28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the state law claims raise novel and complex issues.

Gradisher v. Check Enforcement Unit, Inc. · filed 2001-02-28(c)(1)

In any event, this Court finds that the state law issues are novel and complex enough that this Court should decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) Court recognizes that the parties might have to pursue overlapping paths in state court and in this Court, but this Court also notes that the state claims merely raise additional legal theories of recovery for the same alleged wrongdoing and seek essentially the same scope of relief that could be granted by this Court.

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to decline to hear state law claims.

Salem v. Paroli (In Re Salem) · filed 2001-03-26

Pursuant to the discretion afforded us by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, we decline to hear plaintiffs state court claims, and we decline to impose sanctions on plaintiff.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional claim when deciding it would require interpreting state law with virtually no state court guidance.

Linnemeier v. Indiana University—Purdue University Fort Wayne · filed 2001-07-20(c)(1)

Supplemental jurisdiction may be declined when the court finds that the supplemental claim “raises a novel or complex issue of state law,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), or “in exceptional circumstances” that there are “compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). ... Retaining this claim may require the Court to embark on an interpretation of Indiana’s Constitution, virtually unguided by state court precedent. As a matter of comity, whether the acts in question violate Indiana’s Constitution are best left to the province of Indiana’s state court judges. Accordingly, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claim alleging violations of Indiana’s Constitution and that claim is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a complex, unanswered question of state constitutional law.

ACLU Nebraska Found. v. City of Plattsmouth, Neb. · filed 2002-02-19(c)(1)

This court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claimed violation of Article I, § 4 of the Nebraska Constitution but will decline to exercise it. ... I find that comity favors allowing the Nebraska courts to resolve this complex, yet unanswered, question of state constitutional law.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an ERISA-unrelated claim once a related claim is properly removed.

Hernandez v. Jobe Concrete Products, Inc. · filed 2002-02-26(a)

Even though we have previously held negligence claims against employers do not relate to ERISA plans, once a claim is properly removed, the federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a non-related claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that form the same case or controversy as federal claims, but allows a court to decline it for novel or complex state-law issues or when state claims substantially predominate.

Sacay v. RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF CITY UNIVER. OF NY · filed 2002-03-27(a), (c)(1), (c)(2)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) gives the district courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims "that are so related to claims in the action" over which the court has original jurisdiction "that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." Under that provision, this court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law retaliation claims of both plaintiffs. However, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law discrimination claims. All federal discrimination claims have been dismissed. Unlike the state retaliation claims, the state discrimination claims are not "part of the same case or controversy" as the sole remaining federal claims, which are for retaliation. Even if they were, supplemental jurisdiction would be declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (2). As the Second Circuit has recently noted, in Giordano, 274 F.3d at 754, New York State and City discrimination laws differ significantly from federal discrimination law; and they involve potentially complex and novel issues of state law. In addition, if they were not dismissed but went to trial, the State and City discrimination claims would substantially predominate over the federal retaliation claims. See id. Therefore, the State and City discrimination claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate or compelling reasons, such as hardship and delay from retaining those claims, favor remand.

Madden v. Able Supply Co. · filed 2002-05-27(c)(2), (c)(4)

In this case, the second and fourth factors enumerated in § 1367(c) are clearly present. ... Plainly, the Remaining Claims, which are exclusively derived from state law, “substantially predominate” over Plaintiffs single failure to warn claim against the sole “federal officer” Defendant. Moreover, the Court concludes that compelling reasons counsel in favor of remanding the Remaining Claims to state court. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the Remaining Claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims insofar as they provide protection beyond corresponding federal claims.

Helton v. Good · filed 2002-07-05(c)

Insofar as the North Carolina Constitution provides any additional protection to Plaintiff on these matters, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hoste v. Shanty Creek Management, Inc. · filed 2002-07-17(c)(2)

Here, where a long-outstanding state law personal injury claim triable to a jury overwhelmingly predominates over any federal issues not triable to a jury, the court is inclined to order a partial remand of the former claim, even while it endeavors to resolve the latter. ... For the reasons stated in the court’s Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs Motion for Remand entered on this same date, and because plaintiffs personal injury claims against the named defendant Shanty Creek Management, Inc. (“Shanty Creek”) in the complaint filed in Michigan’s Antrim County Circuit Court action no. 93-6013-NO raise issues solely of state law, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over those particular claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(e) and 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(a) permits state law counterclaims to proceed without an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Verizon New Jersey, Inc. v. Ntegrity Telecontent Services, Inc. · filed 2002-08-12(a)

Initially, it must be noted that dismissal of the state law Counterclaims is not appropriate based on plaintiffs’ suggestion of a lack of jurisdiction. As Counterclaims, Ntegrity’s allegations are properly before this Court, and cannot be dismissed for the lack of an independent jurisdictional basis.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise a novel issue of state law.

Murcia v. County of Orange · filed 2002-10-04(c)(1)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs First Cause of Action to the extent it purports to arise under the Constitution and law of the State of New York, on the ground that these claims, by plaintiffs own admission, raise a novel issue of State law as to which the New York’s courts should speak in the first instance.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law nuisance and trespass claims accompanying a federal Clean Water Act claim.

Swartz v. Beach · filed 2002-10-07

To the extent that RRI has peripherally asserted that Plaintiffs supplemental claims against it for nuisance and trespass should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim, those arguments are rejected. Therefore, this Court FINDS that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs First and Second Causes of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the original complaint supplies federal question jurisdiction.

Behlen v. Lynch · filed 2002-11-08(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the court also had supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in the original complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over timely state law claims that share a common core of facts with federal claims.

