28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing its only federal claim when judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity favor that choice.

2238 Victory Corp. v. Fjallraven USA Retail, LLC · filed 2021-01-08(c)(3)

Because the remaining claims solely arise under state law, principles of judicial economy, fairness, convenience and comity will be served best by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Staten, Deshaun v. Gustke, Brian · filed 2021-01-11(c)(3)

Given that these rulings remove any subject matter jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute, the court will also relinquish any supplemental jurisdiction over Staten’s Wisconsin negligence claim against Persike. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Ditlefson, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015)(absent good grounds, the better practice is for a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state claims once federal claims are dismissed).

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 when the case is still at an early stage.

Tolentino v. Gillig, LLC · filed 2021-01-13(c)(3)

As to Tolentino’s claims that remain, as pleaded, state law claims, the Court’s jurisdiction is, as discussed above, supplemental in nature, and where, as here, a court has dismissed the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In this instance, given the early stage of the proceedings, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and those claims will be remanded 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; judicial economy and avoiding needless state-law rulings inform that decision.

Maurer v. Lincoln Memorial University (TV1) · filed 2021-01-13(c)(3)

The factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 weigh against exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Maurer’s remaining state-law claims. The Court finds that the interests of judicial economy and abstention from needlessly deciding state-law issues weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these 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.

El-Khalil, DPM v. Tedeschi · filed 2021-01-14(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court exercises that option here.

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

Boyd v. Madison · filed 2021-01-19(c)(3)

Here, because Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with regard to his state-law claims and likewise dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Avent v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2021-01-19(c)(3)

Additionally, because the Court has dismissed the federal claims brought in this action, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff has failed to plead an actionable federal claim.

HARRIS v. FEIN, SUCH, KAHN & SHEPARD · filed 2021-01-21(c)(3)

However, given that Plaintiff has failed to plead any actionable federal law claims, this Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Hirano v. Sand Island Treatment Center · filed 2021-01-25(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim, however, if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the Court dismisses Hirano’s Bivens and FTCA claims, it DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 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.

Langer v. Zoological Society of San Diego · filed 2021-01-26(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and will remand that claim to state court, from where this action was removed.

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

Hernandez v. Fitzgerald · filed 2021-01-26(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” The Tenth Circuit has “generally held that if federal claims are dismissed before trial, leaving only issues of state law, the federal court should decline the exercise of [supplemental] jurisdiction….” Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213, 1229 (10th Cir. 2010). “Notions of comity and federalism demand that a state court try its own lawsuits, absent compelling reasons to the contrary.” Thatcher Enterprises v. Cache Cnty. Corp., 902 F.2d 1472, 1478 (10th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity would not be served by retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims brought under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, the remaining claims in this lawsuit. Id. Taking into consideration those factors, and following Tenth Circuit precedent, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims brought under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissal of all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy, convenience, and fairness can support declining jurisdiction when similar claims are already pending in state court.

In re Pattern Energy Group Inc. Securities Class Action · filed 2021-01-28(c)(3)

And I agree with Defendants that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties actually support declining jurisdiction because a consolidated action alleging nearly-identical breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims is already pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

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

Hamilton v. Mississippi Emergency Management Agency · filed 2021-01-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), however, Hamilton’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to their refiling in a state court of competent 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, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Briley v. Barreca · filed 2021-01-27(c)(3)

In this case, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges any claims under state law, the balance of factors weighs towards declining to exercise supplemental 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.

Seagle v. Baptist Medical Center Princeton · filed 2021-01-29(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Seagle’s remaining state law claims because “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 when the complaint fails to state a federal claim.

Alloway v. Whiter · filed 2021-02-01(c)

Moreover, because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims in any event. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Wick v. Roth · filed 2021-02-05

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim Plaintiff may have.

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

Redford v. Unirush Financial Service, LLC · filed 2021-02-08(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367( c )(3) over plaintiffs state-law claims and DISMISS such claims without prejudice.

