28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

McMurray v. Stolz · filed 2021-10-01(c)(3)

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

Eaton v. Woodlawn Manor Inc · filed 2021-10-05(c)(3)

Section 1367(c) provides federal district courts the discretion to exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction.

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

L.T. v. Douglas · filed 2021-10-06(c)(3)

Here, the factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, having dismissed this action as to the United States, the court will remand plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims to the 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.

HEARNS v. LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE · filed 2021-10-07(c)(3)

To the extent the Complaint raises claims under New Jersey state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (finding that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

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

CORREA-MARTINEZ v. N.S.P. · filed 2021-10-07(c)(3)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction over federal claims and supplemental Jurisdiction over state claims, the district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it 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.

Holmes v. State of Nebraska · filed 2021-10-08(c)(3)

The court will not address this issue because it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim.

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

Hardt v. The Lamplighter School · filed 2021-10-14(c)(3)

Here, to the extent that Plaintiffs allege 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 state law claims when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Tanner v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office · filed 2021-10-19(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff's allegations may be interpreted as seeking to invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court over potential state law claims, a district court may decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if a plaintiff's state law claims raise novel or complex issues of state law, if the claims substantially predominate over the claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, or for other compelling reasons. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In the instant case, having recommended that Plaintiff's federal claims be dismissed, the Court further recommends that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction be declined.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed; remand is ordinarily preferred when this occurs before trial.

West, Edwin v. Department of Health Services · filed 2021-10-21(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses all federal claims before trial, the usual and preferred course is to remand the state claims to the state court. Leister v. Dovetail, Inc., 546 F.3d 875, 882 (7th Cir. 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). This is particularly true where, as here, no action has been taken on the state law claims. In this instance, I am not persuaded by defendants’ arguments that I should retain jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case. Accordingly, I will grant West’s motion and will be remand this case to 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.

Lund v. State of California · filed 2021-10-26(c)(3)

Because we vacate the dismissal of several federal claims and remand for further proceedings, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of Claim 68 against defendants Hai Luc and Wanona Ireland, in their individual capacities.1 In the event the district court dismisses the remaining federal claims on remand, the court again may determine whether to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Claim 68 and any other remaining state law claims.

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

Mendez v. Jones · filed 2021-10-27(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining 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.

Aus v. Salt Lake County · filed 2021-10-27(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court now has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining medical negligence claim.

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

CRESPO v. MASORTI & SULLIVAN, P.C. · filed 2021-10-27(c)(3)

Additionally, even if this Court were not to dismiss the breach of contract/legal malpractice claim on the basis of the statute of limitations, this Court would decline to exercise jurisdiction over this state-law claim. See Edwards v. Hillman, 849 F. App'x 23, 26 (3d Cir. 2021) (“A court may [dismiss state law claims] under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim when retaining them would cause duplication and inefficiency.

Sapir v. Rosen · filed 2021-10-29(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court remains of the view that it properly exercised its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Taylor v. Hohertz · filed 2021-11-01(c)(3)

Finally, in the absence of a federal question, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Taylor’s state law negligence claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims; it ordinarily should do so when no exception warrants retaining them.

Ortiz v. Town of Cicero, Illinois · filed 2021-11-02(c)(3)

Because no exception applies, relinquishing jurisdiction over the Illinois law claims is the appropriate course under § 1367(c)(3).

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

Steeles v. Doerhoff · filed 2021-11-05(c)(3)

Steeles merely alleged that Dr. Doerhoff was negligent in performing the surgery, which did not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); and the court was permitted to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim upon dismissing the federal claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 2006).

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.

Todd v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 5 · filed 2021-11-10(c)(3)

When a Court has dismissed all of a plaintiff’s federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims, courts consider the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... Here, in terms of judicial economy, the Court has dismissed Todd’s federal claims well before trial, and none of the other factors weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Todd’s state law claims without prejudice.

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.

Graves v. City of Palo Alto Police Department · filed 2021-11-12(c)(3)

District courts “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where they have “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... There is nothing before the Court suggesting that this is anything other than the “usual case.” As the Court has not considered the merits of Graves’s state law claims, there is no judicial economy interest in retaining the case. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Graves’s remaining state law claims, which are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, with comity and judicial economy supporting remand.

Boote v. Finance of America Mortgage, LLC · filed 2021-11-12(c)(3)

Thus, this court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case and will remand those claims to state court.