Bamberg v. COWEN · filed 2002-12-09(c)

The Court will assert supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), over the state law claims of the Bambergs which have been filed within the three-year statute of limitations and have a common core of facts.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that raises novel issues of state law.

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n · filed 2003-01-13(c)(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim because it raises novel issues of state law.

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

Acro-Tech, Inc. v. Robert Jackson Family Trust · filed 2003-11-24(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining non-RICO state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Oby v. Baton Rouge Marriott · filed 2004-08-05(a)

To the extent that plaintiffs complaint states any claims under state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). These claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims against other defendants when the court has original federal-question jurisdiction over claims against one defendant.

Davidson v. Arch Chemicals Specialty Products, Inc. · filed 2004-12-06(a)

In light of the Court’s holding that it has original federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Arch, the Court also may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Defendant Costco and' the individual Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel and complex issues of state law.

Lopez v. Smiley · filed 2005-06-24(c)(1)

When faced with state law claims that “raise[] novel and complex issues of state law,” a district court, in its discretion, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Morrison v. Brookstone Mortg. Co., Inc. · filed 2005-09-30(c)(2)

In this case, given that the vast majority of Plaintiffs remaining claims arise under state law, the Court is of the view that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not appropriate. Issues of state law substantially predominate over the claims from which jurisdiction was originally invoked in this case.

Section 1367(a) can provide a basis for supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain in the action.

Bishop v. TOYS" R" US-NY LLC · filed 2006-02-08(a)

As federal claims remain extant in this action, there is a basis for supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim related to a federal claim asserted in a new complaint.

Craddock v. Apogee Coal Company · filed 2006-02-09(a)

Plaintiffs’ state-law claim against Apogee is properly supplemental to their federal-law claim against the Plan. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c) permits a court that has resolved the federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Ragland v. Angelone · filed 2006-03-14(c)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims and dismisses such claims without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after the federal claim is resolved, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Wasko v. Gonzales · filed 2006-05-31(c)(3)

The District Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Wasko’s remaining state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... We find no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s determination to decline supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over an intervenor’s claim sufficiently related to a federal question claim, without an independent jurisdictional basis.

Grace United Methodist Church v. City Of Cheyenne · filed 2006-06-20(a)

First, since Martin and Bantel were decided, statutory jurisdictional rules were enacted expressly providing a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over intervention claims that are sufficiently related to the main claim over which the court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1367 gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims if at least one colorable federal claim remains within federal jurisdiction.

Jones v. Brennan · filed 2006-08-14

... but add that if there is at least one colorable federal claim not barred by the probate exception, the district court has jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state-law claims by virtue of the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after considering its statutory grounds for declining jurisdiction and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Burkett v. City of El Paso · filed 2007-03-14(c)

Having considered § 1367(c), judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court finds that justice will best be served by retaining jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when efficiency and fairness favor their resolution in state court, including where they arise from different facts than a remaining federal claim.

Sullivan v. Stein · filed 2007-05-30(c)

The Court bases its decision to refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Sullivans’ remaining state law claims against the Municipal and State Defendants on two considerations. First, the remaining claims against the State Defendants and Defendants Whalen and Williams arise from completely different facts than the remaining claims against J.W. Green. Second, the remaining claims against all of the Municipal and State Defendants are purely state law claims befitting the expertise and experience of a state court. Therefore, taking all factors into consideration, the Court believes it is in the interests of efficiency and fairness to refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1)-(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when they raise novel or complex issues, substantially predominate, or remain after all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Winters Ex Rel. Winters v. CHUGIAK SENIOR CITIZENS · filed 2007-09-26(c)(1)-(3)

Under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1367(c)(1), (2) and (3) the Court hereby remands this case back to state court for resolution of the remaining issues of state law.

Section 1367(c)(1) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a novel question of state law.

Estate of Hill v. Richards · filed 2007-12-06(c)(1)

The language of § 1367(c)(1) is discretionary; district courts are not always required to avoid deciding a state law claim simply because it requires resolution of difficult questions.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that raise a novel state law issue, substantially predominate, or remain after all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Shamrock Foods Co. v. Gast · filed 2008-02-20(c)

This case raises a novel issue of state law regarding the inevitable disclosure doctrine; the state law claims substantially predominate over the CFAA claims; and the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Therefore, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss the state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permit a district court to remand remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the state claims raise novel issues, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing the decision.

Quick v. EMCO Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2008-04-29(c)(1), (c)(3)

The Court finds the balance of “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” weigh against retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in light of the lack progress in this Court, both substantively and temporally, and the novel issue involved. Therefore, the remaining claims are remanded. ... For the foregoing reasons, Quick’s Motion to Dismiss and Remand (Clerk’s No. 2) is granted, and this case is remanded to the Iowa District Court for Polk County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (3).

Section 1367 gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over accompanying state-law claims when it has federal-question jurisdiction over FCA claims.

United States Ex Rel. Poisson v. Red River Service Corp. · filed 2008-06-10

Because the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 by virtue of Plaintiffs FCA claims, it has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiffs state law claims. Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss these claims must, therefore, be denied.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a novel issue of state law.

Centeno-Bernuy v. Becker Farms · filed 2008-06-17(c)(1)

With regard to plaintiffs' claim for overtime under the New York Labor Law, instead of adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that such claim be dismissed, the Court hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claim as it raises a novel issue of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). The parties have not cited nor has the Court found any case, federal or state, directly addressing the issue of whether a farm worker who performs both farm work and non-farm work is entitled to overtime under the New York Labor Law. The Court finds that this issue is better addressed by the state courts in the first instance.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that raise novel or unsettled issues of state law.