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

Grice v. Leflore · filed 2021-02-09(c)(3)

To the extent that these counts constitute state law claims separate from Mr. Grice’s civil RICO claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these counts and dismisses them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Mincey v. The State of Ohio · filed 2021-02-09(c)(3)

Finally, in light of the dismissal of plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims that remain against defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Sanchez v. City of Roseville · filed 2021-02-10(c)(3)

Here, comity weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim under the Tom Bane Act.

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

Hartley v. Conagra Brands, Inc. · filed 2021-02-11(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing those claims over which it has original jurisdiction prior to a trial on the merits, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims, which will be 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.

Claudio v. Ackerman · filed 2021-02-12(c)(3)

A district court, in its discretion, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the district court dismisses those claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 650 (3d Cir. 2009). The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Claudio’s state law claims and will remand this action to the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Pennsylvania, for further proceedings.

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, particularly early in the case.

East Coast Serv. Indus. Co. Inc., d/b/a Whiskeys 20, Thomas Svoleantopoulos, and Rosalie Sweeney v. New Hampshire State · filed 2021-02-17(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction during the early stages of this case, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Bosworth v. Centurion LLC · filed 2021-02-17(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at this time over the state-law negligence claim asserted in Count Two.

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

Swift v. Cooper · filed 2021-02-22(c)(3)

Without a viable federal question to decide, the court will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that when a district court has disposed of all federal claims that conferred original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate or when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

PEM Entities LLC v. County of Franklin · filed 2021-02-25(c)(2), (c)(3)

The court finds that subsections (c)(2) and (c)(3) apply in this case; of the ten claims for relief alleged in the Complaint, only three allege federal constitutional claims and, as stated, the court has dismissed those claims. Thus, the court exercises its discretion and finds, in accordance with Fourth Circuit “precedents, [which] evince a strong preference that state law issues be left to state courts in the absence of diversity or federal question jurisdiction” (Arrington v. City of Raleigh, 369 F. App’x 420, 423 (4th Cir. 2010)), it is proper in this case 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bodoh v. Smith, Jr. · filed 2021-03-01(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 related state law claims when no cognizable federal claim remains.

(PC) Mekhtarian v. Ortega · filed 2021-03-03(c)(3)

Because there is no cognizable federal claim, as discussed supra, supplemental jurisdiction should not be over plaintiff’s related state law claims.

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

Love v. Biuon Inc. · filed 2021-03-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claim prior to trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim.

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

Rivers v. International House of Pancakes · filed 2021-03-08(c)(3)

This case is at an early stage of litigation, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state and city 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.

McCauley v. Ally Capital Corp. · filed 2021-03-15(c)(3)

Pursuant to 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.” ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims asserted under state law.

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

Brown v. 7-Eleven Incorp. · filed 2021-03-15(c)(3)

Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the other issues raised in the Petitioner’s objections, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lovric for the reasons stated in the Report- Recommendation, with the exception that, having dismissed the federal-question claims in this case, the Court explicitly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. Courts “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).

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

Diggs v. Waybourn · filed 2021-03-15(c)(3)

Because the Court concludes that all of the federal claims asserted in this case must be dismissed, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, finds that the remaining state law claims should be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Lawson v. Stephens · filed 2021-03-08(c)(3)

Additionally, he fails to establish that the district court abused its wide discretion by declining to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law ... claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Heggemeier v. Caldwell Cnty., Tex., 826 F.3d 861, 872 (5th Cir. 2016).

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

Cirincioni v. The City of San Diego · filed 2021-03-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when discovery has not begun.

Paushok v. Ganbold · filed 2021-03-18(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” in the event that it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Given that the parties have not yet commenced discovery and only Paushok’s state law claim remains, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over this matter and dismisses the N.Y. G.B.L. § 349 claim without prejudice.

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.