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

Cruz v. City of Chicago · filed 2021-11-16(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court relinquishes its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law malicious prosecution claim.

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

Rodriguez v. City of New York · filed 2021-11-16(c)(3)

As there are no remaining federal claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that may survive the Release.

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

Guzman-Cabrera v. United States of America · filed 2021-11-17(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, including any claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

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

Johnson v. Sun & Chang Corporation · filed 2021-11-17(c)(3)

The court declines to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case.

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

Edwards v. McDermott · filed 2021-11-19(c)(3)

Finally, Edwards asserts common-law negligence claims; however, because the Court has concluded that he has no federal claim, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claims.

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

Junius Joyner, III v. Redman · filed 2021-11-19(c)(3)

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly dismissed Joyner’s § 1983 claim for failure to state a claim for relief. We further conclude that the court then properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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, with the early stage of the case, judicial resources, comity, and hardship informing that choice.

Higgins v. 120 Riverside Boulevard at Trump Place Condominium · filed 2021-11-19(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” once it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

SESCEY v. ONWULSBULL · filed 2021-11-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed, Sescey’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over any related Pennsylvania state tort 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.

Thomas v. Chicago Teachers' Pension Fund · filed 2021-11-22(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Thomas’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claim in Count VII for violation of the Illinois Whistleblower Act. 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) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Pemberton v. Marion · filed 2021-11-22(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses those claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it has discretion to either retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claim or dismiss it.

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

Adams v. C3 Pipeline Construction Inc. · filed 2021-11-29(c)(3)

Given the absence of any remaining federal claim, and consistent with the Tenth Circuit’s opinion, the Court is exercising its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and will decline supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when dismissal occurs early in the litigation.

Pare v. Valet Park of America · filed 2021-11-29(c)(3)

However, the jurisdictional question can be more easily resolved under § 1367(c). ... Where, as here, any federal claims have been dismissed at a relatively early stage of litigation, courts often decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. ... The Court elects to do so here.

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.

Boyens v. Vermont · filed 2021-11-30(c)(3)

Here, the Court is dismissing Boyens’ ADA and the Rehabilitation Act claims, which are the only claims over which it has original jurisdiction. His remaining claims arise under state law. Accordingly, the third factor under Section 1367(c) is satisfied. ... The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and instead dismisses Boyens’ state law claims without prejudice.

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

Rayborn v. Marion · filed 2021-12-03(c)(3)

The Court’s jurisdiction over the related state law claims is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. But, when a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, such as the negligence claim, the district court has discretion to either retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claim or dismiss it. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Kennedy v. Schoenberg, Fisher & Newman, Ltd., 140 F.3d 716, 717 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 870 (1998). Generally, the pendent state law claim is dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), (3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 (1988). The Court will follow the general rule here and dismiss Count 2 without prejudice.

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

England v. Marshall County Sheriff · filed 2021-12-03(c)(3)

There are no exceptional circumstances compelling the court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. England’s remaining claims, and thus the court sees no reason to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction).

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

Stouffer v. Sharp · filed 2021-12-03(c)(3)

Having disposed of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims in their entirety, any supplemental jurisdiction the Court may exercise over his state-law claims would be discretionary. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” Smith v. City of Enid ex rel. Enid City Comm’n, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir. 1998). The Court, therefore, declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

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

Petri v. Children and Youth Services · filed 2021-12-07(c)(3)

Petri does not directly challenge that ruling, but the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it dismissed her federal claims.

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

Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc. v. Lau · filed 2021-12-09(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims. ... Here, only state-law claims remain. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses the remaining counts without prejudice.

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

Richardson v. Davis · filed 2021-12-10(c)(3)

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

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

SESCEY v. KAMARA · filed 2021-12-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed Secey’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over any related Pennsylvania state tort claims.

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

Medina v. Krueger · filed 2021-12-20(c)(3)

Further, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Medina’s 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 have been dismissed.

HAILEY v. WETZEL · filed 2021-12-20(c)(3)

Where, as is the case here, all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Keefe v. State of Montana · filed 2021-12-21(c)(3)

In the absence of a plausible Fifth Amendment claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Keefe attempts to advance.

