28 U.S.C. § 1367

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.

Eastchester Tobacco & Vape Inc. v. Town of Eastchester · filed 2022-08-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ 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.

Chan v. Ramdhaney · filed 2022-08-01(c)(3)

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

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

GLENN v. VANIHEL · filed 2022-08-02(c)(3)

However, because the Court has dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction—that is, Mr. Glenn's § 1983 claims—it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction). Accordingly, any state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

London v. Nassau County Correctional Facility · filed 2022-08-05(c)(3)

The Court has weighed the relevant factors in exercising its discretion in this regard--i.e., the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity-- and in light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law negligence and medical malpractice claims.

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

Pinto v. Aggarwal · filed 2022-08-08(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction (i.e., Count IV), it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims (Counts I, II, and III).

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

Gilles v. Donegan · filed 2022-08-08(c)(3)

After disposing of Plaintiffs’ claims under Section 1983, the Court has weighed the principles of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Although judicial economy and convenience might weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction, principles of fairness and comity cut the other way. In the Court’s view, the remaining State-law claims present matters best suited to resolution in the State courts that ought, in fairness, to be resolved there. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s State-law claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and spoilation of evidence.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; absent an affirmative justification based on judicial economy, convenience, or fairness, it should do so.

HIGHTOWER v. VALLEY FORGE MILITARY ACADEMY & COLLEGE · filed 2022-08-10(c)(3)

For the reasons set forth, Valley Forge’s motion to dismiss Hightower’s federal claims— the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction—is granted. Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and the Third Circuit’s directive, and because there is no affirmative justification to do otherwise, this 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 it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Quartermouse v. Bullitt County Fiscal Court · filed 2022-08-11(c)(3)

Accordingly, having concluded that summary judgment is warranted on Quartermouse’s lone federal claim—the only basis for subject-matter jurisdiction here (see D.N. 1, PageID.2—3)— the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 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.

Dounce Al Dey v. Eye Express Optical · filed 2022-08-12(c)(3)

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

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

Guynup v. Cullen · filed 2022-08-15(c)(3)

The 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); see Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Va., 122 F.3d 192, 203 (4th Cir. 1997); ESAB Group, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. PLC, 685 F.3d 376, 393 – 94 (4th Cir. 2012). “Among the factors that inform this discretionary determination are convenience and fairness to the parties, the existence of any underlying issues of federal policy, comity, and considerations of judicial economy.” Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Carnegie–Mellon Univ., 484 US. at 350 n. 7; Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, 983 F.2d 1277, 1284 (3d Cir.1993)). As discussed, the claims against Deputy Sumption and Judge Cullen cannot survive the Court’s screening of the Complaint. Having considered the applicable factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against Ms. Giacomangellt.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the federal claims are resolved shortly after filing.

Resper v. Corizon Health, Inc. · filed 2022-08-16(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), this Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction where, among other things, the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or the claim asserted substantially predominates over the claim(s) which the court has original jurisdiction. Here, solely state law claims remain, and the two federal claims supporting the Court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed. Under these circumstances, the Court has latitude in determining whether to retain jurisdiction over the state claims. Where, as here, the federal claims were resolved shortly after filing, there is no basis for this Court to elect to retain jurisdiction.

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.

Rosario v. Rico · filed 2022-08-18(c)(3)

This Court possesses discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction and may decline to do so if “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” are dismissed. ... Because the federal causes of action are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction regarding Rosario’s claims pursuant to Puerto Rico Acts 80 and 100.

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

Witches Brew Tours LLC v. New Orleans Archdiocesan Cemeteries · filed 2022-08-22(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... As no discovery has taken place, the case remains at the pleading stage, and any trial is at most a distant possibility, these factors favor applying this general rule here. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the only federal claim.

Heyman v. State of Nevada · filed 2022-08-23(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion4 in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the only federal claim had been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and retaining a state-law claim after pretrial dismissal requires affirmative justification.

LEWIS v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES · filed 2022-08-23(c)(3)

As outlined above, whether this Court chooses to retain the state-law claims in this action under supplemental jurisdiction is entirely discretionary. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Although Defendant is incorrect in styling its motion as one for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Court retains the power to continue its supplemental jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise this power over the remaining state law claim in this matter.