Provenzano v. RLS Logistics · filed 2021-03-18(c)(3)

Since plaintiff’s federal claims over which this court had original jurisdiction shall not be permitted to proceed to trial, the court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law IIED claim, against defendants. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Kocher v. Municipality of Kingston, 400 F.Supp.3d 138, 160 (M.D. Pa. 2019).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing the federal claim, including when the case is still in its infancy.

Givhan v. Bullitt County Joint Planning Commission · filed 2021-03-19(c)(3)

This case is still in its infancy, and above the Court has permitted Plaintiffs to amend their state law claim. Because of the posture of this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in the Proposed Amended Complaint and will remand this matter to Bullitt Circuit Court 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, taking judicial economy into account.

Bui v. Milton Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2021-03-23(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Since the judicial economy interests with regard to this remaining claim are not “overwhelming,” the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will instead dismiss Count II without prejudice.

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

Baez v. United States · filed 2021-03-25(c)

WHEREAS, if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), “the district court may then undertake the discretionary inquiry of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.” Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2018). ... Resolution of Plaintiff’s state law claims in state court would promote “convenience, fairness, and comity,” Catzin, 899 F.3d at 85 (quoting Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 358 F.3d 205, 214 (2d Cir. 2004)), while ensuring a “sure[] footed reading of applicable state law,” Norman v. NYU Langone Health System, No. 19 Civ. 67, 2020 WL 5819504, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

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, and fairness into account.

FEUSS v. ENICA ENGINEERING, PLLC · filed 2021-03-26(c)(3)

No such extraordinary circumstances or considerations of efficiency and fairness are present here. The case is in its earliest stages, at the motion to dismiss stage. Any discovery that has occurred will not be wasted if the action is refiled in a state court that possesses jurisdiction. There is no particular procedural disadvantage to having a state court hear these state-law claims. Accordingly, I would decline to exercise jurisdiction over these state-law claims on the basis of their being supplemental to a (now-dismissed) federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support dismissing state-law claims when a federal claim survives dismissal.

Doe v. Thornton Township High School District 205 · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

Although Defendants also move to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court’s decision on Plaintiff’s Title IX claim moots this argument.

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

DeVilbiss v. Meade County, Kansas Board of County Commissioners · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

Because the court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Although the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, the court declines to do so.

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

Buchanan v. Watkins & Letofsky, LLP · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

While a court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, it may decline to do so where “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” have been dismissed. ... Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and remands the case to state court.

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

Webster v. Reed · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed the federal law claim against Defendant Reed over which it had original jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against Defendant Reed and dismisses them, without prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bongiovanni v. PennyMac Corp. · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, I decline 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 when the federal claims have failed.

International Labels LLC v. Sportlife Brands LLC · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

For Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, including for unjust enrichment, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these causes of action considering that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under federal law.

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

Conviser v. DePaul University · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

It is within the Court’s discretionary authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Baig v. Coca-Cola Co., 69 F. Supp. 3d 766, 781 (N.D. Ill. 2014), aff’d, 607 F. App’x 557 (7th Cir. 2015). ... The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, declines to assert 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.

Van Vleck v. Leikin, Ingber & Winters, P.C. · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

Where, as here, the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly advised that the district courts should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. See e.g., Brown v. Cassens Transport Co., 546 F.3d 347, 363 (6th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Van Vleck’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Brady v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

Because the Ninth Cause of Action will be dismissed, this Court determines that it should decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Allbrooks v. New York State Department of Corrections · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

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

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

Campfield v. Safelite Group, Inc. · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

To the extent Safelite relies on supplemental jurisdiction, now that the Court has dismissed the federal claims, it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law counterclaims and dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Ryan v. Alzaim · filed 2021-04-08(c)(3)

Further, once the federal claims giving rise to 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). ... Having concluded that this federal court is without subject matter jurisdiction, this Court will decline exercise supplemental jurisdiction 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.

Gilmore v. Warden · filed 2021-04-12(c)(3)

In the alternative, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any 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.