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

Porter v. Toulon Jr · filed 2021-12-21(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Krempasky v. The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board · filed 2021-12-27(c)(3)

Here, no federal claims remain. We have carefully considered the factors applicable to supplemental jurisdiction and none is compelling. ... Therefore, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Krempasky’s PHRA claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

De Mian v. City of St. Louis, Missouri · filed 2023-11-16(c)

But her federal claims fail. So the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009).

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

Romero v. Idaho State Correctional Institution · filed 2023-12-21(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a possible state-law claim when the complaint states no federal claim.

Castro v. Smith · filed 2024-01-03(c)(3)

Because the complaint does not state a federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a possible claim under state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint does not currently state a federal claim.

Washington v. Abedin · filed 2024-01-08(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff does not currently state a federal claim, the Court declines, at this time, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims that Plaintiff is attempting to raise in her complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when claims within its original jurisdiction remain.

Rossman v. PrimeCare Medical, Inc. · filed 2024-01-10(c)(3)

As the Court has not dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it will retain jurisdiction over Rossman’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal claims remain in the case.

Williams v. Insomnia Cookies, LLC · filed 2024-02-07(c)(3)

Because federal claims remain in this case, the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Gibson’s 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.

Mintun v. Davis · filed 2024-02-14(c)

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

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

Botten v. Charleston County EMS · filed 2024-03-14(c)

Because Botten has failed to allege a violation of the Due Process Clause—his sole federal cause of action—the court would simply decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff has not stated a federal claim.

Robinson v. Kind · filed 2024-03-26(c)

Because the plaintiff has not stated a claim under federal law, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Lichti v. Ryan · filed 2024-04-17(c)(3)

Lichti may be trying to assert negligence, malpractice, or some other state law tort against Dr. Ryan, but without a viable federal claim, I won’t allow him to litigate this potential state law claim in federal court.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir. 2010).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not require a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff fails to allege a federal claim.

Thayer v. Howard · filed 2024-04-26(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) does not require a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff fails to allege a federal claim.

Hamilton v. Kansas, State of · filed 2024-04-26(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) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint fails to state a federal claim.

Rogers v. Shoshone County · filed 2024-04-30(c)

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

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

Wintrode v. Twin Falls County Jail · filed 2024-04-30(c)

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

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

Wintrode v. Stoutin · filed 2024-04-30(c)

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

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

Matuguina v. City of Boise · filed 2024-05-10(c)

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

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

Quinones v. Ponting · filed 2024-05-14(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain pending.

Gibbons v. Brookside Properties, Inc. · filed 2024-08-09(c)(3)

Because there are federal claims still pending, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims brought against Brookside.

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

Williams v. Hibbett Inc · filed 2024-09-06(c)(3)

In the absence of any federal question, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’s claims arising under state law.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal claim remains.

HINDMAN v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2024-09-16(c)(3)

As Count 1, a federal claim, remains in this action, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 6.

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

Clem v. Counts · filed 2024-10-15(c)

In the absence of any federal question, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Clem’s state law claims.

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

Dertz v. Arts · filed 2024-10-16(c)(3)

Finally, because the complaint does not state a federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any putative claims arising under state law. The court will dismiss any state law claims without prejudice under 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.

Kennemer v. Tyler · filed 2025-03-24(c)

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

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

Robinson v. Butler · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

Although the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are related to viable federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), such jurisdiction is not appropriate here as Plaintiff has not alleged any viable federal claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when federal claims remain pending.

Baxter v. Burton · filed 2025-07-18(c)(3)

While the premise of this argument is that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim if all federal claims are dismissed, federal claims do remain. (Def.’s Mot. Dismiss 6). Vickery’s motion is denied.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims remain.

Allstate Insurance Company v. Lint Chiropractic PC · filed 2025-07-21

But because Plaintiffs’ federal RICO claims remain, this Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims merely because the federal claims against one defendant were dismissed, while federal claims remain against others.

Culbertson v. Billam · filed 2025-09-02(c)(3)

Here, the Court easily finds that Plaintiff’s state law claims are part of the same case or controversy and, thus, it may not decline supplemental jurisdiction over them unless and until all federal claims against all parties are dismissed.

Section 1367(c) does not preclude supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when a federal claim within the court’s original jurisdiction may proceed.

LeFever v. State of Nebraska · filed 2025-09-30(c)

... as at this time Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim may proceed, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims is not precluded.