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

Reed v. Conway Arkansas, City of · filed 2022-08-24(c)(3)

Most relevant here, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Mr. Reed’s First Amendment retaliation claims (against Chief Winter and the City of Conway) are the only claims that fall under the Court’s original jurisdiction.'*4 Pursuant to this Order, those claims are out. The remaining state law claims are not simple mirrors of the federal claims. They present unique issues of state law that the state courts should have a chance to resolve. Those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims that could support jurisdiction are dismissed.

Moore v. Turner · filed 2022-08-24(c)(3)

There is no independent subject-matter jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim against the non-government defendants (assuming such a claim is properly joined with a claim against USCIS), so the court relinquishes any supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(8).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the balance of judicial economy and avoiding multiple suits against deciding state-law issues favors dismissal.

White 690863 v. Miller · filed 2022-08-24(c)

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction.

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

FLORENCE v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC · filed 2022-08-25(c)(3)

But because there is no longer a federal claim pending in this lawsuit, the Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over his Indiana medical negligence claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim when it has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

People of the State of New York v. Niagara-Wheatfield Central School District · filed 2022-08-26(c)(3)

Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Title IX claim in the amended complaint, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state-law claim.

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

Lovelace v. S & D Coffee and Tea Inc · filed 2022-08-30(c)(3)

Because the Court has concluded that Mr. Lovelace’s Title VII claim must be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Lovelace’s state law claim for defamation and dismisses that claim without prejudice. Under the supplemental Jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court may dismiss state law claims when all other claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)(3).

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

Grandison, Timothy v. Zamzow · filed 2022-08-31(c)

The court further will relinquish jurisdiction over Grandison’s supplemental state law claims, which will also be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Burritt v. Ditfelson, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015) (absent good grounds, district courts should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once federal 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, including when the case is still at an early stage.

Henry v. Southwest Airlines · filed 2022-08-31(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Because this matter is still in its stages, any trial is a distant possibility. Therefore, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction would be declined.

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.

Guillen v. City of New York · filed 2022-09-02(c)(3)

Here, the Court concludes that the balance of factors to be considered—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—point toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction now that all federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Aursby v. Richardson · filed 2022-09-06(c)

Moreover, § 1367(c) expressly allows me to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a case where I have dismissed all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction. I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Aursby’s negligence or other state law claims against any of the VDOC defendants or the medical 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.

Nurse Anonymous v. Good Samaritan Hospital of Suffern NY · filed 2022-09-06(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal law claims, it declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

Saramosing v. Health Care Service Corporation · filed 2022-09-06(c)(3)

Having now dismissed Plaintiff’s sole federal-law claim, “the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1248 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 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.

Jackson v. Nelson · filed 2022-09-07(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal-law claims in this order and in previous orders—depriving the Court of original jurisdiction based on any of those claims—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law tort claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not call for deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction based on dismissal of federal claims while federal claims remain pending.

NARDELLI v. LAMPARSKI · filed 2022-09-12(c)(3)

The issue of whether this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims is not yet ripe, as two causes of action under the FLSA remain: Counts III and VI related to failure to pay a minimum wage.

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

Trapp v. Gunn · filed 2022-09-13(c)(3)

We also conclude the district court did not err in dismissing Trapp’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction); King v. Crestwood, 899 F.3d 643, 651 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review).

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.

Cruz v. County of Ulster · filed 2022-09-13(c)(3)

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

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

Reale v. Google LLC · filed 2022-09-15(c)(3)

Having dismissed Reale’s federal claim, the Court again declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This case remains at an early stage, and concerns over comity, fairness, convenience, and judicial economy continue to weigh against keeping it in federal court.

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

Landrith v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. · filed 2022-09-16(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims “where it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... After review of Plaintiff’s remaining claim, the Court sees no reason to depart from the general rule in this case. Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim—for vexatious refusal to pay in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420—is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for Jackson County, Missouri.

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

Jackson v. Moghini · filed 2022-09-16(c)(3)

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

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

Negru v. Zalewski · filed 2022-09-19(c)(3)

Because I am dismissing the § 1983 claim, I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Johnson v. Sootsman · filed 2022-09-19(c)(3)

Because the federal claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction are properly dismissed, the Court will, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’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 within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

GS Labs, LLC v. Medica Insurance Company · filed 2022-09-20(c)(3)

Weighing these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over GS Labs’ state law claims.