Joseph v. Springer Nature · filed 2021-04-12(c)(3)

But here, amendment in federal court would be futile. “[A] district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). ... Instead, the Court will dismiss this claim without prejudice to Dr. Joseph pursuing it in state court if he wishes.

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

The Estate of Nadine Stanley v. Cuyahoga County · filed 2021-04-13(c)(3)

As for Plaintiff’s state claim, where all federal claims are dismissed before trial, district courts ordinarily may dismiss any remaining state claims.44 The Court sees no reason to depart from that rule in this case.

After dismissing the federal claim, a court must decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness requires retaining it.

VULPE v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY · filed 2021-04-13(c)(3)

With the federal claim’s dismissal, the Court must decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise.

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

Jackson v. Twin Falls City Idaho · filed 2021-04-14(c)

Moreover, because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim in any event.

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

Hall v. Shelby County · filed 2021-04-14(c)(3)

Because all of the complaint’s federal claims are being dismissed, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law. The complaint’s state law claims for theft, assault, malicious prosecution, and false arrest are DISMISSED 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 claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy, convenience, and fairness may bear on that choice.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2187 v. MARSHALL · filed 2021-04-16(c)(3)

This Court, however, will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 2.

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

Chandavong v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association · filed 2021-04-23(c)(3)

Considering the early procedural posture of this case, as well as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court will exercise its discretion and decline to entertain supplemental jurisdiction over the second cause of action.

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

Country Inn & Suites By Radisson, Inc. v. Alexandria Motels, Inc. · filed 2021-04-26(c)(3)

Country Inn’s “voluntary dismissal” of Counts IV and V gives rise to either an obligation to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, see Rockwell International Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 473-74 & n.6 (2007); Management Investors v. United Mine Workers of America, 610 F.2d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 1979), or an option to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); cf. id. § 1367(c)(2) (allowing a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that “substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction”). ... The Court discerns no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims.

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

French, John v. Richardson, Reese · filed 2021-04-30(c)(3)

Further, I will relinquish jurisdiction over French’s related negligence claims against Dr. Hannula and Trevino, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015) and close this case.

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

Evans v. Dorn · filed 2021-05-03(c)(3)

Because the federal claim is dismissed, the court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law negligence claim.

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

Ingalls v. Buckeye Partners, L.P · filed 2021-05-05(c)(3)

Accordingly, principles of convenience to the Court and judicial economy do not provide a justification for the Court to exercise its Jurisdiction to hear the state law claims.

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

Sabbe v. Washington County Board of Commissioners · filed 2021-05-07(c)(3)

Because summary judgment is appropriate on all of the federal claims against Defendants, this Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss state law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims, when no reason justifies retaining supplemental jurisdiction.

Aul v. Correct Care Solutions · filed 2021-05-07(c)(3)

In the absence of a viable federal claim, there are no reasons justifying the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over any of Aul’s direct medical negligence state law claims. Accordingly, the court will dismiss without prejudice Aul’s medical malpractice claims against Nurse Chamberlain, Dr. Preston, and Pa Nagle pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Redick v. Sonora Police Department · filed 2021-05-14

Even if Plaintiff could not meet the defamation-plus standard but was able to demonstrate defamation under California law, the Court would also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such state claim because Plaintiff failed to state a separate cognizable federal claim, as explained above.

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

Norman v. Northwest Indiana CA · filed 2021-05-17(c)(3)

Although courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 when the court has original jurisdiction over federal claims, such as a claim under the Fair Housing Act, here the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the federal statue. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bezis v. City of Livermore · filed 2021-05-19(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Bezis’s supplemental state law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim” when “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” have been dismissed. The district court’s dismissal of Bezis’s state law claims, after all of Bezis’s federal claims were dismissed, was a proper exercise of the district court’s discretion.

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

Adkins v. Southern Health Partners · filed 2021-05-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the federal claims over which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims in the Complaint arising under state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Where, as here, the Court has dismissed all of the plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court concludes that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, upon consideration of the relevant factors.