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

Crist · filed 2025-11-04(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) does not provide a basis to decline supplemental jurisdiction while a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction remains pending.

Zesiger · filed 2026-03-13(c)(3)

However, the Court has not dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, as Gina’s federal claims remain pending. And Defendants do not argue that Plaintiffs’ state law claims are otherwise unrelated to Gina’s federal claims and therefore outside the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Accordingly, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not apply when federal claims remain pending against other defendants, even if the federal claims against one defendant have been dismissed.

Mitchell v. Conrad · filed 2026-05-14(c)(3)

Although the district court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Arnold, plaintiffs also brought § 1983 claims against Conrad and Schroeder in their individual and official capacities and against the LMPD. And those claims remain pending in district court. Thus, § 1367(c)(3) is inapplicable.

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

Hudson County News Co. v. Metro Associates, Inc. · filed 1992-03-19(c)(2)

Under the recently enacted statutory form of supplemental jurisdiction, courts still have discretion to decline to hear pendant state claims, for among other reasons, if the state claims “substantially predominate!]] over” the federal claim.

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

Clark v. Doggett · filed 2022-01-03(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court will exercise its discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with a presumption in favor of relinquishing jurisdiction before trial.

Lane v. Doe · filed 2022-01-03(c)(3)

The federal claims are dismissed with prejudice and the state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Laws v. Gaston County · filed 2022-01-03(c)(3)

The Court finds that the condition set forth in § 1367(c)(3) has been met.

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

Davis v. Department of Corrections · filed 2022-01-11(c)(3)

Considering the factors laid out in Cohill, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim against Furst. The Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and the remaining parties would not be prejudiced by declining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Bergman v. State of Nebraska · filed 2022-01-11(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides that “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the balance of factors favors the Court declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remanding this case to the state court.

When all claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Smith v. Marion · filed 2022-01-12(c)(3)

But, when a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, such as the Eighth Amendment claim, the district court has discretion to either retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claim or dismiss it.

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

BUTLER v. CFG HEALTH SERVICES INC. · filed 2022-01-12(c)(3)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware Cty., Pa., 983 F.2d 1277, 1284–85 (3d Cir. 1993). Having dismissed the federal claims without prejudice, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over any potential, unasserted state law claims at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when those dismissals are without prejudice.

ALI v. ANN KLEIN FORENSIC CENTER · filed 2022-01-14(c)(3)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware Cty., Pa., 983 F.2d 1277, 1284–85 (3d Cir. 1993). Having dismissed the federal claims without prejudice, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims at this time.

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

Jeanty v. Blue Rhino · filed 2022-01-19(c)(3)

Accordingly, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 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 court to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Baber v. McNorton · filed 2022-01-20(c)(3)

To the extent his complaint could be construed as asserting any state-law claims, those claims will likewise be dismissed without prejudice. 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.

Zweibelson v. Hartford · filed 2022-01-21(c)(3)

However, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, the Court dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, arising out of the constitution and laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Having declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which are the only claims remaining, the case is dismissed.

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

BRADLEY v. BERNSTIEL · filed 2022-01-24(c)(3)

For the above reasons, I will dismiss DiPrato and Bradley’s Title VII claim with prejudice. I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over DiPrato and Bradley’s remaining state law claims.

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

Lammers v. State of Nebraska · filed 2022-01-26(c)(3)

Even if Eleventh Amendment immunity did not apply, the court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NFEPA claim after dismissing his federal statutory claims.

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

Celli v. Weingarten · filed 2022-01-31(c)(3)

Although federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that form the same “case or controversy” as federal claims over which they have original jurisdiction, a court “may decline to exercise” that jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)(3). ... The Court has already dismissed all the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction here. Given the early stage of that dismissal—before any dispositive motions or discovery—it is appropriate to decline to exercise jurisdiction over Celli’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.

Warren v. Guerrero · filed 2022-01-31(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... If, in his amended complaint, Plaintiff pleads state law claim(s) but does not plead facts showing diversity jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of his state law claim(s).

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

Grechko v. Calistoga Spa, Inc. · filed 2022-02-01(c)(3)

Since the Court has no subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s first claim under the ADA, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under the Unruh Act and CDPA; the Court has not addressed or adjudicated the merits of those claims.

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

Shaw v. Strange · filed 2022-02-07(c)(3)

After review, the Court employs its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental 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 every claim within its original jurisdiction.