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

Henry v. Southwest Airlines · filed 2022-09-21(c)(3)

Because the factors of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness indicate that this case belongs in state court after all federal claims have been resolved in the early stages and only state-law claims remain, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction. See Newport, Ltd., 941 F.2d at 307 (quoting Carnegie- Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

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

DOBCO, INC. v. THE COUNTY OF BERGEN · filed 2022-09-21(c)(3)

Where a “district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, the Court dismisses all claims over which it has original federal question jurisdiction—namely Dobco’s § 1983 claims—and thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim asserted in Count III.

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, making an amendment to add that claim futile when the court would decline jurisdiction.

Brooks v. Colorado Department of Corrections · filed 2022-09-22(c)(3)

Plaintiff has presented no reasons for the Court to retain jurisdiction. Therefore, because the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract, amendment would be futile, and the Court will accept the recommendation.

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

Podiatric OR Of Midtown Manhattan, P.C. v. United Health Group Inc. · filed 2022-09-22(c)

Based on the findings and conclusions of the Court in the Medical Society class action, Plaintiffs’ ERISA claims necessarily fail in this case. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice to filing in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

MOORE v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-09-23(c)

To the extent Moore’s Amended Complaint could be liberally construed to assert state law negligence claims against Defendants, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over such claims, having dismissed all of Moore’s federal claims with prejudice.

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

Dale E. Holloway, Jr. v. Governor, State of New Hampshire, et al. · filed 2022-09-26(c)

Because Holloway has not asserted a viable federal claim, however, I decline 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 only claim within its original federal jurisdiction.

Jackson v. Bank of America · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

As the Court has now dismissed the § 1981 claim, which is the only claim over which the Court had original federal jurisdiction, the Court may, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court observes that this early-stage dismissal will cause little disruption to the parties and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim.

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

Mays v. Exeter · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

However, because the Court is dismissing the federal claim for failure to state a claim, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c)(3).

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

Harley v. Guida · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

Because I dismiss the Fourth Amendment claim — the sole basis for federal jurisdiction in this case — I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her 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.

Elnenaey v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) did not support declining supplemental jurisdiction when the court retained the ADA claim.

Whitaker v. Giovannotto · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the Court has not dismissed the ADA claim, the Court also denies Defendants’ motion as to Johnson’s Unruh Act claim.

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

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections & Public Safety · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)

In the instant case, having recommended dismissal of the plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s potential state law claims.

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

Bahena v. Aahil Corporation d/b/a Subway · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

And absent a currently viable federal claim, the Court follows the ordinary practice in this circuit of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s IMWL 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Heard v. Statue Cruises LLC · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed; while a federal claim remains pending, a decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is premature.

MANGO v. City of Columbus · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) allows district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. See Packard v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Columbus, 423 F. App’x 580, 584 (6th Cir. 2011) (the Sixth Circuit “applies a strong presumption against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction once federal claims have been dismissed”). Because all of Courtney’s federal claims have been resolved except for her § 1985 claim against the City, it would be premature to decide whether the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims against Michael, Shane, and Maria.

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

Johnson v. BW RRI II LLC · filed 2022-10-04(c)(3)

As to Johnson’s state law Unruh Act claim, the 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). As the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have “often repeated,” “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997), supplemented by 121 F.3d 714 (9th Cir. 1997) (alterations omitted) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). Accordingly, Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling in state court.

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

SFR Services, LLC v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2022-10-12(c)(3)

In the absence of any remaining basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court elects not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses them.

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

Simmons v. Pritzker · filed 2022-10-12(c)(3)

Because I dismiss the federal claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental state-law claims for damages and dismiss them without prejudice.

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

JOHNSON v. KUHN · filed 2022-10-12(c)(3)

Because the Court dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims Plaintiff’s intended to raise.

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.

Swanson v. Griffin · filed 2022-10-12(c)(3)

The Court dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

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

SCHNEIDER v. BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-10-12(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Schneider’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)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice after all federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not justify retaining them.

GORE v. WEST COAST SERVICING, INC. · filed 2022-10-04(c)(3)

With no federal claims remaining, 3F his pendent state claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because Gore may reassert his state law claims in state court and because discovery has yet to begin, the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not justified by considerations of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness to the parties.

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

Tatum v. Jasper Water Works and Sewer Board Inc · filed 2022-10-13(c)(3)

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” This decision is “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009). In the interests of comity and fairness, this court therefore declines to consider the merits of Tatum’s state law claim.

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

ROBINSON v. JEFFERSON HOSPITAL · filed 2022-10-13(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Ms, Robinson’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)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, particularly before significant judicial resources have been invested.