Sevin v. Parish of Jefferson · filed 2008-12-16(c)(1)

Here, the plaintiffs’ pendent claims raise novel issues of Louisiana law that are best resolved in state court. ... In light of the novelty of the plaintiffs’ claims and the unsettled nature of Louisiana law in these areas, the Court finds that the interests of comity and judicial economy are better served if all of the plaintiffs’ state law claims are heard in state court.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to entertain state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction when a federal Title VII claim remains.

Velez v. MARRIOTT PR MANAGEMENT, INC. · filed 2008-12-22(a)

The court having denied the request for dismissal of the Title VII discrimination ... claim due to plaintiffs non-selection to the Pit Boss position in March 2004 it may, in its discretion, entertain the state-based claim under its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 does not require dismissal of state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed; the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when state issues substantially predominate.

Harborview Master Fund, LP v. Lightpath Technologies, Inc. · filed 2009-01-30

While the statute governing supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, does not require dismissal of pendent state-law claims where all of the federal claims have been dismissed, “if it appears that the state issues substantially predominate, whether in terms of proof, of the scope of the issues raised, or of the comprehensiveness of the remedy sought, the state claims may be dismissed without prejudice and left for resolution to state tribunals.”

Section 1367(a) restores supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim when the federal claim is reinstated on appeal.

Spinelli v. City of New York · filed 2009-08-07(a)

Reversal of Spinelli’s due process claim also reinstates the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61, 79 (2d Cir. 2003).

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Anderson v. Dunbar Armored, Inc. · filed 2009-08-18(a)

The court chooses to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a novel state constitutional question that state courts have not definitively resolved.

Doe v. Neer · filed 2009-08-20(c)(1)

Whether application of subsection (7) to Doe violates the Missouri Constitution is a novel and important state law question that is best left to the state courts of Missouri to review. I will therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this important state law issue.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (c)(2) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when novel or complex state-law issues substantially predominate over the remaining federal claims.

Gilmore v. Bostic · filed 2009-09-22(c)(1), (c)(2)

The state constitutional claims and the application of state qualified immunity-raise novel and complex issues under state law. § 1367(c)(1). Those issues substantially predominate over the federal claims against the three remaining Mental Health Unit defendants yet to be heard on pretrial motion. § 1367(c)(2). All other federal claims have been dismissed. § 1367(c)(3). Application of § 1367(c)(1) and § 1367(c)(2) weigh substantially in favor of this court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a New York Article 78 proceeding because its special state-court character supplies compelling reasons.

Coastal Communications Service, Inc. v. City of New York · filed 2009-09-30(c)(4)

“The very nature of an Article 78 proceeding presents such compelling reasons” for declining supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims that duplicate a federal claim and raise no novel or complex state-law issues.

Baldwin v. JARRETT BAY YACHT SALES, LLC · filed 2009-12-10(c)

Given the duplicative nature of the state law warranty claim in count two and that the state law claims in count one and two do not raise novel or complex issues of North Carolina law, the court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim in counts one and two.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over surviving state-law claims when a converted federal claim provides original federal jurisdiction.

Ruby v. Sandia Corp. · filed 2010-02-19(a)

Because the Court has proper jurisdiction over the converted ERISA claim, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ruby’s surviving state-law claims.

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

G.J. ex rel. E.J. v. Muscogee County School District · filed 2010-03-25(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiffs are attempting to assert any state law claims under Georgia law that are not specifically addressed in this Order, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel and undeveloped issues of state law.

Silvera v. Connecticut Department of Corrections · filed 2010-05-27(c)(1)

Given that Counts Six and Seven raise novel and undeveloped issues of state law, ... the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court retaining original jurisdiction over a copyright claim to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Quantlab Technologies Ltd.(BVI) v. Godlevsky · filed 2010-06-23(a)

Because the Court retains original jurisdiction over the copyright claim, ... it retains supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Kuharsky, ... 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when a federal claim remains in the case.

In Re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation · filed 2010-08-27(a)

Given my conclusion above that the Derivative Plaintiffs have stated a claim on certain of their Section 14(a) claims, I will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims.

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

Manseau v. City of Miramar · filed 2010-09-10(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiffs argue that the City breached an alleged express contract that it had with them, we decline to address the claim because the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. And the court was permitted to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

Clark v. Matthews International Corp. · filed 2010-12-27(c)(1)

Thus, since "the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law," 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), we think the prudent decision in this case is to let the Missouri courts decide the matter.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that require resolution of novel and complex state law issues.

Lewton Ex Rel. Lewton v. Divingnzzo · filed 2011-02-18(c)

Resolving the plaintiffs’ state law tort claims, the corresponding common law defenses, and interpreting the Nebraska Telecommunications Consumer Privacy Protection Act would require the resolution of novel and complex issues of state law. This court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing federal claims when judicial economy, fairness, convenience, speed, and comity favor resolving the whole case.

Tptcc Ny, Inc. v. Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. · filed 2011-05-16

Based on the complexity of plaintiffs’ allegations, as well as the considerable time and energy the parties have expended thus far litigating those allegations before this Court, the Court determines that the interests of judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and the need for a speedy resolution of disputes weigh strongly in favor of the Court resolving the instant action in its entirety. ... Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, elects to retain supplemental jurisdiction over all of plaintiffs’ pendant state law claims.

Section 1367 gives a federal court with federal question jurisdiction supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, including authority to dismiss them.

Muhonen v. Cingular Wireless Employee Services, LLC · filed 2011-07-18(a)

Second, because this Court has federal questions jurisdiction over Muhonen’s federal claims, the Court had supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to dismiss any claims based on state law.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims presenting complex state-law issues when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial.