Yang v. Ardizzone · filed 2021-05-19(c)(3)

In this case, the Court has dismissed all federal claims, and diversity jurisdiction does not exist. Upon consideration of all relevant factors, 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Black v. Buffalo Meat Service, Inc. d/b/a Boulevard Black Angus a/k/a Black Angus Meats a/k/a Black Angus Meats & Seafoo · filed 2021-05-21(c)(3)

As held above and given dismissal of the federal causes of action (the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth, and Tenth Causes of Action) that alleged original jurisdiction before this Court, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law Second, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Causes of Action under the New York State Human Rights Law, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and those claims are dismissed without prejudice, see 13D Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper, and Richard Freer, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3567.3, at 410 & n.46 (citing cases); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) (toll of statute of limitations during pendency of federal action); 13D Federal Practice and Procedure, supra, § 3567.3, at 410-11, § 3567.4, at 458.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed, taking account of limitations periods and judicial resources.

Fabian-Lopez v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2021-05-25(c)(3)

Exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims is therefore not warranted, and Counts 7-20 are dismissed without prejudice, with leave to refile in state court. 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 federal claims.

EPCON HOMESTEAD, LLC v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL · filed 2021-05-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed Epcon’s federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and recognizing that the remaining claims operate under state law principles, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over them.

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.

Thornton v. Thornton · filed 2021-05-27(c)(3)

The dismissal of Ms. Thornton’s SCA claim leaves only state law claims in the case. By statute, 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). ... Therefore, having weighed the relevant factors, the Court determines that the remaining claims are best adjudicated 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.

Miller v. Cocke County, Tennessee (TV2) · filed 2021-05-27(c)(3)

While a district court has supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims forming “part of the same case or controversy” as claims over which the court exercises original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with comity informing that choice.

Grow Michigan, LLC v. LT Lender, LLC · filed 2021-06-03(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed GrowMI’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its 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 and comity.

United Houma Nation, Inc. v. Terrebonne Parish School Board · filed 2021-06-04(c)(3)

However, § 1367(c)(3) permits a federal district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... As such, and in the interests of judicial economy and comity, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over these state-law claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Billie v. Village of Channahon · filed 2021-06-07(c)(3)

Recognizing the particularly local nature of this dispute, and having dismissed all federal claims, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims (inverse condemnation, nuisance, and trespass). The Court may do so at its discretion, if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when discovery has not begun and state law issues remain.

Davis v. 36th District Court · filed 2021-06-11(c)(3)

The Court will therefore now decline to further exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. For one, the Court lacks original jurisdiction over the claim. And two, the interests of judicial economy do not override the presumption against retaining the case because the parties have not even begun discovery. See Blakely v. United States, 276 F.3d 853, 863 (6th Cir. 2002). Finally, federalism supports allowing the Michigan Courts to determine whether Defendant is entitled to immunity under Michigan law or if Plaintiff is entitled to damages. For those three reasons, the Court will dismiss the state law claim without prejudice.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

JHANG v. KIM · filed 2021-06-21(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... As this Court is declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on Counts II-VIII, those claims are dismissed without prejudice to an action filed 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.

FREENY v. CAMDEN COUNTY · filed 2021-06-24(c)(3)

Pursuant to Section 1367(c)(3), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim … if … the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” For the reasons discussed above, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims at this time.

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

Newman v. Google LLC · filed 2021-06-25(c)(3)

Here, the factors of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity support dismissal of Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, and instead dismisses those claims.

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

Swartz v. Sylvester · filed 2021-06-28(c)(3)

If a “district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Here, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Count Two, which alleges a count under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148 against defendants Sylvester and the Town of Bourne.16 Accordingly, Count Two will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially early in the case.

Condodemetraky v. NH Attorney General · filed 2021-06-28(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction during the early stages of this case, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims asserted by Condodemetraky.

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

Ham v. ICL Bronx House Institute for Community Living · filed 2021-06-28(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, or fails to state a claim, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under federal law for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and will decline to consider, under its supplement jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Kinner v. Ada County Prosecutors Office · filed 2021-06-30(c)

Because the Amended Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, at this time the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential 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.