Wallace v. Mathis · filed 2022-10-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court declines, in its discretion, to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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.

Rhodes v. Regents of the University of New Mexico · filed 2022-10-20(c)(3)

The only claims remaining in the case are state law claims. The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction and remands the state law claims to the Second Judicial District Court, Bernalillo County, New Mexico.

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

GAINES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2022-10-21(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Mr. Gaines’s federal claims, it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims, and Mr. Gaines does not allege any other basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over them.

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.

RICHARDSON v. PECO ENERGY · filed 2022-10-21(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Richardson’s state law claim for violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Law because we dismissed all claims over which we have original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, leaving the state-law claims to be dismissed without prejudice.

Braxton v. Red Onion State Prisons Medical Department · filed 2022-10-24(c)(3)

Lastly, in light of the dismissal of all federal claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over any state-law claims in Braxton’s complaint, including any claims for negligence or medical malpractice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Wakefield v. District Attorney's Office · filed 2022-10-24(c)

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to pursue a common law action, such as one for defamation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary if all federal law claims are dismissed).

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

Murray v. Donoud Trump Inc. · filed 2022-10-24(c)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Ochei v. Verizon New York, Inc. · filed 2022-10-24(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff fails to state a claim under § 1983, and does not establish that the Court’s exercise of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is proper, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gumora v. Gumora · filed 2022-10-24(c)(3)

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

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

Morgan v. City of Utica, New York · filed 2022-10-25(c)(3)

Here, after carefully considering the relevant factors, i.e., economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court finds that they weigh decidedly in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law assault and battery claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on judicial economy and avoiding unnecessary decisions of state law.

Jarrett 173944 v. Lakeland Correctional Facility · filed 2022-10-26(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny's Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.

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

Adams v. Security Jewelers, Inc. · filed 2022-11-01(c)(3)

However, district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under § 1367(a) if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Considering the relevant factors—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—and in light of the Eighth Circuit’s preference for district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims have been eliminated prior to trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims against Security Jewelers.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially when no extraordinary circumstances or considerations of efficiency and fairness justify retaining them.

ACRISON, INC. v. RAINONE · filed 2022-11-03(c)(3)

No such extraordinary circumstances or considerations of efficiency and fairness are present here. ... Accordingly, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over these state-law claims based on their being supplemental to a now-dismissed federal claim.

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

Shunn v. Kootenai County · filed 2022-11-08(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 potential state law claims.

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

Hewitt v. Flowers · filed 2022-11-08(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim in Count II.

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

Sarmiento v. Marquez · filed 2022-11-10(c)(3)

As the court has dismissed the federal claims before it, which provided the only basis for its original jurisdiction, the court exercises its discretion to decline 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.

Williams v. Long Beach Mortgage Company · filed 2022-11-14(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).

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

Greene v. Dixon · filed 2022-11-16(c)(3)

Finding Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim under § 1983, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. See 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 the claims within its original jurisdiction, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Johnson v. GTD Ventures, LLC · filed 2022-11-18(c)(3)

Here, because the Court finds that exercising supplemental jurisdiction would not further “the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity,” it, too, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s remaining Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c) generally counsels declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction are dismissed, especially when a novel or complex state-law issue remains.

Bordeau v. Dewey Police Dept · filed 2022-11-21(c)

Federal district courts should generally decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, especially when the case presents a novel or complex issue of state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Brunken v. Parish · filed 2022-11-22(c)(3)

Third, this Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”—which is, itself, a basis for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

H.V. v. VINELAND CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2022-11-22(c)(3)

Finally, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction as to Plaintiffs’ negligence claim at this time after having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims. Though a federal court possesses supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are so related to those for which there is original jurisdiction that they “form part of the same case or controversy,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a court may decline to exercise supplement jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” § 1367(c)(3).

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

Glenn v. Frenchko · filed 2022-11-22(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count Two of the proposed amended complaint, which asserts a purely state-law claim, and this action is dismissed. 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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Winton v. Adams · filed 2022-11-23(c)(3)

Following thorough considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Winton’s state law claims.

