed 2020-12-18(c)(3)

Because Carter has not raised a viable federal law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Carter’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state-law claims after dismissing related federal claims early in the action, even when federal claims against another defendant remain.

SCIACCA v. THE DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2020-12-18(c)(3)

When “all claims over which [the court] has original jurisdiction” are dismissed, the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... However, because all federal claims against the Institutional Defendants have been dismissed, it is determined that all state law claims asserted against all Defendants – the Board, the Individual Defendants, and Singleton – are remanded to Durham County 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.

Gunn v. Doe · filed 2020-12-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims the operative complaint can be liberally read to assert.

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

Doe T.L.J. v. University of Central Missouri · filed 2020-12-28(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a district court may decline jurisdiction over supplemental claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. . . .” ... No other federal law claims exist, and the Court finds it appropriate to remand the remaining state-law claims based on the factors outlined ... above.

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

Patrick v. Newton · filed 2020-12-29(c)(3)

Lastly, to the extent that any of Patrick’s factual allegations can be interpreted as attempting to assert a state-law claim, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any such claim,given the dismissal of his federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Allen v. Gomez · filed 2022-06-22(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the Moving Defendants brought pursuant to § 1981. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law negligence claims against the Moving Defendants.

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

Calderon v. Carmona · filed 2022-06-27(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all of the federal claims of which it had original jurisdiction and thus 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 state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed.

Green v. Montgomery County Jail · filed 2022-06-29(c)(3)

This Court is not obliged to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, even if valid, given that plaintiff's federal constitutional claims are subject to dismissal.

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

Cossette v. Downstate Correctional Facility · filed 2022-06-29(c)(3)

The “traditional ‘values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity’” weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial. Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Having determined that the only 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 any state-law claims Plaintiff may have been attempting to assert. See id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction while a federal claim remains in the case, even if the federal claims against one defendant have been dismissed.

Burton v. County Of Westchester · filed 2022-06-29(c)(3)

Plainly, not all federal claims have been dismissed. ... Therefore, the Court lacks the discretionary authority to decline jurisdiction, sever state law claims, and send them back to state court.

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

Williamson v. State of Hawaii · filed 2022-06-30(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state-law claims.

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

VAZQUEZ v. CITY OF HACKENSACK · filed 2022-06-30(c)

Here, the Court dismisses all of the claims over which it has original federal question jurisdiction, and thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in Counts I and II.

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

Garnes v. ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. · filed 2022-07-01(c)(3)

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims under federal law for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court declines to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed, considering the remaining claims and principles of fairness, judicial economy, and comity.

Allen v. Stumbo · filed 2022-07-05(c)

Applying these to Plaintiff’s Complaint, the factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissing any potential state law claims. ... Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Plaintiff’s Complaint may be liberally construed to bring and this action is DISMISSED in its entirety.

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

Sister E. Jones-Bey v. Chen · filed 2022-07-06(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting. 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

COUSAR v. MORGAN · filed 2022-07-07(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including at the motion to dismiss stage before considering the state law claims on their merits.

JANNUZZIO v. DANBY · filed 2022-07-07(c)(3)

As this case has not progressed past the motion to dismiss stage and the Court has not yet considered the merits of the state law claims, it finds it appropriate to exercise its discretion and dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

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

GOLDSTEIN v. ZUCKERBERG · filed 2022-07-07(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Goldstein’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

Kirkpatrick v. Lafayette Parish School Board · filed 2022-07-11(c)

Lastly, to the extent the Complaint purports to assert state law claims against individual defendant Anna Ellington, on behalf of her minor son, G.E., the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims given its lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Techu-El v. Conetta · filed 2022-07-11(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

PUE v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP. · filed 2022-08-01(c)(3)

The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute specifies that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).