Runkle Ex Rel. Estate of Runkle v. Fleming · filed 2011-08-12(c)

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion, since the pendent claims presented complex state statute of limitations and negligence issues. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Further, when, as here, “all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims.” Musson Theatrical v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254-55 (6th Cir. 1996).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when applying and interpreting a state-law claim presents sufficient complexity to warrant resolution in state court.

Alexander v. Westbury Union Free School District · filed 2011-11-04(c)(1)

I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consider the HRL § 296(1) claim against Powell, or the claim for intentional infliction of emotional harm against Powell in his individual capacity, both of which survive this motion. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law ... or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” ... Although much of the controversy goes to § 296(6), I find that there is sufficient complexity in the application and interpretation of § 296(1) to make it more prudent for the claim to be decided by the state court.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel issues of state law.

Frudden v. Pilling · filed 2012-01-31(c)(1)

The Court is inclined to dismiss this claim, but because there are novel issues of state law, the Court declines jurisdiction over this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that present novel or complex questions of state law.

Watison v. Carter · filed 2012-02-13(c)(1)

The district court may, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the basis that a state court should decide in the first instance the “novel or complex issue of State law” of whether the criminal statutes on which Watison’s state-law claims are based give rise to civil liability—and if not, whether Watison’s allegations nevertheless sufficiently plead state common-law claims, such as tort claims, against the defendants.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when parallel state litigation creates compelling reasons to avoid piecemeal litigation, duplicate expense, and conflicting proceedings.

Chester Upland School District v. Commonwealth · filed 2012-03-16(c)(4)

The Court finds that under subsection (4) it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims of the Charter School (Count III and IV) and Charter School Parents (Count II), which ask this Court to enforce the state Charter School Law spending scheme against the School District Defendants. These claims are substantially similar to those pending before Judge Colins in the Commonwealth Court. There are compelling circumstances to decline jurisdiction over them in order to avoid piecemeal litigation, undue expense, and having two courts of competent jurisdiction to decide the same issue.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims to remain when a federal claim survives dismissal.

Click v. Thompson · filed 2012-10-18(a)

Since Click’s federal claim for the 2012 failure to rehire does survive the motion to dismiss, supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims remains proper, see 28 USC § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Article 78 claim when deciding it would require the court to interpret state law before New York courts have addressed the issues.

New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York · filed 2012-12-03(c)(4)

While it is true that the federal claims and state-law issues arise out of the same operative set of facts, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ Article 78 claim because to do so would require this Court to interpret state law before the New York State courts have an opportunity to analyze and resolve the issues.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Article 78 claim when adjudicating it would require interpreting state law before New York courts have addressed the issues.

Roberts v. New York · filed 2012-12-03(c)(4)

While it is true that the federal claims and state-law issues arise out of the same operative set of facts, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ Article 78 claim because to do so would require this Court to interpret state law ... before the New York State courts have an opportunity to analyze and resolve the issues.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the case must be remanded for adjudication of a state constitutional claim.

Murphy v. Village of Plainfield · filed 2013-01-16(c)

Where, as here, this case must be remanded for adjudication of the Illinois constitutional claim, the remaining common law claims must go with it. The court, in its discretion, declines to exercise jurisdiction over counts I, II, III and IV.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a novel state-law preemption claim implicating the balance of power between state and local government.

Vivid Entertainment, LLC v. Fielding · filed 2013-08-16(c)(1)

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, grants courts the discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over matters that “raise[ ] a novel or complex issue of State law.” ... Since similar concerns about the balance of power in California are present in Plaintiffs’ novel preemption claim, this Court declines supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(1) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an attorney fee dispute that raises novel and complex state law issues separate from the underlying action.

TC Power Ltd. v. Guardian Industries Corp. · filed 2013-08-28(c)(1)

In regard to the underlying breach of contract action, these issues are simply too tenuous as they involve legal and factual determinations that are separate and distinct from those in the underlying claims. Such novel and complex issues of state law would be more appropriately adjudicated by the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state breach of contract claim when federal claims remain in the case.

Panwar v. Access Therapies, Inc. · filed 2013-09-30

Because the Court has not dismissed all of Mr. Panwar’s federal claims, the Court may still properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state breach of contract claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining local-law claims after the federal basis for jurisdiction disappears.

Dover v. Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Inc. · filed 2013-10-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c) (3) because they all relate to local District of Columbia law.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when a federal claim remains in the case.

CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Village of Plainfield · filed 2014-04-25(a)

Because the Court has found no reason to dismiss CBS’s First Amendment claim, however, the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over CBS’s State law claim is proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even when diversity jurisdiction is lacking.

Benton v. Town of South Fork · filed 2014-09-24(a)

The federal district court held that it lacked jurisdiction over any state-law claims because diversity was lacking. But the court had the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) supplies supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when federal claims against the same defendants survive.

Stein v. World-Wide Plumbing Supply Inc. · filed 2014-12-02(a)

That might be correct had I dismissed all federal claims against Chaim and Suri, but I have not; the surviving federal claims create supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims survive summary judgment.

Guobadia v. Irowa · filed 2015-05-07

Having denied those parts of the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of the Plaintiffs federal claims, the Defendants request that this Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is denied.

Section 1367 leaves the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after a federal claim is reinstated.

Jeffers v. Perry Lyons, Jr. · filed 2015-06-02

We further vacate the dismissal of Jeffers’ state law claims and remand for the district court’s consideration of whether the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction would be appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (2012).

Section 1367 permits a court with jurisdiction over federal claims to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Energetiq Technology, Inc. v. ASML Netherlands B.V. · filed 2015-07-10

The Court, however, has determined that personal jurisdiction exists over all Defendants with respect to federal claims, and therefore, has authority to exert 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 disposing of the federal claims, particularly when those claims present difficult questions of state law.

Cullen v. Janvrin et al. · filed 2015-11-19(c)(3)

These claims, however, present challenging questions of New Hampshire law that are better resolved by state courts, which can speak authoritatively on the subject. Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that presents novel issues of state and local law better resolved by state courts.

Free the Nipple—Springfield Residents Promoting Equality v. City of Springfield · filed 2015-12-28(c)(1)

The Court’s exercise of its power to decline supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary. ... The Court concludes it is preferable to decline jurisdiction and allow these issues of state and local law to be resolved by the state courts.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Coulston v. Glunt · filed 2016-11-02(c)(3)

Finally, we agree with the District Court’s decision to refuse to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over the remaining state law claims, and to dismiss these claims without prejudice to refiling them in state court.

When federal claims are reinstated, § 1367(a) permits vacatur of the dismissal of an accompanying state-law claim.

Davis v. Boylan · filed 2016-11-08(a)

Because we are reversing the dismissal of federal claims, we also vacate the dismissal of the state-law defamation claim against Jomp. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction over state claims).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decide one supplemental state-law claim while declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over other state-law claims; that choice is discretionary.

Park v. Tsiavos · filed 2017-02-09(c)

“[A]lthough exercising supplemental jurisdiction over one claim and declining to exercise jurisdiction over other claims is unusual, it is not an abuse of discretion.”

Section 1367(c)(1) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim raising a novel or complex issue of state law, including by severing and remanding the claim.

Thompson v. Housing Auth of New Orleans, et a · filed 2017-05-12(c)(1)

Because it is within the district court’s discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it raises a novel or complex issue of state law, we conclude that the district court did not err in severing and remanding the plaintiff’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to consider the uncertain scope and application of state law when deciding whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Rivera-Colón v. Torres-Díaz · filed 2017-05-17(c)(1)

As such, the remaining issues of Puerto Rico state law are appropriately resolved by Puerto Rico state' courts. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d at 1177 (one factor in a court’s discretionary determination of supplemental jurisdiction is “when the state law that undergirds the nonfederal claim is of dubious scope and application.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rivera-Colón’s Puerto Rico state law claims, and those claims are accordingly dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim when the plaintiff cannot state a federal claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

El v. Marino · filed 2018-01-08(c)(3)

The District Court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over El’s remaining state law claim as he could not state a federal claim over which the ... District Court would have had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises a novel issue of state law.

Jain v. Butler Sch. Dist. 53 · filed 2018-03-22(c)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it raises a novel issue of state law.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as a federal claim.

Doe v. Sanderson · filed 2018-03-30(a)

As the SBCC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [#13] does not dive into the merits of the state law claims, this court will not address the state law claims in this order but will retain jurisdiction.

Section 1367 gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to a federal claim and permits it to retain those claims if the federal claim is dismissed.

Rockin Artwork, LLC v. Bravado Int'l Group Merch. · filed 2018-06-19

The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Rockin’s Lanham Act claim because it presented a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Even if the district court had allowed Rockin to dismiss its Lanham Act claim, the district court could have retained jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim when the only proposed federal claim is frivolous and no reason favors hearing the state claim in federal court.

McPeek v. Kelsey · filed 2018-07-02(c)(3)

Because the lone federal claim in McPeek’s proposed amended complaint—the § 1986 claim—is frivolous, this Court would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claim, which is the only other claim in the proposed amended complaint.

Section 1367(a) gives a court hearing federal claims supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Logie v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. · filed 2018-07-12(a)

However, where plaintiff brings claims under federal law, like the FMLA, ADA, and § 1983 claims here, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims presenting novel or complex issues of state law.

Doe v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ. · filed 2018-08-06(c)(1)

As discussed, the TGTLA claims here introduce multiple complex and novel legal issues, and are dependent on interpreting state law, many of which are questions of first impression. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' TGTLA claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when they present complex state law issues and all federal claims have been dismissed.

Organics v. Cnty. of San Diego · filed 2018-09-18(c)(1), (c)(3)

Because of the complex issues and lack of federal claims, this Court agrees with the approach taken by the Call court. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' fourth, sixth, and seventh causes of action.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed and the remaining state law issues are novel or complex.

Edmiston v. City Of Port Angeles · filed 2018-12-21(c)(1), (c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of the federal claims and given the nature of the remaining state law tort claims and unusual nature of the constitutional due process claim, the Court finds that all of Edmiston's state law claims would be better adjudicated in a state forum.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over interconnected state-law claims when fairness and judicial economy support retention.

Doe v. City of Elizabeth · filed 2019-04-16(c)(3)

The Court keeps supplemental jurisdiction over Mary's remaining state law claims because (1) the federal and state claims are "interconnected," and (2) retaining jurisdiction supports the interests of fairness and judicial economy.

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

McGhee v. Light · filed 2019-05-15(c)(3)

Absent a viable federal claim -- or diversity of citizenship -- the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims for medical malpractice and fraud without prejudice to refiling those claims in the state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the state law claims raise a novel issue.

Johnson v. Laramie County Board of County Commissioners · filed 2019-08-01(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute sets forth four factors the Court should consider in determining whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law; (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction; (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction; or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Here, the Court has determined Defendants’ are entitled to qualified immunity, so Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim must be dismissed. ... Further, Plaintiffs’ negligence claim against Defendants Graves, Hansen, and Martens involves a somewhat novel issue of Wyoming law – that is, whether the waiver of immunity for health care providers under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act applies to “social workers or counselors” such as these Defendants. (See Order on Motions to Dismiss at 20-22, ECF No. 69.) Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law negligence claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that substantially predominate after the sole federal claim is resolved early in the case.

Gallow v. Pittis · filed 2019-09-04(c)(2), (c)(3)

Although the Court has discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, doing so here would not be a prudent exercise of this discretion. ... In this case, from the outset the state claims substantially predominated, given that there were seven as compared to one federal claim, and the state claims are much more robust than the federal claim. This case is in its early stages, and summary judgment has been awarded as to the sole federal claim upon initial judicial presentation.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that presents a novel issue of state law.

Ditech Financial Services LLC v. Highland Ranch Homeowners Association · filed 2019-09-12(c)(1)

The Court does not have original jurisdiction over this state law claim, and it appears to present a novel issue of state law given that no Nevada appellate court has cited or discussed the statute. The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

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

Parker v. Metlife Insurance Company · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

As the remainder of the claims pled in Parker’s Complaint arise under state law, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it has not dismissed the federal claim.

Murphy v. Allstaff Medical Resources, Inc. · filed 2019-09-24(c)

The Court has not dismissed the FLSA claim, see Part III.A., supra, and therefore continues to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state negligent supervision claim if the complaint states at least one plausible § 1983 claim.

Pollet v. Costco Whole Salers · filed 2019-09-30(a)

It is noted that, if Plaintiff states at least one plausible § 1983 claim, supplemental jurisdiction over a negligent supervision claim could be exercised.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises an unresolved issue of state law.

Abernathy v. White · filed 2019-09-30(c)(1)

However, “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law. . ..” Id. § 1367(c)(1). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over this claim, and Count III for defamation against the Individual Defendants is dismissed without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s ability to bring such a claim in state court.

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

Quinn v. Tritt · filed 2019-09-30

Because the court retains jurisdiction over Quinn’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Daniel Rhome, it also retains supplemental jurisdiction over Quinn’s state law negligence claim against the DOC and SCWA defendants.

Section 1367(a) supplies supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the federal claims survive dismissal.

Sanchez v. The Village of Wheeling · filed 2020-01-30(a)

Because Sanchez’s federal claims survive, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when no claims within its original jurisdiction remain and requires state-law claims in an amended complaint to form part of the same case or controversy as properly pleaded federal claims.

Crawford v. Burke County District Attorney's Office · filed 2020-02-13(a), (c)(3)

Regarding Plaintiff’s claim for negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because, without proper amendment to Plaintiff’s complaint, there are no remaining claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff may assert a state law claim or claims only if they are so related to claims Plaintiff properly brings under § 1983 that they involve part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when an amended complaint asserts viable federal claims arising from the same common nucleus of operative fact.

Rodriguez v. Seidler · filed 2020-02-21(a)

Assuming Plaintiff amends the SAC to assert viable federal claims, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law defamation claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Teamsters Local 272, 642 F.3d 321, 332 (2d Cir. 2011) (noting that federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims and state claims “stem from the same ‘common nucleus of operative fact.’” (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966))).

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court hearing federal claims to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over accompanying state-law negligence claims.

Bradley v. Jeffreys · filed 2020-03-16(a)

Federal courts hearing a federal claim may entertain state law claims by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising out of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Schroeder v. Spire Missouri, Inc. · filed 2020-03-30(a)

Neither party disputes that Plaintiff’s remaining claims of age discrimination, retaliation, and breach of confidentiality all arise out of the same case or controversy as Plaintiff’s disability-discrimination claim. Thus, this Court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law conversion claim concerning seized property while a federal cause of action remains pending in the same action.

PINKNEY v. MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2020-04-27(a)

Because a federal cause of action against Officer Frum remains pending in this action, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear Pinkney’s conversion claim against Meadville.

Section 1367(c)(3)–(4) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the court finds that exercise appropriate.

Milan v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-05-13(c)(3)–(4)

Accordingly, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and denies SCDC’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the SCTCA and finds it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)–(4).

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

Alkarawi v. Hartgrove · filed 2020-06-03(c)(3)

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)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim presenting a novel issue of state law, especially after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Weser v. Goodson · filed 2020-07-15(c)(1)

Section 1367(c)(1) also provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim if the claim “raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” ... We conclude that the circumstances here counsel in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over the false-arrest claim against Anderson. The claim presents a novel issue of state law that, to the knowledge of both the parties and ourselves, has never been squarely addressed by the Tennessee courts. Where both parties have made plausible arguments in favor of their respective positions, this issue is therefore better left for the state courts to decide, especially given that all of the federal claims have already been dismissed.

Section 1367(a) permits a court with federal-question jurisdiction to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Edinburg United Police Officers Association v. City of Edinburg, Texas · filed 2020-07-29(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims in this case.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Anderson v. Fifer · filed 2020-08-03(c)(3)

In weighing issues of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims and they are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims, especially when the remaining state-law claim presents a novel or complex issue of state law.

Abekassis v. New York City, New York · filed 2020-08-07(c)

The interaction of the New York State gun licensing scheme and New York City’s complementary regulatory scheme, and whether the latter is in conflict with the former, presents a “novel or complex issue of State law.” ... Particularly with the Court’s having dismissed Abekassis’s federal claims at the threshold, the factors of convenience and fairness do not favor the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction to consider Abekassis’s state-law preemption claim, and the factor of comity affirmatively disfavors doing so. The Court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Abekassis’s state-law preemption claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that present complex state law issues and predominate over federal claims.

(PC)Figueroa v. Clark · filed 2020-08-13(c)

The remaining claims, which are based solely on state law, will certainly present complex state law issues, particularly enforcing the Mitchell Settlement Agreement (the contours of which appear to be different than under the Constitution), and will predominate over federal claims and unnecessarily consume judicial resources.

Section 1367 allows a court to deny supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are too vague.

Hines v. Kaemingk · filed 2020-09-03

At this time, the Court denies supplemental jurisdiction for Hines’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as they are vague.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to retain jurisdiction over related state law claims when federal claims remain.

Days v. Police Department · filed 2020-09-09(a)

Because federal claims remain, the Court may retain jurisdiction over these state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when a federal claim against the same defendant remains.

Nicomedez v. City of New York · filed 2020-09-28(a)

Because a federal claim against Wroblewski remains, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims asserted against Wroblewski.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal claims are unlikely to succeed, especially when comity favors resolving important state constitutional questions in state court.

Bimber's Delwood, Inc. v. James · filed 2020-10-21(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, and, in the absence of a likelihood of success on any federal claims, declines to ... entertain the state-law claims in the context of Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims once the federal claims have been dismissed.

Ohle v. Napoleon · filed 2020-10-30(a)

Moreover, having dispensed with the plaintiffs’ federal causes of action, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (reserving federal supplemental jurisdiction to “civil action[s] of which the district courts have original jurisdiction”).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over complex state claims and remand them while retaining the federal claim.

Maynarich v. Alta Equipment Holdings, Inc. · filed 2020-10-30(c)(1)

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction where “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of [s]tate law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). ... Plaintiff’s state claims are complex and distinct from her FMLA claim. ... The court will retain Plaintiff’s FMLA claim but remand Plaintiff’s state claims.

Section 1367 allows a federal court to hear a related state-law claim when it has jurisdiction over a claim in the same case or controversy; it does not support the state-law claim here after all federal claims fail to state a claim.

Gove v. Sargento Foods Inc · filed 2020-11-25(a)

A federal court cannot hear and decide a state-law claim unless the lawsuit is between parties from different states and involves a claim for $75,000 or more in damages, 28 U.S.C. §1332, or unless the state law claim is “so related to claims in the action” over which the court has jurisdiction “that they form part of the same case or controversy,” 28 U.S.C. §1367. Both the plaintiff and Sargento are citizens of Wisconsin ... and because the plaintiff has not stated any federal claims upon which the court can grant relief, it cannot consider the state-law claim using its supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to avoid jury confusion.

Berry v. Detroit · filed 2020-11-25(c)(4)

Since the parties to this matter are non-diverse, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims so as to avoid jury confusion.

Section 1367 permits related state law claims to proceed with viable federal claims at initial review.

White v. Brown · filed 2020-12-04

If there are no facially plausible federal law claims against any of the named defendants, then the Court would likely decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Accordingly, because this ruling allows the federal law claims to proceed against Officers Brown and Lu, it likewise allows the related state law claims to proceed against these two defendants as well.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim at the screening stage while a federal claim proceeds.

Dotson v. Faulkner · filed 2020-12-08(c)

At this stage, the court exercises supplemental judgment over the state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c); Bailey v. City of Chicago, 779 F.3d 689, 696 (7th Cir. 2015).

Section 1367(c) does not require dismissal of a supplemental state-law claim when the related federal claim survives a motion to dismiss.

Holbert v. Cimarron County Sheriff's Department · filed 2021-01-12(c)

Because the Court denied Sheriff Apple’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against him, the Court declines to dismiss Plaintiff’s Oklahoma Open Records Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the plaintiff has a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Salazar v. Clark · filed 2021-01-15(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims while federal claims remain.

MCQUAY v. STATE OF INDIANA (I.D.O.C.) · filed 2021-01-29(a)

But because some of Plaintiffs' federal claims remain, the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state claim raises a novel question of state law that is better resolved by the state courts.

Starkey v. Amber Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2021-02-04(c)(1)

When a claim raises novel issues of state law, we have determined that it is better to let the state courts decide the matter.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that substantially predominate over a remaining federal claim.

Dunbar v. Hammans · filed 2021-03-25(c)(2)

In short, the court adopts the Report with two clarifications: all state-law claims are dismissed because the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) (state-law claims substantially predominate), and no state-law claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Section 1367 permits related state-law contract claims to be heard with an ERISA claim and allows the court to continue hearing them if the ERISA claim fails.

Technibilt, Ltd. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina · filed 2021-03-25

... contract claims could be asserted in this action within the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and could be continued even if the Court were to rule in Blue Cross’ favor on Plaintiffs’ ERISA claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim, subject to the court’s discretion to decline jurisdiction under subsection (c).

Lara-Grimaldi v. County of Putnam · filed 2021-03-29

As a result, the Court would have supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and could decline such jurisdiction only within its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal claim remains or the state law claims are substantially broader than any remaining federal claim.

McEwen v. Benedict · filed 2021-04-16(c)

Here, only three out of the seventeen claims are federal claims. As set forth above, at this time, the Complaint does not state any federal claims. Even if Plaintiffs are able to amend to state TILA or HOEPA claims for recission on the 2019 Note, any alleged violations under TILA or HOEPA relate to a much narrower set of facts than the activities alleged in the state law claims. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES SUPPLEMENTAL JUSISDICTION as to the remaining state law claims against all defendants.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are part of the same controversy as a surviving federal claim.

McLinn v. Thomas County Sheriff's Department · filed 2021-04-26(a)

The court has denied the motions to dismiss the § 1983 claim, however, and finds supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is properly exercised. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (where federal court has original jurisdiction over one claim, it has supplemental jurisdiction over other claims that are part of the same controversy).

Section 1367 permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the plaintiff also raises a federal claim, and the court may decline that jurisdiction when the federal claim fails to state a claim.

JOHNSON v. WARDEN OF CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2021-04-27(a)

A federal court, at its discretion, may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the plaintiff has also raised a related claim under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law assault-and-battery claim accompanying an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim.

Sims v. Gernetzke · filed 2021-07-20(a)

At this early stage, the court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) and will allow the plaintiff to proceed on a state law claim of assault and battery against Gernetzke and Roeber.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim against a defendant when related federal claims against that defendant are proceeding.

Jones v. Rodi · filed 2021-07-30(a)

As for Mr. Jones’s libel claim, because the First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to mental health needs claims are proceeding against LPC Rodi, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Jones’s state law claim of libel to the extent that the claims are asserted against LPC Rodi in her individual capacity.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that presents an unsettled question of state law.

Wirth v. The City of Rochester, New York · filed 2021-07-30(c)(1)

In light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, and in light of the lack of clear guidance in New York case law on the viability of a distinct claim under New York Civil Rights Law § 11, “the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims for violation of New York Civil Rights Law § 11.” See Buttaro v. Affiliated Comput. Servs., Inc., No. CV 14-353 (LDW) (SIL), 2016 WL 8711058, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2016).

Section 1367(a) supplies supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim joined with a federal ADA claim, subject to the court’s authority under subsection (c) to decline it.

Kim v. 2540 Hyperion LLC · filed 2021-08-19(a)

The sole basis for jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim is supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the remaining claims raise novel state law issues.

Bar K Ranch, LLC v. United States of America · filed 2021-08-19(c)(1), (c)(3)

The only remaining state-law issues involve either novel issues (e.g., whether a private plaintiff can bring a suit on behalf of a county regarding a county road within that county), issues political in nature (e.g., whether a private plaintiff can litigate the level of road maintenance that a county must perform), or issues that strongly affects state public policy (e.g., possible construction and redirection of roads through wildlife management areas). These issues remain better suited for resolution by a state district court and the Montana Supreme Court. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims predominate after the federal claim is dismissed.

Stephenson v. Midland Credit Management · filed 2021-08-23(c)(2)

With the dismissal of the First Cause of Action, state law causes of action now predominate in the Complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), pendent jurisdiction will not be exercised over the Defendants and over the causes of action in which they are named.

A court may defer addressing supplemental state law claims when the plaintiff has not yet presented a viable federal claim.

Abing v. Evers · filed 2021-08-30(a)

Because the Court’s jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims against Defendants in their individual capacities (except for claims against the Judge Defendants, which are all dismissed with prejudice, see supra Section III.C.3) is supplemental, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and Plaintiffs have yet to present a viable federal claim, the Court declines to address the remaining state law claims at this time.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

Nelson v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri · filed 2021-09-27(c)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises a novel or complex issue of State law. The undersigned agrees with Judges Perry, Noce and Autrey that supplemental jurisdiction should be declined with regard to this novel and complex issue of State law.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises novel and complex issues of state law.

Thomas v. City of St. Louis · filed 2021-10-07(c)(1)

Three judges in this District recently declined to consider this claim, finding it raises novel and complex issues of statutory construction and conflicts of law that would be more appropriately resolved first by Missouri state courts. Davis, 2021 WL 4148331, at *11; Newbold, 2021 WL 4061066, at *11; Ortega, 2021 WL 3286703, at *19; Street, 2021 WL 677909, at *13-14. This Court agrees and likewise declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

Holley v. Cook · filed 2021-11-15(c)(1)

Accordingly, the Court will not reinstate Holley’s Article First, section 9 claim because it raises new and undeveloped issues of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” that “raises a novel or complex issue of State Law....”).

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

Raskin v. Dallas Independent School District · filed 2021-11-17(c)

The court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), dismisses without prejudice these claims (Counts V through VII).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that does not meaningfully relate to the only remaining federal claim.

Richards v. Department of Building Inspection of The City and County of San Francisco · filed 2021-11-19(c)

Since the only remaining federal claim does not meaningfully relate to the alleged trespass, the Court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over that state-law claim.

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

Javier v. Russo · filed 2021-11-22(c)

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

Section 1367 allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state negligence claims when no corresponding federal claim survives against the employees whose alleged negligence caused the injury.

Crittington v. McFadden · filed 2021-11-22

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s related negligence claims, as a failure to protect claim has not passed initial review against any Sheriff’s Office employee Defendant whose alleged negligence injured the Plaintiff.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when it has original jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Quezada v. U.S. Wings, Inc. · filed 2021-12-07(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a related state-law claim to be reinstated when a federal claim is revived on appeal.

De Rossitte v. Correct Care Solutions, Inc. · filed 2022-01-10(a)

Because there is now a federal question, we also reinstate the medical malpractice claim on remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(3)–(4) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when federal policy and judicial economy do not favor retaining them.

Jackson v. Hall · filed 2022-01-10(c)(3)–(4)

The Court finds that there are no remaining underlying issues of federal policy and judicial economy will not be served by keeping this action in federal court. Accordingly, the Court adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)–(4).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the remaining claims raise novel state law issues and predominate.

Spell v. Edwards · filed 2022-01-12(c)

Here, all factors favor dismissing Plaintiffs state law claims. These remaining claims raise novel issues of Louisiana law—specifically whether the Louisiana Constitution protects Plaintiffs from the Governor’s crowd-size limits—and obviously predominate over the nonexistent federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that raises novel or complex issues of state law.

Divine Grace Yoga Ashram Incorporated v. Yavapai, County of · filed 2022-01-31(c)(1)

Because FERA’s land use claims represent a novel and complex area of Arizona law, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 2 and dismiss it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.