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

BOLLING v. DAVIS · filed 2022-11-28(c)(3)

However, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Given the parties’ agreement on this issue, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

LASCHE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-11-28(c)(3)

However, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Given the parties’ agreement on this issue, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Cargill v. Daniel · filed 2022-11-30(c)(3)

Additionally, Ms. Cargill’s state- law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

WG Woodmere LLC v. Town of Hempstead · filed 2022-12-01(c)(3)

Assuming that those claims are adequately pleaded, an issue I do not decide, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them because the federal claims have been dismissed and this case is only at the pleadings stage.

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

JOHNSON v. TD BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION · filed 2022-12-01(c)

However, because the Court has dismissed Mr. Johnson’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over his state law claims.

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

Farnsworth v. Northam · filed 2022-12-05(c)(3)

In light of the court’s disposition of the federal claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any claims under state law and will dismiss those claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (authorizing a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 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 after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, including at the pleading stage.

Kiss v. Best Buy Stores · filed 2022-12-06(c)(3)

In light of Kiss’s pleading of federal question jurisdiction, the Court’s dismissal of Kiss’s federal claims, and because this case has not moved past the pleading stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kiss’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, guided by judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

PLETCHER v. GIANT EAGLE, INC. · filed 2022-12-07(c)(3)

As there is no ongoing case or controversy of federal law and only state law issues remain to be decided in this case between Pennsylvania-based Giant Eagle and its local customers, the Court believes that the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weigh strongly in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims so that they can be adjudicated in an appropriate state forum.

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

LaCoe v. City of Sisseton · filed 2022-12-07(c)(3)

But because LaCoe’s federal claims are subject to dismissal and there are no remaining claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law wrongful discharge claim.

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

Plater v. Topping · filed 2022-12-13(c)

Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice, including Claims IV and V, because the Court will decline ... to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims in the absence of sufficiently pled federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which they had original jurisdiction.

Pipes v. Kirksville Missouri Hospital Company, LLC · filed 2022-12-21(c)(3)

Under Section 1367(c)(3), however, the district court “has discretionary power to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction where the court has ‘dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Wilson v. Miller, 821 F.3d 963, 970–71 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). ... Upon the dismissal of the United States from the action, the original basis of the Court’s jurisdiction has evaporated. Consequently, the Court will grant Plaintiffs 14 days from the date of this order to (1) show cause in writing why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this case against the remaining defendant Northeast Regional or (2) to amend the complaint to include allegations sufficient to demonstrate diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

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.

FAIRWAY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, LLC v. CITY OF HIGH POINT · filed 2022-12-28(c)(3)

Since Fairway’s federal claims will be dismissed and the only basis for jurisdiction over Fairway’s state law claims is supplemental jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims.

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

Nieves v. County of Trinity · filed 2022-12-29(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ remaining thirteen claims arise under state law. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims at this juncture.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on judicial economy and the concern about needlessly deciding state law issues.

Hurt 160388 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2022-12-30(c)

Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims for violations of MDOC policy, this Court declines to do so. ... Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Hin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice U.S. Marshals · filed 2023-01-03(c)(3)

When a federal court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may, at its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639–40 (2009).

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

Hazzard v. Schaaf · filed 2023-01-03(c)(3)

Taking these factors into consideration, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice to refiling the claims in state court.

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 judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Almeida v. Berrios · filed 2023-01-03(c)(3)

But § 1367 nonetheless allows a federal court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in certain circumstances. In particular, it 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.” § 1367(c)(3). ... In sum, the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all counsel against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Renato’s malicious prosecution claim against Christiane.

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

PEM Entities LLC v. County of Franklin · filed 2023-01-05(c)

Having concluded the district court correctly dismissed all of PEM’s federal claims, we see no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

MOURATIDIS v. HUDSON · filed 2023-01-10(c)

However, because the Court will dismiss Mouratidis’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over his state law claims.

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

Ericsson v. Anderson · filed 2023-01-11(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 potential 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 dismissing the federal claims.

JOANNA v. ROUTE 22 HONDA · filed 2023-01-11(c)(3)

Furthermore, insomuch as any of those hypothetical claims arise under New Jersey state law, the Court would decline to exercise pendant jurisdiction over them. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, including claims under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.

McConahie v. City of Waverly, Tennessee · filed 2023-01-11(c)(3)

Where the Court dismisses “all claims over which is has original jurisdiction,” it has discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” state- law claims. ... This discretion extends to TGTLA 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.

Oliver (ID 104359) v. Jones · filed 2023-01-13(c)(3)

In any event, 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

DarkPulse, Inc. v. FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC · filed 2023-01-17(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), if the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any non-federal claims over which it could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction. ... Because no federal claim remains that is subject to a merits determination by this Court, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate DarkPulse’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.