RAMNANAN v. KEIFFER · filed 2021-06-30(c)(3)

The Court, however, has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal causes of action. Accordingly, the Court 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 the federal claims.

Hall v. Stisser · filed 2021-07-01(c)(3)

To the extent that Hall’s amended complaint can be interpreted as asserting any 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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, ordinarily dismissing those state claims without prejudice.

Schneider, Paul v. Kostohryz, Georgia · filed 2021-07-06(c)(3)

Ordinarily, this court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all federal causes of action. ... Plaintiff’s Wisconsin-law medical malpractice claims against defendants Hentz, Kostohryz, Maassen, and Tidquist are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Beasley v. University Of Miami · filed 2021-07-07(c)(3)

Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims.

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

Smoot v. J-Pay · filed 2021-07-08(c)(3)

Because the court has concluded that plaintiff’s federal claims are barred, this court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Saglioccolo v. Eagle Ins. Co., 112 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 1998).

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

Washington v. Ciccone · filed 2021-07-13(c)(3)

But to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to state a claim under the New York State Human Rights Law, § 296 et seq., I recommend that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim because I have recommended that all of the federal claims be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims cannot survive dismissal.

COYNE v. HOLY FAMILY APARTMENTS · filed 2021-07-13(c)(3)

Absent any indication that Plaintiff’s federal claims could survive on amendment, this Court would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her similarly deficient state law claims for physical and mental injuries, or defamation.

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

WBY, Inc. v. City of Chamblee, Georgia · filed 2021-07-15(c)(3)

The Court possessed original jurisdiction over Follies’s constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As stated above, Chamblee is entitled to summary judgment on those claims. That leaves only Chamblee’s counterclaims, which seek injunctive relief premised solely on state law. These circumstances strongly favor the Court to exercise its discretion and not adjudicate the counterclaims.

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

Towne v. Donnelly · filed 2021-07-16(c)(3)

Because the Court is granting defendants’ motions to dismiss Towne’s constitutional claims with prejudice – over which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction – the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Towne’s state law claims of malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, indemnification, and conspiracy under Illinois law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims while the plaintiff has leave to amend a dismissed federal claim.

Lewis v. Lehigh Valley Logistics d/b/a All U Logistics · filed 2021-07-19(c)(3)

Although this Court does not intend to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims if no federal cause of action remains viable, the state law claims will not yet be dismissed because Lewis is given leave to file an amended complaint.

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

Serrano-Colon v. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2021-07-19(c)(3)

However, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. at § 1367(c)(3); see also Redondo Const. Corp. v. Izquierdo, 662 F.3d 42, 49 (1st Cir. 2011). Having dismissed all claims against Maldonado over which the Court has original jurisdiction, we, in our discretion, decline to extend our jurisdiction over the remaining state- law claims against that Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff’s state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Anderson v. Principal Life Insurance Company · filed 2021-07-21(c)(3)

Anderson's federal claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.

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

Heyman v. State of Nevada ex rel Board of Regents for the Nevada System of Higher Education · filed 2021-07-21(c)(3)

Whether to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) lies within my discretion. ... There is no longer a federal claim over which I have original jurisdiction. ... I therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and I remand this case to state court.

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

Brown v. Chambers-Smith · filed 2021-07-21(c)(3)

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

Young v. Waybourn · filed 2021-07-21(c)(3)

In the exercise of its discretion, the Court declines to consider the merits of any state law claims, and instead dismisses without prejudice these 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, based on the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

HUMANA INC. v. INDIVIOR INC. · filed 2021-07-22(c)(3)

Where a district has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Considering the balance of factors, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and I will dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if the federal claims are dismissed, and that possibility can warrant deferring consideration of the state-law claims.

Burley v. Arnold · filed 2021-07-22(c)(3)

Second, if Heck ultimately requires the dismissal of Plaintiff’s First and Fourth Amendment claims, it would be appropriate for the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, it would be premature to address the substance of Plaintiff’s state-law claims at this juncture.