First Floor Living LLC v. City of Cleveland · filed 2022-02-07(c)(3)

Further, Section 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where, as here, the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... After reviewing the record in this matter, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the parties’ remaining claims and counterclaims under State law.

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

Brown v. Team Placement Service, Incorporated · filed 2022-02-07(c)(3)

But with the federal question claims dismissed, Plaintiff’s remaining South Carolina law claim is also subject to dismissal. The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367; see also Yashenko v. Harrah’s NC Casino Co., 446 F.3d 541, 553 n.4 (4th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district court has dismissed the federal claims in an action, it maintains wide discretion to dismiss the supplemental state law claims over which it properly has supplemental jurisdiction.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). In declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the Court considers “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). Here, the Court is unable to find that the parties would be inconvenienced or unfairly prejudiced by declining to exercise jurisdiction over this breach of contract claim, nor does the Court find any underlying issues of federal policy involved in this state law claim. The comity factor further weighs in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction, as do considerations of judicial economy. As a result, the fourth cause of action for breach of contract is dismissed without prejudice.

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

Halkitis v. New York City Department Of Education · filed 2022-02-09(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [a pendent state law 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 those claims, finding that they, along with Halkitis’s claims under the NYCHRL, are “best left to the courts of the State of New York.”

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.

Davidson v. Ali · filed 2022-02-10(c)(3)

To the extent Davidson alleges Defendants have committed negligence, a claim arising under state law, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and will dismiss the state claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”); see also Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (citing United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726–27 (1966)).

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.

Rivadeneira v. University of South Florida · filed 2022-02-14(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining 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.

Henderson v. Lett · filed 2022-02-15(c)(3)

Henderson does not assert any other federal claims in his complaint. As diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is not alleged or apparent as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, granting summary judgment to Lett on the deliberate indifference claim disposes of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. To the extent Henderson has also asserted claims against Lett under state law, the undersigned will recommend that the Court decline to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and accordingly dismiss them 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.

Prince v. Managing Official · filed 2022-02-17(c)(3)

To the extent that Prince 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)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when state courts are better suited to resolve novel state law issues.

Brimmeier v. DeMaria Building Company · filed 2022-02-17(c)(3)

Because Michigan state courts are best suited to address those questions, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent breach of contract claim.

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

Tubbs v. Long · filed 2022-02-17(c)(3)

Because the Court has determined that State Defendants’ motion should be granted as to Plaintiff's only federal claims (the Section 1983 claims contained in Counts I and II), the Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims (contained in Counts III and IV); seeing no reason not to exercise such discretion consistent with federal courts’ usual practice, the Court will dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

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

Mercer v. Westchester Medical Center · filed 2022-02-22(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 over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Scott v. Yoo · filed 2022-02-23(c)(3)

Therefore, in the absence of any viable federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court exercises its discretion and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s supplemental state law 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 a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction and to dismiss the state law claim without prejudice.

Mendez, ex rel. v. Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, Ltd. · filed 2022-02-25(c)(3)

A district court can decline to exercise that jurisdiction if, inter alia, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Having dismissed the relators’ federal claims, the Court determines that the TMFPA claim should be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Willis v. Devaney · filed 2022-02-25(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent plaintiff alleges claims for relief under state law, although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, the Court may also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Milestone Academy v. Douglas County School District · filed 2022-03-03(c)(3)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if there is a jurisdictional basis for doing so, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court does not find any compelling reason to retain jurisdiction. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ second, third, and fourth claims for relief will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (3) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims predominate and the claims supplying original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Broussard v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. · filed 2022-03-07(c)(2), (c)(3)

In this case, both section 1367(c)(2) and (3) apply. All claims in this case arise under state law, and the defendants providing the basis for federal jurisdiction have been 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.

Suarez v. Capital One Bank NA/FC · filed 2022-03-07(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 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) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

BESS v. ALBERT EINSTEIN HOSPITAL · filed 2022-03-08(c)

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 court that dismisses the federal claims to dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice so they may be pursued in state court.

Mickens v. Unknown Parties · filed 2022-03-09(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff’s complaint is interpreted as asserting any state law claims against the Grand Rapids Police Department or the City of Grand Rapids, such will be dismissed without prejudice so that Plaintiffs may pursue such in the appropriate state forum. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Taylor v. First of America Bank - Wayne, 973 F.2d 1284, 1287 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Erwine v. Churchill County · filed 2022-03-09(c)(3)

As this is the sole remaining federal-law claim, the Court dismisses the remaining state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on considerations such as judicial economy and avoiding unnecessary state-law decisions.

Logan 980399 v. Davids · filed 2022-03-14(c)(3)

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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

North v. CoreCivic, Inc. · filed 2022-03-14(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all of North’s federal claims, leaving only state-law claims, and because this court lacks diversity jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on North’s state-law claims and sua sponte remand this case back to the Fifth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada.

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

Eisenberg v. The County of Westchester · filed 2022-03-14(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed plaintiff’s federal claims, which are the only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction,7 and in light of plaintiff’s agreement with the County Defendants on how to proceed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims, and will thus remand the case back to state court.

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.

Davis v. Simpson · filed 2022-03-15(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Under these circumstances, it would be inappropriate 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 the claims within its original jurisdiction, taking judicial economy, fairness, and comity into account.

Weiser v. Castille · filed 2022-03-15(c)(3)

In the present case, § 1367(c)(3) applies because the court is dismissing plaintiff’s constitutional and federal statutory claims as to Weiser, Jr. ... Thus, judicial economy, fairness, and comity favor declining to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, subject to considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness.

BENSON v. DELAWARE COUNTY · filed 2022-03-15(c)(3)

In the absence of diversity jurisdiction, and with the dismissal of Benson’s federal claims, the Court must decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise. Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995). They do not.

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

Burney v. Does · filed 2022-03-16(c)

Because the complaint fails to state a federal claim, I decline 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 it dismisses the only claim within its original jurisdiction, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Prem v. Wing Spirit Inc. · filed 2022-03-16(c)(3)

Here, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. The Court is dismissing the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction and although the case has been pending for some time, it is still in its earliest stages and no substantive matters have been addressed. There are no other factors compelling the Court to deviate from the common practice of declining supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claims remain. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Milam v. Marcum · filed 2022-03-16(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff brings state constitutional claims against Defendant Marcum, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Parker v. Greenville Public School District · filed 2022-03-16(c)(3)

In a case such as this one, where all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) grants this Court discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Miller v. Summit Foods · filed 2022-03-18(c)(3)

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.

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.

Whitaker v. Le Marais Bakery, LLC · filed 2022-03-18(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.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Cuvo v. Pocono Mountain School District · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)

Therefore, the plaintiffs’ state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Henderson v. Board of Supervisors of Southern University · filed 2022-03-23(c)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, and considering the factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), as well as “the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining pendent state law claims, consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s general rule.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed its federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims if the federal claims are not amended.

ASSOCIATED BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA v. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY · filed 2022-03-25(c)(3)

In this instance, if Plaintiffs do not elect to amend their federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state competitive bidding claims and will dismiss their fourth Claims for Relief without prejudice to their ability to bring those 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.

Allen v. Geo Group, The · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

Because that resolves the only federal claim remaining in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law medical negligence claim against Defendants Vecchiarelli, Caldwell, Nero, and Beall.

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

Smith v. State of Tennessee · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

Inasmuch as there are no surviving federal claims in this action against those Defendants, the Court declines to exert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining issues. ... Therefore, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Sea Island Elevator v. Edisto Beach, Town of · filed 2022-03-29(c)

Once a district court has dismissed the federal claims in an action, it maintains discretion to dismiss the supplemental state law claims over which it properly has supplemental jurisdiction, or remand in cases removed from State court. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 345, 357 (1988); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (listing factors to inform whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over State claims such as whether the State claims involve novel or complex issues of law; whether the State law claims predominate; whether the federal claims remain in the case). When the exercise of this discretion involves the additional question of whether to remand the case to State court, the federal court should consider “principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity”. Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 357.). The Court has considered these principles and the Court finds that remand is proper.

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

Marinaccio v. East Hanover Police Department · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

The District Court also properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims as the federal claims had all been dismissed.

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

Lindsay v. Cutters Wireline Service, Inc. · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract, and that claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Halabo v. Michael · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

Since the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal claims – i.e., the only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction – the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Abalola v. St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Abalola’s federal claims and there is no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Abalola’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL 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 if no federal claim remains.

Brewster v. Mills · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

The Court cannot say at this stage whether any federal claims will survive, and the Court would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Bane Act claim if no federal claim remains.

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

Richards v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2022-04-15(c)

Because I grant summary judgment in Wills’s 2||favor on Richards’s only federal claim, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her 3||claims for negligence and ITED, which are based on state law, and dismiss them both without 4||prejudice to Richards’s ability to refile them in state court.

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

(PS)Meeks v. Tehama County · filed 2022-05-06(c)

Absent any viable federal claim, this court need not consider and should not entertain any putative state law claims included in the Amended Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when related federal claims remain pending.

Jones v. Wagner · filed 2022-05-13(c)(3)

In the absence of any other arguments for summary judgment by Defendants on these state law claims, the Court will retain jurisdiction over these claims at this stage of the proceedings.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the complaint states no federal claim.

Grazette v. Manpower · filed 2022-05-16(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff does not currently state a federal claim, the Court declines, at this time, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law defamation claim that Plaintiff is attempting to raise in his complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not warrant relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claims remain timely and pending.

Stephenson v. City of Chicago · filed 2022-05-17(c)(3)

Because Stephenson’s claims are timely, the Court will not relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff has not stated a valid federal claim.

(PS) Serris v. Chastaine · filed 2022-06-14(c)(3)

The court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims at this time because he has not stated a valid federal claim for relief.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related counterclaims in a statutory interpleader action.

Priority Records, Inc. v. Bridgeport Music, Inc. · filed 1995-12-05(a)

Those counter ... claims — seeking (i) an injunction against future, and damages for past, use by Priority without a license of identified compositions of George Clinton which have been determined (see § 4, supra) to be included in the subject matter of this action, and (ii) relief for alleged willful infringement of Bridgeport’s claimed copyrights in such compositions— appear to be compulsory under Fed.R.Civ.P. 13(a), and would, in any event, in the Court’s view, come within its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff-intervenor’s claim in a diversity case when exercising it would conflict with § 1332’s jurisdictional requirements, even for intervention of right.

Clark v. QG Printing II, LLC · filed 2021-01-05(b)

Where a federal court’s jurisdiction over the action into which intervention is sought is grounded upon diversity (28 U.S.C. § 1332), however, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) provides that courts do not have supplemental jurisdiction over claims by persons seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be “inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.”

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by nondiverse parties seeking to intervene as plaintiffs in a case founded solely on diversity jurisdiction.

Betancourt-Torres v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority · filed 1996-01-22(b)

We deny the motion because § 1367(b) specifically bars the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over claims brought by parties seeking intervention as plaintiffs if they are not diverse parties.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by nondiverse plaintiff intervenors in diversity cases, including those seeking intervention as of right.

Liberty Mutual Group v. Hillman's Sheet Metal & Certified Welding, Inc. · filed 1996-07-24(b)

The plain language of § 1367(b) makes no distinction between intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) and permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). Instead, § 1367(b) expressly states that district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction over claims of proposed Rule 24 plaintiff intervenors when exercising such jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the requirements of § 1332.

When jurisdiction rests solely on diversity, § 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff intervening under Rule 24 if the claim would violate § 1332's diversity requirements.

Turner/Ozanne v. Hyman/Power · filed 1997-04-17(b)

Section 1367(b) precludes intervention by parties seeking to “intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24, ... when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.”

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by an intervening plaintiff when that plaintiff shares citizenship with a defendant and complete diversity would be lost.

Lennox Industries, Inc. v. Yusti · filed 1997-03-31(b)

If allowed to intervene, Banco Santander would enter the litigation as a plaintiff. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over Banco Santander’s claims because such exercise would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in particular because there is no diversity of citizenship between Banco Santander de P.R. and the defendants.

Section 1367(b) bars a nondiverse party from intervening as a plaintiff in a diversity action when intervention would defeat diversity jurisdiction.

Baker v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. · filed 2004-05-27(b)

As an arm of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Special Fund is not a “citizen” for diversity purposes, and its intervention would divest the district court of jurisdiction. Thus, under § 1367(b), the district court should have denied the Special Fund’s motion to intervene.

Section 1367(b) restricts supplemental jurisdiction over claims against certain added parties, but a nondiverse defendant’s intervention alone does not trigger that restriction.

Mattel, Inc. v. Bryant · filed 2005-03-04(b)

Section 1367(b) is concerned with the assertion of new “claims,” not the intervention alone of new “parties.”