Smith v. Town of Patterson · filed 2023-01-17(c)(3)

“[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims against Defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants when no federal claim against them remains for a merits determination.

Torres v. City of New York · filed 2023-01-17(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), if the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any non-federal claims over which it could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction in the instant action is based on federal question jurisdiction. Because no federal claim remains that is subject to a merits determination by this Court with respect to the Hospital Defendants, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate Torres’ state law claims. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (“Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.”); McGugan v. Aldana-Bernier, No. 11 Civ. 342 (TLM), 2012 WL 1514777, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2012) (“[W]hen all federal claims are eliminated in the early stages of litigation, the balance of factors generally favors declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismissing them without prejudice.”), aff'd, 752 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2014). Therefore, Torres’ remaining state law claims against the Hospital Defendants are dismissed.

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

Stewart v. Bailey · filed 2023-01-18(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Owydat v. City of St. Louis · filed 2023-01-18(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims “where it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... After review of Plaintiffs’ remaining claim, the Court sees no reason to depart from the general rule in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court that dismisses the federal complaint to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any asserted state-law claims.

Farrow v. Cordez · filed 2023-01-18(c)(3)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Levy Machining, LLC v. Hanover · filed 2023-01-19(c)(3)

As such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims for defamation (Count VI) and intrusion on seclusion (Count VII).

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

Uddin v. Rock Arch & Eng Corp. · filed 2023-01-19(c)(3)

Having found that the Court no longer has original jurisdiction over this matter, and given the early stage of the litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining causes of action arising under New York State and City Law, and dismisses those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

FORD v. KENNEY · filed 2023-01-19(c)

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

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

Boyd v. Experian · filed 2023-01-20(c)(3)

For all these reasons, plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the FCRA. The Court, as a result, will dismiss her federal claims for relief. To the extent that plaintiff's complaint contains state law claims that are not specifically addressed here, such as plaintiff's claim for defamation, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Johnson v. Lett · filed 2023-01-23(c)(3)

To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks relief under North Carolina law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as no federal claim has passed initial review. See Artis v. Dist. Of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594, 595 (2018) (when a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, any such claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Smith v. City of Grand Island · filed 2023-01-23(c)(3)

A federal district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under state law after dismissal of the claim(s) over which the court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with discretion informed by the progress of pretrial proceedings.

Pendergraft v. Board of Regents of Oklahoma Colleges · filed 2023-01-25(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... But the district court properly considered precedential cases on the issue of supplemental jurisdiction, as well as the nature and extent of the pre-trial proceedings in this case, and we see no abuse of discretion in its decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Pendergraft’s state claims after all federal claims were resolved.

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.

Foster v. Jeep Country Federal Credit Union · filed 2023-01-25(c)(3)

Because all federal claims alleged in this case have been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Dale v. Hammonds · filed 2023-01-26(c)(3)

To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks relief under North Carolina law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as no federal claim has passed initial review. See Artis v. Dist. of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594, 595 (2018) (when a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Canders v. MSN Online News · filed 2023-01-26(c)(3)

The judgment will: ... (3) decline to consider, under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, any of Plaintiff’s claims that she asserts under state law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

The Home Loan Savings Bank v. City of Coshocton · filed 2023-01-26(c)(3)

With respect to the remaining state law claims regarding Ordinance 933.04 (Count I), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply, 465 F.3d 719, 728 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[A] federal court that has dismissed a plaintiff's federal-law claims should not ordinarily reach the plaintiff's state-law claims.”).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining them.

Lewis 830791 v. Washington · filed 2023-01-27(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

BYRD v. FINLEY · filed 2023-01-31(c)(3)

Absent extraordinary circumstances, a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C. v. Optum Inc., 925 F.3d 129, 135 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 563, 205 L. Ed. 2d 358 (2019).

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.

Blanscet v. Oregon Department of Corrections · filed 2023-01-31(c)(3)

All of Blanscet’s federal claims are dismissed, triggering the court’s discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Giddings v. Green · filed 2023-02-02(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff also brings medical negligence claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. 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.”).

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

First United Bank Insurance Solutions Inc v. Inservices LLC · filed 2023-02-02(c)

Additionally, because Plaintiff cites federal question jurisdiction and pleads a single federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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 the federal claims against the defendants fail, particularly when state courts are best positioned to resolve those claims.

