28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Harris v. Malone · filed 2022-02-09(c)

But when, as here, a federal court’s jurisdiction is based on the existence of a federal question in the complaint, the federal court can decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). This Court elected to do just that.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss state law claims without prejudice when the federal claims have been dismissed and the remaining claims involve difficult state law issues or a related pending state proceeding.

BWW Inc v. Brigham · filed 2022-02-11(c)

The court feels particularly encouraged to dismiss the state claims here because they likely turn on thorny issues of Alabama law, such as state- agent immunity. These state law issues are best left for state courts to decide. See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726– 27 (1966) (“Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well. Similarly, 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.”). Plus, ServPro has a pending claim before the Alabama Board of Adjustment that ServPro asked the Board to hold until this court resolved this case. (Doc. 27 at 9-15). Refusing to exercise jurisdiction over ServPro’s state law claims will thus hasten the Board’s decision on ServPro’s contract claim against JSU. So the court will dismiss ServPro’s state law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Stingley v. Yamahiro · filed 2022-03-01(c)(3)

Plaintiff has not clearly pled such a claim, and, in any case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when they raise novel state-law issues, substantially predominate over federal claims, and all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Rover Pipeline LLC v. Zwick · filed 2022-03-24(c)

This Court finds that three of these four factors support declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Furthermore, and as significantly, the state law claims here “substantially predominate” over Plaintiff’s federal law claims. ... Finally, and most significantly, this Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Given this final factor particularly, this Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Blades of Green, Inc. v. Go Green Lawn and Pest LLC · filed 2022-04-18

Although federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims even after dismissing all federal claims, Hall v. Greystar Mgmt. Servs., L.P., 179 F. Supp. 3d 534, 537 (D. Md. 2016), that inquiry is not before this Court in light of its determination that BOG has adequately pleaded a claim under the DTSA. This Court’s continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is entirely appropriate.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims would substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction, after considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

United States v. ONE BOYERTOWN PROPERTIES LP · filed 2022-05-24(c)(2)

The Architect’s Crossclaims and Third-Party Complaint would inject into this case state law claims that would substantially predominate over the claims within this Court’s original jurisdiction. The principles of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants would not be served by accepting jurisdiction over these claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Architect’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

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

Reed v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · filed 2022-06-14(c)(1)

The Court declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Reed, Goetz, Spaulding, and Wharton’s claim two pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and this claim is hereby remanded to the Dyer County Chancery Court.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but a court may decline to address those claims when the plaintiff has not stated a cognizable federal claim.

Shultz v. Kern County · filed 2022-06-15

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

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when the related federal claims proceed.

PUMBA v. KOWAL · filed 2022-07-18(a)

Because Pumba has stated a plausible state-law negligence claim against Sergeant Kowal and because his federal claims are proceeding to service, the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law negligence claim.

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

Shultz v. Kern County · filed 2022-08-01(c)(3)

As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, it will be recommended that the Court decline jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and that those claims be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Naughton v. Gutcheon · filed 2022-08-24(c)

The remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

C.B. v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, District 299 · filed 2022-08-26(a)

The Court has not dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, so it retains supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ ISSRA state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss related state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing their federal counterpart when the remaining federal claims involve distinct facts and defendants.

Stewart, Steven v. Doehling · filed 2022-08-31(c)(3)

But I conclude that Stewart’s state-law claims against Tjardes and Kuchinski are not so closely related to the remaining federal claims that they must be tried together. The federal claims are against a different set of defendants and are based on a different set of facts than the claims against Tjardes and Kuchinski. ... I will dismiss Stewart’s state-law claims against Tjardes and Kuchinski without prejudice to him refiling them in state court.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim when comity and judicial economy favor dismissal.

Olmetti v. Kent, County of · filed 2022-09-03(c)(3)

Both comity and judicial economy favor dismissing the remaining negligence claim to avoid needlessly deciding a state-law claim.

Section 1367(a) permits continued supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the federal claims survive summary judgment.

River Light V, L.P. v. Olem Shoe Corp. · filed 2022-09-27(a)

As the federal trade dress and trademark claims survive, the Court continues to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants facing surviving federal claims.

Armstrong v. McDonnell · filed 2022-09-29

In contrast, because the § 1983 fabrication-of-evidence claims survive against Sherriff’s Deputies Roedel and Caridei, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdic- tion over the state law claims against Roedel and Caridei, as well as the indemnifi- cation claim against Cook County as their employer.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law medical malpractice claims that involve complex state-law issues, including administrative panel review.

Smith v. Prator · filed 2022-09-30(c)(1)

These claims therefore involve complex issues of state law, including review by an administrative panel. Thus, judicial economy favors the dismissal of these claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law discrimination claim when the court has jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s Title VII claims.

Miller v. Johnson · filed 2022-10-11(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law discrimination claim (NRS 613) because she has demonstrated that the Court has jurisdiction over her Title VII claims.

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

Cease v. Henry · filed 2022-11-30(c)(3)

When only state law claims remain after the dismissal of claims that were the basis for federal jurisdiction, a court has discretion to dismiss the case entirely or to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. ... There is no good reason for this Court to retain jurisdiction over any possible remaining state court claim when there is no remaining claim triggering federal jurisdiction.