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

Caldwell v. Cohen · filed 2021-07-26(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 the federal claim.

BICKERSTAFF v. BICKERSTAFF · filed 2021-07-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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 judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing the choice.

Dubois v. Beaury · filed 2021-07-29(c)(3)

Therefore, based upon a balancing of the four factors and considering that the instant action is at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims and dismisses such claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gibson v. City of Cincinnati · filed 2021-07-29(c)(3)

... and the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over any state-law claims against dismissed Defendants City of Cincinnati, Hamilton County ... Sheriff’s Office, Lt. Reed, Lt. Buchanan, and Jail Investigator High and DISMISS any such claims without prejudice.

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

Post v. Trinity Health-Michigan D/B/A St. Joseph Mercy Oakland · filed 2021-07-30(c)(3)

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

Holmes v. Kraker · filed 2021-07-30(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) specifically provides that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction because the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction, the § 1983 claim, will be dismissed.

Section 1367 permits a court to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain in the case.

Ross v. Dejarnetti · filed 2021-08-02(c)(3)

Because the Court has not dismissed all of the federal claims in this litigation, it will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily warrants declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Jacks v. City of Youngstown · filed 2021-08-02(c)(3)

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

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

Walsh v. Rupkus · filed 2021-07-29(c)(3)

The remaining state law claims (Counts IV and V) 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 after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction and to dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice.

Burns v. Service Employees International Union Local 284 · filed 2021-08-12(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, which are based entirely on Minnesota state law. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Counts Three through Seven without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the remaining claim calls for interpretation of state statutory law.

ORANGE v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES · filed 2021-08-12(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s remaining claim concerns interpretations of New Jersey statutory law and the federal claim has been dismissed before trial, the prudent course is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.

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

MacInerney, PhD v. Allen · filed 2021-08-12(c)(3)

Having found that all of Plaintiff’s federal claims are subject to dismissal, I recommend that the Court decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Lammey v. Omni Los Angeles LLC · filed 2021-08-13(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed Lammey’s ADA claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claim.

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

C.J. v. WILLINGBORO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2021-08-13(c)(3)

Because the Complaint alleges federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion, after dismissing all federal claims, to retain jurisdiction over some remaining state claims and decline it over others based on economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Gammel v. Kuna Rural Fire Protection District · filed 2021-08-16(c)(3)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, this Court has discretion to exercise or decline that jurisdiction. ... These factors weigh strongly in favor of exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law contract claim and declining jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law whistleblower claim.

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

Winegard v. Newsday LLC · filed 2021-08-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Roberts v. The SAGE Corporation · filed 2021-08-16(c)(3)

Therefore, based upon a balancing of the four factors and considering that the instant action is at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims and dismisses such claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Love v. Lanai Garden Corporation · filed 2021-08-17(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed the only federal claim before it, which provided the only basis for its original jurisdiction, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

CORREA-MARTINEZ v. SHEKIR · filed 2021-08-18(c)(3)

... and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims, See 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Whitaker v. Independence Menlo Hotel Owner, LLC · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

As Independence points out, the Court’s jurisdiction over the Second Cause of Action is supplemental in nature, and where, as here, a court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 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.

JACKSON v. NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT FUGITIVE TASK FORCE · filed 2021-08-24(c)(3)

Because this Court will dismiss all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, this Court in turn declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendent 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, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Spec's Family Partners v. Jones · filed 2021-08-26(c)(3)

Finally, a district court has discretion to decline 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). We review a decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction for abuse of discretion. See Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 226 (5th Cir. 1999). Because the district court correctly dismissed all of Spec’s’ federal law claims, it did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Spec’s’ state law claims.