Chimney v. Quiros · filed 2023-02-16(c)(3)

Because the state courts of Connecticut are best positioned to address Chimney’s state law claims and because there are no facially plausible federal claims against the defendants, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Chimney’s state law ... claims.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after denying default judgment on federal claims when economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh against retaining them.

Hosseini v. Miilkiina LLC · filed 2023-02-21(c)(3)

Although denial of default judgment is not the same as dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims, these factors weigh against hearing state law claims when default judgment has been denied.

Section 1367(c) permits remand of remaining state-law claims when they substantially predominate and the court has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Fiffie v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. · filed 2023-04-25(c)(2)-(3)

In this case, the factors weigh in favor of remand. Undoubtedly, both the second and third statutory factors are met: state-law issues “substantially predominate” in this case, and 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Jones v. Blue Ocean Realty LLC · filed 2023-04-25(c)(3)

After considering the Carnegie-Mellon factors, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s pendent state law claims.

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

Neill v. Godinez · filed 2023-07-07(c)(3)

This Court is not obliged to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, even if valid, given that Plaintiff has failed to allege a federal claim.

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

Lewis v. New Jersey Department of Children and Families · filed 2023-07-24(c)(3)

The District Court invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal-law claims. Lewis does not argue, and we do not conclude, that considerations of “judicial economy,” “convenience,” or “fairness” weighed in favor of retaining jurisdiction. New Rock Asset Partners, 101 F.3d at 1505. Thus, we find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lewis’s claim against Ms. Ingram.

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

BENZ-PUENTE v. TRUIST FINANCIAL · filed 2023-07-26(c)

Having dismissed the federal question claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

MELTON v. SEPTA, 5TH FLOOR-CLAIMS DEPARTMENT · filed 2023-07-27(c)

To the extent that he asserts state law claims, because the Court has dismissed his federal claims, the Court 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.

Jones v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz · filed 2023-07-27(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 the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ellington v. Sable Vance · filed 2023-08-01(c)(3)

And, because the District Court dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it properly exercised its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against the non-federal defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Borough of W. Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995).

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

Sanders v. Parker · filed 2023-08-01(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s one federal claim in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining NYLL claims, which are therefore dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Johns v. Hyatte · filed 2023-08-02(c)(3)

To the extent Johns has a State law claim against Hackner, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because all the federal claims have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on the balance of relevant considerations.

Walker 242636 v. Crofoot · filed 2023-08-02(c)

Here, because the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims against all Defendants, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims that depend solely on state law when no discovery has occurred.

Hornbeck v. Archdiocese of St. Louis · filed 2023-08-04(c)(3)

These claims are before the Court based on supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... As plaintiff has failed to state any federal claims, upon due consideration I will exercise my discretion to remand the state law claims back to state court as they depend solely on a determination of state law and no discovery has been conducted in this case.

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.

Perez v. County of Sacramento · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

Because there are no longer any viable federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims when it dismisses before trial the federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Doe No. 1 v.Bethel Local School District Board of Education · filed 2023-08-07(c)

When a district court dismisses federal claims before trial that are the sole basis for original jurisdiction, generally, it may dismiss without prejudice the pendent state-law claims, thus allowing Plaintiffs to pursue those claims in the state courts if they so desire. Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 625 F.3d 949, 951–52 (6th Cir. 2010); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). That is the proper course here, so Count I shall be dismissed upon declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if it dismisses every claim within its original jurisdiction; it may exercise jurisdiction over related state-law claims when federal claims remain.

Rossy v. City of Buffalo · filed 2023-09-05(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s state-law claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the remaining federal claims—the treatment and death of Jose Hernandez-Rossy at the hands of Officers Tedesco and Acquino. For example, the Sixth Cause of Action alleges negligence for the same conduct alleged as constitutional violations in earlier causes of action. Since some original-jurisdiction claims remain for adjudication, this Court will exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Adeyemi v. Truist Bank · filed 2023-09-19(c)(3)

In the absence of any federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction, absent extraordinary circumstances.

KERSTETTER v. GIRARD BOROUGH · filed 2021-01-05(c)(3)

Because no extraordinary circumstances are present in this case that would counsel in favor of this Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss any remaining state law claims without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to pursue those claims in state court.

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.

Evans v. Williams · filed 2021-01-07(c)(3)

The Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal law claims in their original Complaint for the reasons stated above and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).