A court may continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal claims remain pending and the relevant considerations favor retaining them.

Ross 418024 v. Miller · filed 2022-12-01(c)

Here, because Plaintiff continues to have federal claims pending in this case, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs toward the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will not be dismissed at this stage in the proceedings.

Section 1367 gives a court discretion to retain a state-law claim when federal claims against the same defendant remain.

Johnson 633140 v. Austin-Olmos · filed 2022-12-07(c)

Because Plaintiff continues to have federal claims against Defendant Houghton, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim against Defendant Houghton.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with a novel state-law question weighing against retention.

Clark v. Whaley · filed 2023-01-05(c)

In addition, a district court should consider whether the pendent state claim involves a novel or difficult question of state law. ... Accordingly, this Court leaves the matter to be decided in the Ohio courts.

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

Mora-Contreras v. Washington County · filed 2023-01-23(c)

Plaintiff also alleges claims arising under the Oregon Constitution. This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the action also contains federal § 1983 claims.

Daker v. Chief Legal Affairs Officer, Valdosta State University · filed 2023-03-02(a)

Given that Daker brought § 1983 claims, which did arise under federal law, the district court had discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Daker’s state-law claims.

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

Thomas v. Culclager · filed 2023-03-13(c)(1)

Section 1367(c)(1)—the presence of “a novel or complex issue of State law”—is particularly important here. ... Ms. Thomas’s battery and false-imprisonment claims raise complex state-law issues. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the battery and false-imprisonment claims.

Section 1367(c) does not require a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when only state-law claims remain.

Bondick v. City of Eugene Police · filed 2023-04-17(c)

The Court is not obligated to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over only state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as federal claims.

Stakey v. Deputy Kyle O'Brien · filed 2023-05-03(a)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Pearsall v. Kucharczyk · filed 2023-05-18(c)

To the extent the Amended Complaint pleads state common law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when some federal claims survive PLRA screening.

Washington v. State of Tennessee, The · filed 2023-05-25(a)

Because some of Plaintiffs federal claims survive the required PLRA screening, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's state law claims against Kendra and Campbell in their individual capacities.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that raise complex, unsettled questions of state law.

Kenneth P. Silverman, Esq., The Chapter 7 Trustee v. 741 Dyslexington LLC · filed 2023-07-26(c)(1)

Thus, consistent with Dreier, the Court finds that even if the factual circumstances here were sufficient to enable it to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party claims, it would not be appropriate to rule on these complex questions without the benefit of New York courts’ prior consideration of them. Therefore, to the extent that the Court may avail itself of supplemental jurisdiction, it declines to do so.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims were dismissed while retaining state law claims against defendants with pending federal claims.

Smith 620214 v. Wrigglesworth · filed 2023-07-31(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Wrigglesworth, Book, and Nemeth, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against those individuals. Such claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring those claims in state court. Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Southworth, Daenzer, Earle, Wallen, Thrasher, Vail, Shoyinka, Zurek, Wilson, Viher, Tyler, and Dormer, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against them.

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

Washington v. Paca · filed 2023-08-17(c)(3)

Thus, at this time, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of supplemental state law claims to the district court’s discretion, guided by judicial economy, avoiding multiple suits, and avoiding unnecessary decisions of state law.

Gardette 247479 v. Washington · filed 2023-08-29(c)

Furthermore, as to Plaintiff’s state law claims, in determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues.” Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims accompanying an ADA claim.

Ghadiri v. Apex Marble · filed 2023-10-18(a)

The court observes that it possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits a district court hearing a federal claim to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state negligence claims, which the court may decline to accept while a state tort pleading requirement remains unmet.

Ward v. Pascual · filed 2023-10-25(a)

Because the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim and will provide leave to amend for his Eighth Amendment failure to provide medical care claim, it has discretion to accept supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims for negligence. ... Accordingly, the Court will not at this time accept supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law tort claims and they are dismissed without prejudice to plead compliance with the California Torts Claims Act.

Section 1367(a) supplies supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims accompanying a federal claim.

Garcia v. Freeman · filed 2023-10-23(a)

As the Unruh Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the California Health & Safety Code, and the negligence claims are all pursuant to state law, as opposed to a federal law, the Court would only possess supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Washington v. Paterson · filed 2023-11-06(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and she cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will enter judgment dismissing the action, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 does not give a federal court jurisdiction over a state law tort claim when there is no plausible federal claim within its original jurisdiction.

SMITH v. MERCER COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2023-11-08

To the extent that Plaintiff may have intended to raise a state law negligence claim or some other state law tort claim, this Court would lack jurisdiction to consider such a claim in the absence of a plausible federal claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims when the plaintiff fails to plead compliance with the California Tort Claims Act.

(PC) Roots v. Cherian · filed 2023-11-27(c)

Furthermore, this court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law tort claims because plaintiff does not allege compliance with the California Tort Claims Act.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Cox v. Silver Lake Partnership LLC · filed 2023-11-29(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Lazos v. Zmuda · filed 2023-12-20(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(a) permits a federal court with federal-question jurisdiction to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims brought in the same action.

Sawyers v. McMahon · filed 2023-12-21(a)

Federal courts exercising federal question jurisdiction may properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims brought in the same action, such as plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that raise novel or complex state law issues or when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

City of Hammond v. Lake County Judicial Nominating Commission · filed 2024-01-04(c)(1), (c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(1) and (3), I may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state constitutional claims ... because they raise novel or complex issues of State law, and because I am dismissing all claims over which I had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants when no viable federal claim remains against them and diversity jurisdiction appears lacking.

Allen v. Baker · filed 2024-01-23

In the absence of a viable claim under federal law against the Supervisor Defendants, and the apparent lack of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over any potential claim against the Supervisor Defendants under state law such as negligence.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after its only federal claim becomes moot, and subsection (c)(4) permits it in exceptional circumstances when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor dismissal.

Hendrik Block v. 7-Eleven, Inc · filed 2024-01-29(c)(3), (c)(4)

Thus, the Court finds it is both within its discretion and proper to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under both § 1367(c)(3) and § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are resolved, particularly when substantial state-law questions favor resolution in state court.

Jakuttis v. Town of Dracut · filed 2024-03-07

As we will explain, we conclude that the prudent course is for us to exercise our discretion to remand these claims to the District Court so that the District Court may then exercise its discretion to remand them to state court, as there is federal-court jurisdiction over the claims solely as a matter of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to hear Illinois Human Rights Act claims through supplemental jurisdiction, even after the state agency dismisses the charge.

Clark v. Olin Corporation Winchester · filed 2024-03-20

Here, with respect to the exhaustion of her administrative remedies for Count III, at least with respect to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, the Court agrees with Plaintiff. “[T]he overwhelming majority of district courts within this Circuit…have concluded that federal courts do have subject matter jurisdiction over IHRA claims based on supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.” De v. City of Chicago, 912 F. Supp. 2d 709, 731-32 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (collecting cases). Contrary to Defendant’s argument, Plaintiff was not limited to a review by the IHRC or a civil action in Illinois. See id.; see also 775 ILCS 5/7A-102(C)(4); (Doc. 60, pg. 12). Rather, Plaintiff could properly amend the operative complaint in this case.

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

Velasquez v. City of Wilkes-Barre · filed 2024-03-28(a)

Therefore, this court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged in the complaint.

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of state law claims to the district court’s discretion, informed by judicial economy, avoidance of multiple suits, and the need to avoid unnecessary state law decisions.

Durr 614438 v. Vanderwiel · filed 2024-04-01(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Here, any intended state law claims are unrelated to Plaintiff’s federal retaliation claims, which remain in the case. The balance of the relevant considerations therefore weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Accordingly, any intended state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring those claims in the state courts.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit discretionary dismissal of state law claims over which the court has original diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Oberlander v. Coinbase Global Inc. · filed 2024-04-05(c)(3)

Finally, with respect to the state law claims, the district court erred in dismissing those claims under the discretionary doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The amended complaint does not invoke supplemental jurisdiction for the state law claims, but rather properly pled original diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over closely related state law claims against a state.

Alba v. Arizona, State of · filed 2024-04-09(c)(3)

The Court may, however, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over closely related state law claims against the State.

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

Phillips v. Russ · filed 2024-04-29(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(a) permits a district court with original jurisdiction over an action to retain its state law claims rather than sever and remand them.

Sharma v. Hsi Asset Loan Obligation Trust 2007-1 · filed 2024-04-30(a)

The district court properly denied the Sharmas’ request to remand the action or to sever and remand the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, but the court must indicate that it exercised that discretion.

Doscher v. Kroger Co. · filed 2024-07-10(c)(3)

While a district court “‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ over remaining state law claims,”6 the district court did not indicate that it was exercising that discretion here. We thus reverse the dismissal of Doscher’s Washington claims and remand to give the court an opportunity to do so.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed while retaining it for claims against defendants whose federal claims remain.

Grossman 621120 v. Federea · filed 2024-07-22(c)

Here, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Ritter and Normington, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims against those individuals and will dismiss those claims without prejudice. However, because Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendants Federea and Battle remain pending, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims against those individuals.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims survive and no novel state law issue warrants declining jurisdiction.

Barbuto v. Syracuse University · filed 2024-07-24(c)

As discussed, supra, all but one of Mr. Barbuto’s federal claims survive this motion to dismiss. Further, plaintiff’s state law claims do not pose novel issues of state law that might otherwise direct the Court to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 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. Captain Hughes · filed 2024-08-07(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(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when federal claims against some defendants proceed.

Gatlin v. Contra Costa County · filed 2024-08-16(a)

Given that some federal claims will proceed against some County defendants and some VMRC defendants, the Court finds supplemental jurisdiction exists over the remaining state law claims, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(1) and (c)(4) permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over California writ of mandate claims when state-law, federalism, and comity concerns warrant it.

Patel v. City of Stanton · filed 2024-08-26(c)(1), (c)(4)

Therefore, the Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ writ relief claims under 28 U.S.C. sections 1367(c)(1) and (c)(4).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, including when those claims raise unresolved issues of state law.

Hawatmeh v. City of Henderson · filed 2024-09-18(c)

Because I once again dismiss all of the Hawatmehs’ federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). I incorporate my prior analysis and find that the state law claims raise unresolved issues of state law that are best determined by Nevada courts.

Section 1367 gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims accompanying federal claims.

Bement v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2024-09-30

Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Northern District of Illinois has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FCRA claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when only state law claims remain after the claims within its original jurisdiction are removed by amendment.

Montgomery v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2024-10-01(c)(3)

Because the First Amended Complaint contains only state law claims, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after resolving the related federal claim against the same defendants.

Peavy v. CoreCivic, Inc. · filed 2024-10-09(c)

Plaintiffs’ state law tort claim (Count III) and derivative claim for attorney’s fees (Count IV) as against these same Defendants are dismissed without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a novel state law claim after weighing judicial economy and the burden of deciding the state law issue.

Thompson v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government · filed 2024-10-24(c)(1)

Without any “overwhelming issues of judicial economy,” and given the novel nature of the state law claims, this court is well within the bounds of its discretion to decline to hear Count II based on supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Pascual v. Suffolk County · filed 2024-12-09(c)(3)

Here, given the Court’s dismissal or stay of all Pascual’s federal claims, the Court declines at this time to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over any potential state law claims that may be liberally construed from the Complaint.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice to filing in state court.

Cuevas v. Feghali Foods · filed 2025-02-14(c)(4)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims arising under state law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); and ... Plaintiff's Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff's filing of these claims in state court.

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

Holley v. Tripp · filed 2025-02-19(c)(1)

A district court is within its discretion to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction where the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(a) supplies jurisdiction over related state-law claims, so those claims cannot be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Pintaro v. Granada · filed 2025-02-21(a)

Because the Court has jurisdiction over any such claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), dismissing them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction would be inappropriate.

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. Barlow · filed 2025-03-04(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 at this time.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims alongside federal claims, including at the pleading stage.

Troka v. McCown · filed 2025-03-10

Mr. Troka contends that the Court has discretion to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and the Court determines that, at this stage of the proceedings, it will assume supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Troka’s state law defamation claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (c)(4) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over California writ of mandate claims for reasons of federalism and comity.

Patel v. City of Stanton · filed 2025-05-19(c)(1), (c)(4)

Therefore, the Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ writ relief claims under 28 U.S.C. sections 1367(c)(1) and (c)(4).

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the federal claims are reinstated.

Desmond Mills v. Precythe · filed 2025-05-29(a)

We also reinstate the state-law claims against Resz and the Jane Roe nurse, over which the district court now has supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law negligence claims accompanying federal constitutional claims.

Guerrero-Pesca v. Studzinski · filed 2025-06-05(a)

The court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims that the defendants’ actions amount to negligence.

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

Lepp v. Mallett · filed 2025-06-09(c)(3)

Since all the federal law claims in the proposed amended complaint are futile, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the proposed state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when there is no basis to decline it.

Serpik Family v. Webb · filed 2025-06-20

Plaintiff’s Motion [Doc. No. 19] seeking to remand the state law claims for lack of jurisdiction is denied, as this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and there is no basis to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law conversion claims alongside federal claims.

Criswell v. Tredway · filed 2025-06-25(a)

Finally, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over ... Criswell’s state law claims of conversion against Officer Tredway. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Those proceed, too.

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

Manzini v. Cypress · filed 2025-07-23(a)

Given the presence of federal question jurisdiction under IGRA, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over Plaintiff’s interrelated (but improperly commingled) state-law claims in Count I of the Amended Complaint.

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

Mitchell v. Maldonado · filed 2025-07-25(c)(1)

Further, to the extent Plaintiff seeks monetary damages under Article First, §§ 8, 9, and 20, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because they raise novel questions of state law.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing federal claims without undoing its earlier exercise of jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim.

Altman v. Lento · filed 2025-08-27(c)(3)

Critically, this decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lento’s state-law claims could not—and did not—strip the district court of its prior authority to adjudicate Altman’s compulsory counterclaim.

Section 1367 gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims when the complaint raises a federal question.

Waba v. Amazon.com Services, LLC · filed 2025-08-28

And, as Waba correctly averred, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Randolph v. Hepp · filed 2025-09-16(c)(3)

But because the complaint does not state a federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any putative claims arising under state law. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the federal claims are reinstated.

St. Clair v. County of Okanogan · filed 2025-09-23(a)

Because we reverse the dismissal of St. Clair’s federal claims, the district court can appropriately exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, and the dismissal of those claims should likewise be reversed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits state law claims to proceed with federal claims when they derive from the same facts.

Kelley v. Henzmann · filed 2025-09-29(a)

Because Counts 3 and 4 derive from the same facts as Kelley’s federal claims, the state law claims will also proceed in this case.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants after resolving all federal claims against them.

Wright v. Quiros · filed 2025-09-30(c)

Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims for recklessness against District Administrator Rodriguez, Warden Guadarrama, and Food Service Supervisor Wilcox pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal claims are subject to dismissal.

Zesiger v. Leavenworth County, Kansas · filed 2025-10-02(c)(3)

The Court, in its discretion, therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims alongside the federal claims in this case.

Sharp · filed 2025-10-16(a)

Instead, the Court has federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff has alleged claims under Title VII and ADA and has supplemental jurisdiction for claims under the MFEPA and common law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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.

Schemel · filed 2025-10-17(c)(1)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims, which “raise[] novel or complex issue[s] of State law.”

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

Kononen · filed 2025-10-20(c)(1)

Whether a home is maintained in a habitable condition is a complex issue of state law. ... Thus, considering the unique state law issues, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ORLTA claims.

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

Zesiger · filed 2025-10-21(c)(3)

The Court, in its discretion, therefore declines 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 federal claims have been dismissed.

Cannady v. Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. · filed 2025-10-22(c)(3)

And because the court does not grant leave to amend the complaint with these additional federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any proposed state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that derive from the same nucleus of operative fact as federal claims.

McClure · filed 2025-10-30(a)

Accordingly, the Court can (and does) exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Section 1367(a) allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when a federal claim remains in the case.

Alvarez · filed 2026-01-23(a)

Because the Court declines to dismiss Plaintiffs’ FLSA claim, it can and will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after resolving the federal claims.

Salaman · filed 2026-01-29(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff is asserting any state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and the Court dismisses any such claims without prejudice.

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

Stakey · filed 2026-02-04(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(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims accompanying a federal claim in a removed case.

Pigee · filed 2026-02-09(a)

Additionally, Defendant argues that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Id. Plaintiff seeks remand back to state court arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction and therefore remand is mandatory. See generally ECF No. 9. The Court disagrees. Defendant properly asserts federal question and supplemental jurisdiction, and the Court finds them applicable to support removal.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim arising from the same transaction or occurrence as a cognizable federal claim.

Roberts · filed 2026-03-09(a)

Further, Plaintiff’s slander claim must also be dismissed. ... A state law claim may only proceed in federal court if the claim is supplemental to a cognizable federal claim, 18 or if the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the ... case.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law medical malpractice claim related to a federal deliberate indifference claim that proceeds to service.

Crenshaw · filed 2026-04-24(a)

Because I have permitted Crenshaw’s deliberate indifference claim related to his respiratory illness to proceed to service, I will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Crenshaw’s state-law medical malpractice claim and permit that claim (as it relates to the respiratory illness only) to proceed to service against Dr. Estime.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims raise novel issues and substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Palmer v. Virginia High School League · filed 2026-05-27(c)(1), (c)(2)

Because these claims raise novel questions of Virginia state law and the claims substantially predominate over the Equal Protection claim, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims against those defendants fail.

Wright · filed 2026-06-01(c)(3)

The Court will therefore relinquish jurisdiction over the state-law claims against them.

Section 1367 supports jurisdiction over a state law claim when a related federal claim remains in the case.

Hunter v. Estee · filed 2010-01-29

The State also agrees that because of the Federal retaliation claim the district court should not have dismissed Hunter’s state law claim for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Green v. City of St. Louis · filed 2022-01-31(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 and Autrey that supplemental jurisdiction should be declined with regard to this novel and complex issue of State law.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state-law claims without prejudice when they substantially predominate over the remaining federal claims.

Moon v. Boyd · filed 2024-03-28(c)(2)

As Missouri state court is the best venue for evaluation of Plaintiff’s claims based on Missouri state law, and Plaintiff currently has a pending state-court action on these claims against the only remaining defendant, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice for Plaintiff to continue to pursue them in state court.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Inserra v. Nedeau · filed 1996-01-31(a)

Therefore, notwithstanding defendants' contentions, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction even when the parties to the federal and supplemental claims differ, if the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.

Tamiami Partners, Ltd. Ex Rel. Tamiami Development Corp. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians · filed 1999-06-07(a)

In addition, it is clear from section 1367 itself that the parties to the federal and supplemental claims need not be identical in order for supplemental jurisdiction to lie.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims against an additional party even after the federal claim against that party is dismissed, where a federal claim against another party remains.

Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc. · filed 2000-03-27(a)

Accordingly, I am persuaded that despite dismissal of the TILA claim against CFC, this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims against CFC.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim against an additional party when it arises from the same set of facts as an anchoring federal question claim.

Docket No. 99-9173 August Term, 1999 · filed 2000-09-26(a)

We have previously observed that 28 U.S.C.§ 1367(a) responds to the Supreme Court's decision in Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989) and thereby makes pendent party jurisdiction possible where the claim in question arises out of the same set of facts that give rise to an anchoring federal question claim against another party. ... As a result, the umbrella of pendent jurisdiction does not extend to cover Kirschner's state law claims against Goldman, and the claims were properly dismissed.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim by an additional plaintiff arising from the same search and seizure as the federal claims.

Golden Day Schools, Inc. v. Pirillo · filed 2000-10-27(a)

The Court agrees that it has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) to hear Little’s claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims involving additional parties in federal-question cases.

Federal Trade Commission v. Crescent Publishing Group, Inc. · filed 2001-01-24(a)

One purpose of Section 1367 was "to make it clear that in federal-question cases pendent-party jurisdiction is permissible.”

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction over related claims to claims involving additional parties, subject to the exceptions in subsections (b) and (c).

Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp. · filed 2001-05-24(a)

With the enactment of Section 1367, Congress eliminated the pendent-party restriction established in Finley. Henceforth, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of Section 1367, the broad test of United Mine Workers v. Gibbs for supplemental-claim jurisdiction would apply as well to supplemental-party jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against additional defendants when those claims share a common nucleus of operative fact with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Federal Trade Commission v. First Alliance Mortgage Co. (In Re First Alliance Mortgage Co.) · filed 2001-10-16(a)

The claims against First Alliance here and the claims against Individual Defendants in the State Court Actions derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. Plaintiffs in this case, just like the plaintiffs in the State Court Actions allege that First Alliance engaged in a number of predatory lending activities in violation of state and federal laws. Because the present case is properly before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 1334(a) (bankruptcy), the Court has the authority to exercise jurisdiction over the claims against the Individual Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim against an additional party when it arises from the same event or connected series of events as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Woodruff v. United States · filed 2002-01-23(a)

Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs invocation of supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(a) is appropriate and the court is authorized to exercise pendent party jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim against Covington.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims against additional parties when they share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims within admiralty jurisdiction.

Orient Overseas Container Line v. John T. Clark & Sons of Boston, Inc. · filed 2002-10-23(a)

Although not cognizable in admiralty, this court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the indemnity and contribution claims against Norway under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (“section 1367”).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim against an additional party when that claim arises from the same factual allegations as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Davis v. UPS et al. · filed 2003-05-16(a)

Because Davis’ claims against UPS and Griffin arise from the same factual allegations, I deny Griffin’s request and retain jurisdiction over Davis’ claim against Griffin.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims involving additional plaintiffs as well as additional defendants.

Jackson v. City of San Antonio · filed 2003-12-03(a)

The current wording of section 1367 provides for this court’s supplemental jurisdiction over “additional parties” without reference to whether those parties are plaintiffs or defendants.

Section 1367 presumptively grants jurisdiction over related state claims, limits when a federal court may decline it, and includes claims involving additional parties.

Mancuso v. Kinchla · filed 2004-03-03(a), (c)

In that statute, Congress not only created a strong presumption in favor of the adjudication of all related State claims in Federal court, by the juxtaposition of § 1367(a) (granting such jurisdiction in mandatory terms) and § 1367(c) (subjecting the Federal District Court judge’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to relatively strict standards), but also explicitly provided that supplemental jurisdiction “shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (1993).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims, including claims by additional parties, when they share a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Biton v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority · filed 2004-03-18(a)

Section 1367(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code extends to federal district courts supplemental jurisdiction over “claims that are so related to claims in the action within ... original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... In this case, Ms. Biton has advanced a federal cause of action under the ATA over which this Court has original jurisdiction. All of the plaintiffs’ claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” — i.e., the bus bombing in the Gaza Strip.

Section 1367(a) permits joinder of state claims with federal claims where appropriate but does not authorize using supplemental jurisdiction to bring an opt-out state-law class into an FLSA collective action.

McClain v. Leona's Pizzeria, Inc. · filed 2004-07-30(a)

In other words, while Section 1367(a) allows parties to join their state claims to federal claims where appropriate, it does not contemplate a plaintiff using supplemental jurisdiction as a rake to drag as many members as possible into what would otherwise be a federal collective action.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a party’s state and local claims when another party’s federal claims supply original jurisdiction over the action and the claims arise from the same facts, even if the first party’s federal claims are time-barred.

Smith v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2004-11-12(a)

Because this court has original jurisdiction over the United States’ ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, I have supplemental jurisdiction over Smith’s state and local claims even though his federal claims are time-barred and the parties are not diverse.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim brought by an intervenor as of right in a federal question case without an independent jurisdictional basis.

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

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over Mountview’s restrictive covenant claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a party’s state law claim that is sufficiently related to another party’s federal claim, even when that party has no viable federal claim.

Haywood v. Chicago Housing Authority · filed 2016-09-28(a)

McAllister’s and Walton’s contract claims are so related to their four co-plaintiffs’ Brooke Amendment claims that supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims brought by an additional party when they share a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim under the court’s original jurisdiction.

Wolfe v. Columbia College · filed 2021-07-06(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction can include claims brought by additional parties.

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to claims involving the joinder or intervention of additional parties.

FERNANDEZ v. BOROUGH OF ROSELAND · filed 2021-09-02(a)

Finally, this argument runs directly counter to the express statutory provision that “supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims even when they involve additional parties.

Markovic v. Milos HY, Inc. · filed 2023-07-26(a)

District courts can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that involve “the same case or controversy,” and such claims can involve “the joinder or intervention of additional parties.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims against an additional party even when no federal claim is brought against that party.

Asset Co IM Rest, LLC v. Katzoff · filed 2025-03-26(a)

Because supplemental jurisdiction exists over the related state law claims, it is proper to join IM-I as an additional party.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim by an additional party when the claim is sufficiently related to a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Rowell Chemical Corporation v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 710 · filed 2025-07-11(a)

But since § 1367’s enactment, district courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction “over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action” over which they have original jurisdiction “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution . . . includ[ing] claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Nor is there any real dispute that the alleged assault and battery, which took place during the strike, bears sufficient factual relation to the events at issue in Count I to confer supplemental jurisdiction, as even the union concedes.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims, including claims involving an additional party.

Meihua v. Individuals, Partnerships identified in Schedule A · filed 2025-07-25(a)

Under § 1367, supplemental jurisdiction extends to “claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Forious’ tortious interference claim derives from Yan’s assertion of an infringement claim against Forious and Heshan KES’ alleged involvement in pursuing that claim. Yan does not object to the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over this claim, and the Court similarly finds it appropriate to allow Forious to pursue this claim against the two parties together. Therefore, at this time, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the tortious interference claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it dismisses the federal claim at an early stage of litigation.

Coates v. Kelley · filed 1997-02-27(c)(3)

The Court, however, will dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal claim at a very early stage in the litigation. Therefore, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the case is in its early stages.

Bettis v. Town of Ontario, NY · filed 1992-09-17(a)

The only remaining issue, then, is whether to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims. I decline to do so. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a district court has discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over a pendent claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction ...” In practice, state law claims are ordinarily dismissed when all federal claims have been dismissed, particularly when the case is in its early stages.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, particularly when litigation is still at an early stage and substantial discovery has not occurred.

Samson v. Harvey's Lake Borough · filed 1995-03-07(c)(3)

Defendants moved for summary judgment during the early stages of this litigation, and before any substantial discovery was completed. Under the circumstances, it is appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Samson’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim at an early stage after dismissing the federal claims against that defendant.

Brooke v. Schlesinger · filed 1995-09-25(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of the RICO claims against Stieglitz, and the early stage of the litigation, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim against Stieglitz, which arises solely under state law.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims at an early stage after dismissing the federal claims.

Protter v. Nathan's Famous Systems, Inc. · filed 1995-10-21(c)(3)

However, because the plaintiffs RICO claims must be dismissed, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the common law fraud and state statutory claims. Because this lawsuit is at such an early stage of litigation, the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and these claims are also dismissed.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly at an early stage of litigation.

Protter v. Nathan's Famous Systems, Inc. · filed 1996-05-11(c)(3)

While the Court recognizes that it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, at this very early stage of the litigation, the Court declines to exercise such discretion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state claims after the federal claim is dismissed at the outset, before discovery on the state claims.

White v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp. · filed 1996-09-20(c)(3)

Because the dismissal of the federal claim has occurred “at the threshold” of the case, and before the parties have engaged in discovery on the pendent claims, this Court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to dismiss the pendent state claims in Counts II through IV.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, particularly at an early stage when little judicial effort will be wasted.

Repp v. Oregon Health Sciences University · filed 1997-08-04(c)(3)

There is no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. This is a new action, so there will be little waste of judicial recourses by dismissing it at this early stage.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the case remains at an early stage.

[ Doe ] v. Rosenberg · filed 1998-05-07(c)(3)

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3). Since the parties are in an early stage of the case and the federal claims have been dismissed, leaving no independent basis of jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, they will also be dismissed.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing the federal claims at an early stage, based on fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity.

Fabregas v. I.T.T. Intermedia, Inc. · filed 1998-06-27(c)(3)

Balancing the interests of fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity, we, accordingly, decline jurisdiction over the Puerto Rico claims as we have dismissed the foundational federal claims at this early stage of litigation.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, especially when the case has not progressed beyond the motion to dismiss stage.

Ownby v. Cohen · filed 1998-09-08(c)(3)

After dismissal of the RICO counts, plaintiff is left with what amounts to a fairly straightforward claim for breach of contract. Because the remaining counts involve questions of state law and there is no diversity, this court will dismiss the remaining counts for lack of jurisdiction. Nothing about this case directs this court to exercise its discretion to retain the state law claims when the case has not proceeded past the motion to dismiss stage.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed, even if federal claims against others remain, considering the litigation’s early stage and the state claims’ prospects.

Warren v. Fischl · filed 1999-01-09(c)(3)

While the Court notes that the entire complaint has not been dismissed, in its discretion, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims due to the dismissal of the federal claims against these movants, the early stage of this litigation, and the remote possibility that the plaintiff would succeed on the merits of the state claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with the early stage of litigation supporting dismissal without prejudice.

Estate of Brown v. Barian · filed 1999-04-02(c)(3)

Now that I have dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal claim under § 1983, I see no reason to retain jurisdiction to resolve the plaintiffs’ state law claims. This is not a situation where the parties have engaged in extensive discovery and have otherwise spent a lengthy period of time litigating this case in federal court. To the contrary, the defendants have not yet even answered the plaintiffs’ complaint. And the case is relatively new, having only been filed in September, 1998. Accordingly, I will DISMISS the plaintiffs’ state law claims, without prejudice, to refile the same in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, but a pretrial dismissal for failure to state a claim creates a strong presumption against retention absent unusual circumstances.

Musson Theatrical, Inc., and Modernage Photo Service, Inc., for Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Federal · filed 1998-01-15(c)(3)

We are convinced that no “unusual circumstances” were present in this ease, and that the district court’s decision to resolve the plaintiffs state law claims was an abuse of its discretion under § 1367.

Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims will not be exercised when the complaint fails to state any cognizable federal claim.

Martinez v. State of Oregon · filed 2020-01-13

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because the Court finds below that plaintiff fails to state any cognizable federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's putative state law claims at this juncture.

Section 1367(a) allows a court with original jurisdiction over derivative claims to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related class claim that does not independently meet the diversity amount in controversy.

Geer v. Cox · filed 2003-08-20(a)

Count II of the complaint actually restates Count I as a derivative action for violation of § 271, and is part of the same “ease or controversy.” Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the class action claim asserted in Count I pursuant to § 1367, and Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied on these grounds.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over absent class members’ state law claims when those claims substantially predominate over the named plaintiff’s claims within original jurisdiction.

Brooks v. Bank of America, NA · filed 2022-10-25(c)(2)

To summarize, the Court’s jurisdiction over the absent class members’ claims is supplemental under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Subpart (c) of § 1367 gives the Court discretion to decline to exercise such jurisdiction and the Court has exercised that discretion here.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over absent class members’ state-law claims when those claims substantially predominate over the named plaintiff’s individual claims.

Brooks v. Bank of America, NA · filed 2022-07-26(c)(2)

Second, the Court agrees with Brooks that the state law claims of absent class members substantially predominate over Brooks’ individual claims. Accordingly, for the reasons Brooks articulated in his response to the Order, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of absent class members.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (c)(4) allow a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when individual proof on a state claim overshadows federal class claims and their combination presents exceptional circumstances.

In re Synergen, Inc. Securities Litigation · filed 1994-04-08(c)(2), (c)(4)

This state law claim tends to predominate over plaintiffs’ federal securities claims. Consequently, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) and (c)(4), I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claim. ... I further conclude that the combination of certifiable federal class claims with a non-eertifiable state claim is an exceptional circumstance which falls within the purview of § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law class claims when the proposed class would be much larger than the related injury class and would require applying differing state laws.

Marino v. Sports Authority · filed 1996-09-20(c)

Furthermore, in the event that it is contended that the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ proposed nationwide class of consumers seeking refunds on the ground that the Plaintiffs are also seeking, based on § 402A and common-law negligence, certification of a nation-wide class of consumers who suffered personal injury and/or property damage, the court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The proposed nation-wide class of consumers seeking refunds based on state law breach of warranty and violations of state consumer protection laws would be considerably larger in number than the proposed class of consumers who suffered personal injury and/or property damage under § 402A and common-law negligence as a result of their Vitamaster Treadmills overheating and catching fire. The evidence presented to the court, as discussed hereinafter, indicates that the proposed class suffering personal injury and/or property damage consists of only three consumers. Moreover, the proposed class action for refunds presents the court with the problem of applying to the class the variations and differences in each of the fifty state’s breach of warranty and consumer protection laws.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when proposed class allegations substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction or when difficulties administering the class action provide compelling reasons to relinquish jurisdiction.

Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc. v. Computer Systems Solutions, Inc. · filed 1999-07-14(c)(2), (c)(4)

The Court concludes that Defendant’s proposed class allegations substantially predominate over the claims in which the Court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). Additionally, the “difficulties of administering this case as a defendant class action amount to a ‘compelling’ argument for relinquishing jurisdiction” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state wage class claims alongside related FLSA collective claims when their common facts and the efficiency of a single proceeding favor doing so.

McLaurin v. Prestage Foods, Inc. · filed 2010-11-10(c)(4)

The closest question in this ease is whether supplemental jurisdiction should be declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). ... The FLSA and state law claims are premised on the same facts and likely will succeed or fail together. Additionally, it is far more convenient for the parties to have their nearly identical claims resolved in one forum, despite the logistical problems inherent in such a lawsuit. As a result, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this ease.

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

Martin v. Dahlberg, Inc. · filed 1994-04-07(c)(2)

Section 1367(c)(2) provides that the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” The RICO claims of the four individual plaintiffs are insignificant compared with the class-wide relief potentially available to plaintiffs under the consumer protection laws. This is precisely the type of case where the Court should decline to extend federal judicial power.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state wage and hour class claims spanning many states substantially predominate over an FLSA claim.

Neary v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance · filed 2007-02-08(c)(2)

Accordingly, the Court finds that, given the broad range of state wage and hour statutes and issues implicated, such matters would “substantially predominate,” in addition to potentially raising “novel or complex” questions of state law, and thus it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state class action claims, Counts 4 and 5, and those claims ■will be dismissed.