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

Moore v. City of Dothan, Alabama · filed 2021-08-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

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

Lightfeather v. Ricketts · filed 2021-08-30(c)

Plaintiff’s limited allegations against Defendants Young, Hammal [sic], Chalupka, Stinson, and Bower either hint at possible state causes of action (i.e., defamation, administrative appeal from denial of state benefits) that will not be considered in the absence of a federal claim or constitute no claim whatsoever (i.e., lying, failing to write newspaper story about Plaintiff, serving as Plaintiff’s attorney).

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

Hall v. St. Louis Town and Country · filed 2021-09-01(c)(3)

Since plaintiff has not asserted a valid federal claim, this Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such state law claims.

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.

McHugh v. County of Tehama · filed 2021-09-03(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. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639–40 (2009). Because this Court’s jurisdiction depends on Plaintiffs stating a viable equal protection claim — and the Court has indicated its doubt as to whether Plaintiffs can do so — the Court declines to rule on Defendants’ challenges to Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed and not amended.

Woods v. County of Tehama · filed 2021-09-03(c)(3)

If Plaintiffs choose not to amend their federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and dismiss the action.

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

Melendez v. Woloshky · filed 2021-09-03(c)(3)

There being no plausibly pleaded federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ham v. ICL Bronx House Institute for Community Living · filed 2021-09-03(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), and declines to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law, 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 disposing of every claim within its original jurisdiction.

Ward v. Stucke · filed 2021-09-03(c)(3)

Given that the Court has granted judgment for Defendants on the only claim in the Complaint over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

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

Mathieson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-09-08(c)(3)

To the extent that the FCCPA claims may be viable, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as strongly encouraged where federal claims are dismissed prior to trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Farquharson, 664 F. App’x at 798 (citing Baggett v. First Nat’l Bank of Gainesville, 117 F.3d 1342, 1353 (11th Cir. 1997)).

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

CORREA-MARTINEZ v. NORTHERN STATE PRISON · filed 2021-09-08(c)(3)

To the extent the Complaint asserts state law claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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 the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Riddick v. Christine · filed 2021-09-08(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, including negligence, given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claim.

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

Mounce v. Burkett · filed 2021-09-14(c)(3)

To the extent that any of Mounce’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 remaining state-law claims when the federal claims are eliminated early in the litigation.

Burns v. American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO · filed 2021-09-14(c)(3)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Burns’s remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gonzalez v. NYU Langone Hospitals · filed 2021-09-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims that were based on a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and there being no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining 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.

Lewis, Jr. v. The County of Nassau · filed 2021-09-17(c)(3)

The Court agrees. “We note that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Schaefer v. Town of Victor, 457 F.3d 188, 210 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed.

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

(PC) Enrique Lemus Jr v. Sanchez · filed 2021-09-20(c)(3)

As Plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law causes of action and will not review the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims fail and the court has no independent original jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

MENDEZ v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2021-09-20(c)

Because Mendez’s federal claims under § 1983 fail and the court lacks original jurisdiction over his state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mendez’s state-law claims at this stage.

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

E.G. v. Castro Valley Unified School District · filed 2021-09-23(c)(3)

The potential for further delay if the case is ... remanded is therefore speculative, and it does not outweigh the concerns for comity and judicial ... economy that favor remanding state claims to state court. The case is therefore REMANDED.

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.

Acklin v. Eichner · filed 2021-09-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs claims that are based on a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because there is no other basis for jurisdiction over this case, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Whitall v. Munk · filed 2021-09-28(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s remaining related state law claims are dismissed under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

SL-X IP S.A.R.L. v. Bank Of America Corporation · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims, and therefore “need not determine at this time whether those claims withstand Defendants’ motion to dismiss.” Doron Precision Sys., 423 F. Supp. 2d at 193; see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially when the case remains at an early stage and no considerations of efficiency or fairness favor retaining them.

GREGOR v. TD BANK, N.A. · filed 2021-10-01(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court has discretion to decline jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after all federal-law claims have been dismissed from the action. ... The FCBA and Federal Regulation Z claims having been dismissed, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims.