28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits remand of supplemental state-law claims after the federal claim is eliminated when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor remand.

Perez v. Brockton Neighborhood Health Center, Inc. · filed 2019-01-09(c)(3)

The issue therefore reduces to whether retaining jurisdiction over the state law claims is appropriate under section 1367(c)(3). ... These and other interests including comity in light of the state court’s interest “in deciding the substantive state-law issues,” Smith, 2018 WL 3370624, at *8, support a remand. ... In accordance with the foregoing discussion, the motion for leave to amend (Docket Entry # 30) is ALLOWED and this case is REMANDED to Massachusetts Superior Court (Essex County) under section 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim when judicial resources already spent and likely duplication of effort favor retention.

River City Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 614, Inc. v. Ky. Ret. Sys. · filed 2019-03-21(c)(3)

In light of the history of this case, and in connection with: (i) the substantial judicial resources that have already been committed; (ii) the fact that the above preemption analysis already involves an interpretation of Kentucky law and also disposes of the Board's primary defense against Plaintiffs' state law claims (i.e. , the Medicare Secondary Payer statute); and (iii) the reality that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction may result in a substantial duplication of effort if the matter is adjudicated in another court, this Court will retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims.

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

Acosta v. California Highway Patrol · filed 2019-09-12(c)(3)

But, § 1367(c) does not require district courts to relinquish jurisdiction.

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

Dunlap v. Alaska Radiology Associates, Inc. · filed 2019-09-20(c)(3)

The Court need not exercise jurisdiction over this claim as it has already granted summary judgment on the only claim that presents a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain state claims after dismissing all federal claims when those claims involve the same facts and similar law and resolving them together is more convenient.

Lucky Tunes 3, L.L.C. v. Smith · filed 2020-05-01(c)(3)

We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, even though it dismissed the federal claims, because they concern the same facts and similar law as the federal claims, making it more convenient to dispose of them in this action.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to retain a supplemental state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims before trial when the claim would likely be time-barred in state court.

Bless v. Cook County Sheriff's Office · filed 2020-08-03

That exception applies here. ... Given that an Illinois court would likely refuse to hear Bless’s administrative review claim, the Court exercises its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to remand remaining state-law claims after federal claims are abandoned when judicial economy, convenience, and comity favor remand.

Richloff v. Manchester Police Dept · filed 2020-08-07(c)

Here, as Mr. Richloff has abandoned his federal claims, the factors of judicial economy, convenience and comity all weigh in favor of remanding this case to the Connecticut Superior Court, as the only questions remaining in this case are Connecticut state constitutional issues.

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

Vittetoe v. Blount County · filed 2020-08-26(c)(3)

In any event, as mentioned above, the decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is within the undersigned’s broad discretion, and the Court finds it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case. The undersigned is familiar with the facts in this case, and the instant matter has been pending several years. The Court finds that judicial economy and convenience weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Fairness to both parties dictates that the Court resolve this matter. Further, the Court finds that there are no concerns with respect to comity.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Wilcox v. Pour Decision, LLC · filed 2020-09-09(c)(3)

It would not serve the principles of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity to force the parties to start over in state court, when the matter has been fully resolved here in federal court. Thus, the Court finds it appropriate to retain jurisdiction over the remaining common law claims.

A court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after plaintiffs withdraw all federal claims following proper removal.

Phillips v. Delaney · filed 2020-10-02(c)(3)

Thus, even though Plaintiffs have withdrawn all federal claims, the Court may properly exercise its discretion to maintain subject-matter jurisdiction since removal was proper.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on a case-specific assessment of fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity.

McGinn v. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs · filed 2020-10-23(c)(3)

However, the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction does not automatically give way once the federal claim is dismissed. Instead, the jurisdictional statute provides that once the federal claims giving rise to original jurisdiction are dismissed, the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retaining them.

Oliver v. New York State Police · filed 2020-12-11(c)(3)

However, where, as here, the “standards of liability are identical under [federal law] and the NYSHRL; deciding the state-law claims does not require the investment of additional judicial resources,” and there is no “substantial comity concern raised by this Court’s application of state law with which courts in this District are eminently familiar,” the Court concludes “the ‘values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,’” support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims.

Section 1367 leaves the court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the plaintiff dismisses the federal claims.

Doss v. Corrections · filed 2021-03-16(c)(3)

Rather, upon Plaintiff’s election to dismiss his federal claims, it is left to this Court’s discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, or whether to instead decline to exercise this jurisdiction and remand this case to state court. ... At the same time, the Court will continue jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the federal claims are dismissed when the statutory and common-law factors favor doing so.

Villa v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department · filed 2021-03-27(c)

Federal courts may elect to exercise pendent jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after considering and balancing the statutory factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... Accordingly, on balance, the factors weigh in favor of exercising pendent jurisdiction over Villa’s THCRA age-discrimination claim, and the Court elects to do so.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims are dismissed when the case’s progress makes judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor keeping the state claim in federal court.

Garcia v. City of McAllen · filed 2021-03-30(c)

Turning directly to the supplemental jurisdiction challenge, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it fails. ... Sending the case back to state court would require the state court to essentially duplicate those efforts, causing significant delay and wasting judicial resources at both the federal and state levels. ... Thus, the district court acted within its discretion in denying Garcia’s motion to remand.

Section 1367(c) calls for reconsideration of a decision declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are reinstated on appeal.

Peroza-Benitez v. Smith · filed 2021-04-08(c)

We direct the District Court to reconsider on remand the question of supplemental jurisdiction in light of our decision to reinstate Peroza-Beni- tez’s § 1983 claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all federal claims to retain plainly meritless state claims and dismiss them on the merits.

Schworck, Jesse v. Madison Police Department · filed 2021-05-06(c)(3)

However, a court may depart from “usual practice,” and continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, if the circumstances weigh in favor of such action. For example, a court need not send back to state court “‘doomed litigation’ that will only be dismissed once it gets there.” Groce, 193 F.3d at 502. In such circumstances, the district court should retain supplemental jurisdiction “because when a state-law claim is clearly without merit, it invades no state interest -- on the contrary, it spares overburdened state courts additional work that they do not want or need -- for the federal court to dismiss the claim on the merits, rather than invite a further, and futile, round of litigation in the state courts.” In re Repository Tech., Inc., 601 F.3d 710, 725 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted). This principle applies here with respect to plaintiffs’ request for monetary damages under state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish jurisdiction over a supplemental state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims when no exception to the general rule favoring relinquishment applies.

Thomas v. City Of Chicago · filed 2021-05-13(c)(3)

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

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when their dismissal under state law is certain.

Chapman v. Nassau County · filed 2021-05-21(c)(3)

That leaves only plaintiff’s state law claims over which I have supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Although the usual procedure would be to dismiss those claims at this stage of the case without prejudice to recommencement in state court, see, e.g., Locantore v. Hunt, 775 F. Supp. 2d 680, 689 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), here, defendants have shown that plaintiff filed the required notice pursuant New York General Municipal Law § 50-e far beyond the 90-day time limit in the statute. In opposing defendants’ motion, plaintiff has not addressed – let alone denied or sought to excuse – his late filing. In these circumstances, district courts have dismissed the state law claims under § 50-e rather than submitting the parties to more proceedings in state court as to which dismissal is certain, see, e.g., Johnson v. Tudisco, No. 17- cv-8621, 2020 WL 363647, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020), and I will exercise my supplemental jurisdiction to do that here.

When dismissal of a federal claim is vacated, the district court must reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Harrison v. Whole Foods Market · filed 2021-07-22(c)(3)

Because we vacate the dismissal on one of Harrison’s federal claims, we remand for the district court to reconsider whether it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harrison’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to remand remaining state-law claims after the federal claims have dropped out, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Becker v. Buckingham's Choice, Inc. · filed 2021-08-02(c)(3)

When a removed complaint consisting of both federal and state-law claims is later amended to exclude the federal claims, or the federal claims have otherwise dropped out of the case and only pendent state-law claims remain, the court has the discretion to remand the case to state court.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Matych v. Home-Owners Insurance Company · filed 2021-08-02(c)(3)

Indeed, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, permits the Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal claims after the federal claims disappear.

Section 1367 allows a court to remand a supplemental state-law claim after granting summary judgment on the federal claims.

Maffett v. Columbia, City of · filed 2021-09-17

For Maffett’s sixth and final objection, assuming the Court rejects the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Court grant the City’s motion for summary judgment on Maffett’s federal claims, she contends her “claim for gross negligence under state law should remain in federal court to be tried along with Plaintiff’s federal claims.” But, given the Court’s decision to grant the City’s motion for summary judgment, the Court will overrule this objection, as well.

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

HUBBARD v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC · filed 2021-09-24(c)

The Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state-law claims. Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The relevant factors weigh in favor of following the "usual practice" in the Seventh Circuit and relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction. Groce, 193 F.3d at 501.

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

MAYFIELD v. LEDFORD · filed 2022-03-17(c)(3)

The Court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state-law claims. Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) ("The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . .."). ... The relevant factors weigh in favor of the Court following the "usual practice" in the Seventh Circuit and relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed; courts generally do so when federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Willow Way LLC v. Village of Lyons, Illinois · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

Indeed, this presumption is statutorily expressed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides for the discretionary relinquishment of jurisdiction over state claims when the claims provid- ing original jurisdiction (here, federal-question jurisdiction) have been dismissed. Given the broader scope of the Illinois Constitution’s Takings Clause, relinquishment is appropriate here. The state law claim is dismissed without prejudice.

After all federal claims are resolved, a court ordinarily declines supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims, but may decide them when their resolution is clear and judicial efficiency favors it.

Estate of Shannon J. Payne, by its Special Administrator, Christopher Meisel v. Dane County · filed 2022-04-11(c)(3)

Having disposed of all federal claims for which it has original subject matter jurisdiction, the court would ordinarily decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state claims. ... However, plaintiff’s obvious failure to comply (or even substantially comply) with the notice requirement serves as a sufficient basis for the court to grant summary judgment to defendants on the state law claims as a matter of judicial efficiency, sparing a state court ... As such, the court will also dispose of those claims.

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

Beans & Rocks LLC v. Pacific County · filed 2022-04-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court concludes the values of economy, convenience, and fairness may well be served by this Court’s declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, and these claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Chapman v. Collins · filed 2022-04-19(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege any cognizable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental ... jurisdiction over any state law claim Plaintiff may also be attempting to assert.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, based on the balance of judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state-law issues.

Cook 290601 v. Huss · filed 2022-04-22(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the discretionary factors favor doing so.

Golub v. Berdon LLP · filed 2022-04-26(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims in view of the fact that there is no federal question jurisdiction unless the plaintiff can establish that there is diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses the only claim within its original jurisdiction, taking account of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Keliipuleole v. Molokai Ohana Health Care Inc. · filed 2022-05-02(c)(3)

Here, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. The Court granted summary judgment on the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction.

When all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, a court ordinarily declines supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims unless circumstances warrant retaining them.

Billingsley v. Smith · filed 2022-05-10(c)(3)

Because that disposition leads to the dismissal of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court must address whether to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims and rule on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment related to those claims. ... In sum, the Court finds that none of the exceptions to the “usual practice” applies in this case. As a result, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice on Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses those claims with leave to refile in state court.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed, with comity and judicial economy informing that choice.

Washington v. Wayne County Community College Federation of Teachers · filed 2022-05-11(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in various circumstances, including when the district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... This Court concludes that these circumstances favor remand back to the state court.

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

Arizona Board of Regents v. Doe · filed 2022-05-13(c)(3)

Accordingly, the district court properly exercised its discretion in deciding not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law dilution claim after dismissing all federal claims. Id; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are eliminated, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guiding its discretion.

H. v. Montessori School at Washington Avenue, Inc. · filed 2022-05-13(c)(3)

With the ADA claim out of the case, I will decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. The supplemental jurisdiction statute explicitly grants district courts authority to do so in these circumstances.

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

Doe v. City Of Concord · filed 2022-05-13(c)(3)

And with no federal claim left at this early stage of the case, it is appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Bey v. Yonkers City Court · filed 2022-05-16(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial, with a presumption favoring relinquishment and consideration of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Walton v. Claybridge Homeowners Associa · filed 2022-05-18(c)

When all federal claims are resolved short of trial, a presumption favoring relinquishment arises. See Refined Metals Corp. v. NL Indus. Inc., 937 F.3d 928, 935 (7th Cir. 2019). Thus, once the district court dismissed the federal claims, it properly exercised its discretion not to entertain her state-law claims. The court reviewed the applicable factors and reasonably concluded that judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity supported relinquishment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); RWJ Mgmt. Co. v. BP Prods. N. America, Inc., 672 F.3d 476, 480 (7th Cir. 2012).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal ADA claim is mooted and dismissed early.

Benford v. Pier Avenue LLC · filed 2022-06-02(c)

If an ADA claim is mooted and dismissed at an early stage, the Court has the discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

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

Oles v. City Of New York · filed 2022-06-02(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs’ federal claims are insufficiently pleaded, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Taylor v. Redington · filed 2022-06-08(c)(3)

Finally, because plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed, any supplemental state claims that plaintiff can be understood to bring are also dismissed.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when both require the same legal determination.

Bailey v. Iles · filed 2022-07-20(c)

Because the state law claims require the same legal determination as the federal claims, this Court will exercise jurisdiction over those claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when no exception to the usual presumption in favor of relinquishment applies.

Ortiz v. Town of Cicero, Illinois · filed 2022-08-11(c)(3)

No party contends, nor has the court on its own determined, that circumstances have changed in that regard. Relinquishing jurisdiction over the state law claims is therefore the appropriate course under § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to remand remaining state-law claims after an amended complaint eliminates the federal claims when the discretionary factors, including comity and fairness, favor remand.

Hierrezuelo v. LC Health Management LLC · filed 2022-11-10(c)

Having conducted a de novo review of the matters objected to by the Defendant, the Court overrules the Defendant’s objections (ECF No. 42), adopts Judge Goodman’s recommendation (ECF No. 40), and remands this matter back to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits remand of related state-law claims when an amended complaint drops all federal claims.

Moreno v. Senior Health- TNF, LLC · filed 2023-02-24(c)(3)

Nevertheless, the allegations in the amended complaint arise out of the same nucleus of facts as the initial complaint. To the extent these state law claims fall under supplemental jurisdiction—claims for which this Court would otherwise lack jurisdiction—this case is well-suited for remand.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to remand remaining state-law claims after an amendment eliminates federal claims, even when the plaintiff partly sought to avoid federal court.

Calloway v. County of Powhatan Virginia · filed 2023-02-28(c)(3)

But when the Court had federal question at the time of removal and “a post-removal amendment has eliminated [the] federal claims,” the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... Her “mixed motives” do not compel this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of her state law claims.

After the federal claims are resolved, § 1367 permits a district court to remand remaining state law claims based on economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Rockness v. Rockness · filed 2023-03-29(c)(3)

Following the disposition of federal claims in a non-diversity action involving state law claims, the district court maintains discretion to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims or to remand the remainder of the case to state court. ... The Court finds that the interests of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, are all served by the remand of this case to state court.

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

Vigil v. Dahlquist · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

... dismissed, the Court finds it appropriate to retain jurisdiction over her state-law claims because Dahlquist is entitled to official immunity. Id. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ericson v. Woloszyk · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

Indeed, this presumption is statutorily expressed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides for the discretionary relinquishment of jurisdiction over state claims when the claims providing original jurisdiction ... have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to remand related state-law claims after federal claims are withdrawn when the statutory grounds and considerations of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor remand.

Valchine v. Onondaga County · filed 2023-05-12(c)

Under § 1367(c), a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “(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.” ... Upon review, the balance of these factors favors remand.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims or remand them to state court after the federal claims are gone.

Johnson v. Barr · filed 2023-07-06(c)

On remand, as there is no longer any federal claim in this case, the district court may determine, using its sound discretion, whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims or to remand this case to state court.

After federal claims are eliminated before trial, a court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when they present no substantial question of state law and plainly fail on the merits.

Doe v. Holly · filed 2023-07-14(c)(3)

There is thus a question whether the proper course is for us to dismiss the case so that any state law issues before us may be resolved by a state court. ... But, we conclude that there is no "substantial question of state law presented[,]" because the District Court was plainly right to grant summary judgment to the defendants on the state-law claims at issue in this appeal.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been resolved before trial, and ordinarily calls for dismissal of those claims without prejudice.

Jones v. Circuit Court of Cook County, Office of the Chief Judge · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

The Court sees no reason that this presumption does not apply here. ... Therefore the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c) favors relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, especially when state law is unsettled and little federal judicial effort has addressed those claims.

E.C. v. COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION OF EASTERN HANCOCK COUNTY · filed 2023-09-11(c)

E.C.'s Title IX claims were her only federal claims. "When all federal claims in a suit in federal court are dismissed before trial, the presumption is that the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over any supplemental state- law claims." RWJ Mgmt. Co. v. BP Prods. N. Am., 672 F.3d 476, 479 (7th Cir. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... In sum, the factors weigh in favor of the Court's relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over E.C.'s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Newkirk v. Harbor East Parcel D Hotel, LLC · filed 2024-03-01(c)(3)

Having disposed of the federal claims which formed the basis of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, this Court may still exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pending state law claim. ... The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction with regards to Count III.

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

Elmurodov v. University of Maryland Capital Region Health · filed 2024-04-25(c)(3)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) allows a district court to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state-law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” ... Because the Third Amended Complaint-now the operative complaint-advances only state-law claims, the court will exercise its discretion to remand the case.

After dismissing all federal claims before trial, a court ordinarily relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims unless circumstances justify retaining it.

Williams v. Northeastern Illinois University · filed 2024-06-11(c)(3)

The circumstances here do not rebut the presumption in favor of relinquishing federal Jurisdiction. The matter is still in its early stages and there are no pressing statute of limitations issues. Nor does this Court believe that it is absolutely clear how the state-law claims will be decided. Consequently, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state- law claims, and Counts IV through X are dismissed as well.

When all federal claims drop out, § 1367(c)(3) gives the district court broad discretion to retain or relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Socha v. City of Joliet · filed 2024-07-10(c)(3)

But when, as here, “federal claims drop out of the case, leaving only state-law claims, the district court has broad discretion to decide whether to keep the case or relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.”

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

Lamb v. Pleasant Prairie Police Department · filed 2024-07-15(c)(3)

Because the court is dismissing the plaintiff’s federal §1983 claims, the court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law tort claims against defendants Schulte and Cronin and will dismiss the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

ALEXANDER v. ZATECKY · filed 2024-09-10(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when an amended complaint in a removed case eliminates all federal claims on which that jurisdiction depended.

Riddle v. Omaha Public Schools · filed 2024-11-22(a)

The Court finds Riddle’s requested remand is the proper course of action in this case. ... In Wullschleger, the circuit court explained that the Court has a duty to remand a removed case where the plaintiff’s amended pleading omits any federal-law claims on which the Court’s federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction were based. ... Such is the case here.

When federal claims are reinstated on appeal, state claims dismissed after the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction should be remanded for reconsideration.

Williams v. Mitchell · filed 2024-11-26(c)(3)

But as we have reversed the district court’s rulings on Williams’ federal claims, his IIED claims should be remanded to the district court for reconsideration.

When federal claims are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) gives a district court broad discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, with a general presumption favoring relinquishment.

Grant v. Zander · filed 2024-12-27(c)(3)

“When federal claims drop out of the case,” the trial court has “broad discretion to decide whether to ... relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims”—with a “general presumption in favor of relinquishment.” RWJ Mgmt. Co. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 672 F.3d 476, 478 (7th Cir. 2012); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In light of this presumption, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over Grant’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain a state law claim after all federal claims are dismissed, taking into account how long the case has been pending.

North Atlantic Security Company v. Blache · filed 2025-01-29(c)

While the Court may (and, generally, should) decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims have been dismissed, given the length of time this case has been pending, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim in its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after resolving all federal claims when there is an appropriate reason to do so.

Vine, Christopher v. Johnson, Zayne · filed 2025-02-14(c)(3)

Absent unusual circumstances, district courts will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if all federal claims have been resolved before trial. ... But here, defendants do raise an appropriate reason to retain jurisdiction of the claims and then dismiss them.

A district court may reconsider its decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims are reinstated on appeal.

Dawn Hayes v. Clariant Plastics & Coatings USA, Inc. · filed 2025-07-18(c)(3)

Because the district court erred in granting summary judgment on some of Hayes’s federal claims, we remand so that the district court can reconsider its supplemental jurisdiction decision.

When federal claims are reinstated on appeal, the district court must reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Byrnes v. St. Catherine Hospital · filed 2025-10-30(c)(3)

Because we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Dr. Byrnes’s Title VII claims, we reverse and remand for the court to reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

State-law claims dismissed under § 1367(c)(3) may be reinstated when the federal claims are revived on appeal.

Engel v. Rapid City Schools · filed 2007-11-09(c)(3)

Because the district court dismissed without prejudice certain state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), we reinstate those claims as well.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over claims against a nondiverse party joined under Rule 19, even when those claims arise from the same case or controversy.

Underpinning & Foundation Skanska, Inc. v. Berkley Regional Insurance · filed 2009-10-20(b)

Because the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction under Merrill Lynch does not extend to any claims against a non-diverse party joined pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.19, and because WHM and Cameron are non-diverse parties, the Court would have no supplemental jurisdiction over WHM’s claims against Cameron.

Section 1367(b) does not withdraw supplemental jurisdiction over a defendant’s related claim against a nondiverse third party in a diversity action.

Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Morris · filed 2016-06-10(b)

In the instant case, the original Plaintiff, Auto-Owners, brought the Morrises into federal court involuntarily. Thus, the Mor-rises’ desire to assert claims against a non-diverse third party would not be the type of suspect action that Congress intended to block in § 1367(b). That statute would not operate to withdraw federal jurisdiction if the Morrises did assert claims against the Parnell Agency.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases over a plaintiff’s claims against defendants joined under Rules 19 or 20.

Betts v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Company · filed 2017-10-17(b)

Yet, pursuant to § 1367(b), district courts cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over diversity action claims by plaintiffs against persons made party under FED. R. CIV. P. 19 and 20.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims against a newly joined, nondiverse defendant in a diversity case.

Brown v. American Furniture Warehouse Co. · filed 2020-10-05(b)

Following joinder of a new Defendant, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b).

Section 1367(b) excludes supplemental jurisdiction over claims against defendants joined under Rule 20 in a diversity action.

Akers v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London · filed 2023-11-20(b)

Because the claims against Names are joint and several, the Names are joined as co-defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2)(A). Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) excludes these claims from supplemental jurisdiction.

When original jurisdiction rests solely on diversity, § 1367(b) excludes supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims against persons joined under Rule 20.

Roberts v. Prime Insurance Company · filed 2024-03-15(b)

In civil actions in which the district court has original jurisdiction founded solely on § 1332 – as here – supplemental jurisdiction does not extend to claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20.

Section 1367 does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to claims against a nondiverse defendant when the federal court’s original jurisdiction rests on diversity.

Hayes v. Henley, 1100636 (Ala. 9-23-2011) · filed 2011-09-23(b)

That is not the procedural posture of the case before us; unlike Weinrib, the basis for removal jurisdiction in the present case is diversity, and, in such a case, the federal court has no “supplemental jurisdiction” over claims asserted against a nondiverse defendant.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, including when the federal claims are barred by collateral estoppel.

Morgan v. Federal Aviation Administration · filed 2009-09-28(c)(3)

In any event, the court would decline to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s FEHA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) because “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” That provision would apply here given that collateral estoppel bars the plaintiff’s two federal claims.

Section 1367 authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over state-law damages claims against state officials in their personal capacities; the Eleventh Amendment does not limit that jurisdiction.

Guillemard-Ginorio v. Contreras-Gomez · filed 2009-10-29

The federal judiciary is authorized to hear supplemental claims for damages under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and in the context of personal capacity suits, the Eleventh Amendment places no limitations on that jurisdictional grant.

Section 1367 codifies supplemental jurisdiction for civil cases and leaves ancillary jurisdiction in criminal cases undisturbed.

United States v. Ghailani · filed 2009-11-18

The Judicial Improvement Act of 1990 merged and codified ancillary and pendent jurisdiction doctrine for civil cases. ... It left ancillary jurisdiction undisturbed as it relates to criminal cases.

Section 1367 confers supplemental jurisdiction in civil cases and does not authorize a motion challenging a criminal sentence.

United States v. Jones · filed 2011-10-13

Needless to say, 28 U.S.C. § 1367-which confers supplemental jurisdiction in civil cases-has nothing to do with such a motion in a criminal case.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over appropriate state claims but does not confer jurisdiction to hear state criminal matters.

Helburn v. Corizon Inc. · filed 2020-03-02

However, although a federal district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims where appropriate, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear state criminal matters.

Section 1367 does not authorize removal of a state criminal case to federal court.

Gilroy v. Waltjen · filed 2025-01-14

In support of his notice of removal, Gilroy also cites ... 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (governing supplemental jurisdiction). See ECF No. 1 at PageID.3–5. None of these provisions permits the removal of criminal cases from state court to federal court.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to reconsider supplemental jurisdiction when a certified state law class may substantially predominate over individual federal claims.

Mims v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. · filed 2009-12-09(c)(2)

Notwithstanding our affirmance of the certification of the state class, given our reversal of the federal class certification, the district court should on remand consider whether to continue to exercise its discretionary supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) [allowing supplemental jurisdiction] if – . . . (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.”). There is obviously a strong argument that the class action on the state law claims will predominate over the individual federal claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over European antitrust claims when complex foreign law, substantial predominance over federal claims, and exceptional circumstances involving international comity and forum non conveniens favor dismissal.

Carpenter Co. v. SE · filed 2010-01-25(c)

The Court, in its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the European law claims.

Section 1367 governs federal district courts’ supplemental subject matter jurisdiction and does not establish personal jurisdiction in state court.

McElroy Machine & Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Dvcc Services Corporation F/K/A Predco Services Corporation v. Be · filed 2010-02-11

Therefore, section 1367 is not relevant to our analysis of the state district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over appellants.

Section 1367(a) authorizes federal courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims; it does not grant that authority to state courts.

Utah First Federal Credit Union v. Dudley · filed 2012-06-07(a)

The statutory authority upon which Dudley relies‐‐title 28, section 1367(a) of the United States Code‐‐grants authority only to federal courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising out of the same case or controversy and does not mention state courts at all.

Section 1367 supports supplemental jurisdiction over factually interdependent claims only while the original federal dispute remains before the court.

National City Golf Finance v. Golf Cars of Mississ · filed 2018-08-09

... interdependent” claims are those that support supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. See Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 354 n.5 (1996). This kind of ancillary jurisdiction disappears, however, after the original federal dispute is dismissed.

Under § 1367(c)(2), a potential disparity in the size of related state and federal classes alone does not make the state claims substantially predominate.

Cortez v. Nebraska Beef, Inc. · filed 2010-02-16(c)(2)

Finally, the court finds the potential disparity in the size of the two class is an insufficient ground, by itself, to decline supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over a separate claim arising from the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction; a single claim cannot supply supplemental jurisdiction.

Hopkins v. Cleveland-Cliffs Steel LLC · filed 2024-03-14(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction exists if there are two separate claims arising out of the same “case or controversy.” 28 USC § 1367(a). ... In this case, supplemental jurisdiction is lacking for two reasons. First, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the wrongful death claim. Second, the plaintiff only has a single claim, so the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a nonexistent claim.

Section 1367 provides no supplemental jurisdiction when the plaintiff alleges only one claim against the defendant.

Seagate Logistics, Inc. v. Angel Kiss, Inc. · filed 2010-03-26

Furthermore, as the plaintiff only alleges one claim against the defendant, there is no basis for supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 supplies no supplemental jurisdiction in a single-claim action where that claim must have an independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction.

Sawl v. Stryker Corporation · filed 2020-01-23(a)

Assuming Plaintiff can appropriately prove that this Court has independent subject matter jurisdiction over her one-count Amended Complaint, there are no other claims over which the Court could choose to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not provide ancillary jurisdiction over a newly filed action after the original federal case is closed.

Macias v. New Mexico Department of Labor · filed 2014-03-31

Ancillary jurisdiction never applies to a newly filed ease.

Section 1367(a) can supply supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims even when the complaint does not cite it.

Ledford v. Peeples · filed 2010-05-06(a)

Notwithstanding the lack of a reference to § 1367, that section did provide the district court with jurisdiction to entertain most of plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over a separate state law suit merely because a related federal action is pending.

Schifanelli v. Jourdak · filed 2021-01-12(a)

The existence of a separate federal action brought by Schifanelli against different defendants does not give this Court supplemental jurisdiction over Schifanelli’s suit against Jourdak.

Section 1367 governs ancillary jurisdiction over claims within an action that has original federal jurisdiction, but leaves common law ancillary jurisdiction over technically separate related proceedings intact.

ROBB EVANS & ASSOCIATES, LLC v. Holibaugh · filed 2010-06-29

Although § 1367 governs ancillary jurisdiction over claims asserted in a case over which the district court has federal subject matter jurisdiction, it does not affect common law ancillary jurisdiction "over related proceedings that are tech- nically separate from the initial case that invoked federal sub- ject matter jurisdiction," which remains governed by case law.

Section 1367 does not displace a district court’s ancillary jurisdiction over a receiver’s action in furtherance of a federal receivership.

Newman v. William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust · filed 2012-09-25

The enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not change this principle.

Section 1367 covers related claims asserted in an existing federal case, not a new proceeding to enforce its judgment.

Messer v. Garrison Investment Group, LP · filed 2026-06-23(a)

First, Section 1367 grants federal courts jurisdiction “over claims asserted in a case over which the district court [otherwise] has [Section 1331] jurisdiction.” ... This case concerns new proceedings, rather than new claims in an ongoing proceeding.

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

Torres v. State Bar · filed 2005-06-24(c)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Torres’s state claims against Keith Ball, acting in his individual capacity, since the district court had dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Country Rock Café, Inc. v. Truck Insurance Exchange · filed 2006-02-22(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, as all federal claims have been dismissed, we exercise our discretion and decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law breach of contract claim.

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

Bade v. Courtesy Oldsmobile, Inc. · filed 2006-03-15(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bade’s state-law claims.

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

Lopresti v. Citigroup Inc. · filed 2006-03-23(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims once it had dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Carrasquillo v. Pereira-Castillo · filed 2006-07-31(c)(3)

As all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ commonwealth claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims fail as a matter of law.

Golden v. Rossford Exempted Village School District · filed 2006-07-31(c)(3)

Because the federal claims fail as a matter of law, the Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over the state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Abrahams v. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court · filed 2007-02-07(c)(3)

However, a district court may decline to exercise this supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Buxton v. Nolte · filed 2007-02-12(c)(3)

However, a court may decline such supplemental jurisdiction where the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these matters.

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

Ross v. Corporation of Mercer University · filed 2007-03-30(c)

Section 1367(c) provides a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if, among other reasons, it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (2006). Having done so in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ross’s three remaining state law claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Goldstein v. Pataki · filed 2007-06-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Section 207 claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc. · filed 2007-06-07(c)(3)

A court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if, inter alia, that court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) (2007). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs common law misrepresentation claim.

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

Darden v. Secure Horizons · filed 2007-08-22(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Darden’s state-law claims.

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

Sanchez & Daniels v. Koresko · filed 2007-09-24(c)(3)

The fact that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over amended Count 7 does not mean, however, that the Court must exercise that jurisdiction. Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it raises a novel or complex issue of state law; it substantially predominates over the claims over which the court had original jurisdiction; the court has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction; or in exceptional circumstances in which there are other compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction. ... The Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Koresko’s remaining proposed claim.

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

Robinson v. Smyth · filed 2007-12-18(c)(3)

To the extent that the breach of contract and fraud claims are distinct from the constitutional claims, the District Court apparently declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, which was entirely proper in the absence of any viable federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Rice v. District of Columbia Public Defender Service · filed 2008-01-30(c)(3)

Upon the dismissal of the only claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs fraud and negligence claims.

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

Rojas v. Brinderson Constructors Inc. · filed 2008-07-23(c)(3)

As discussed above, the sole claim invoking this court’s original jurisdiction was the 2810 claim against the Refinery Defendants. The first five claims against Brinderson are only cognizable under this court’s supplemental jurisdiction. Since the 2810 claim has been dismissed from this action, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Coastal Outdoor Advertising Group, L.L.C. v. Township of East Hanover · filed 2009-06-30(c)(3)

Declining to exercise jurisdiction following dismissal of claims here on original jurisdiction is discretionary. The Court declines to address the state law claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Gresham v. District of Columbia · filed 2009-08-03(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction ... if ... [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This is a “purely discretionary” decision. ... I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

Banks v. Court of Common Pleas FJD · filed 2009-08-17(c)(3)

Lastly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Banks’ PHRA claim once it had dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Hirpassa v. Albert · filed 2009-08-31(c)(3)

With the dismissal of Plaintiffs constitutional claim, the only claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to consider the common law tort claims of defamation and false arrest.

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

Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. · filed 2009-09-30(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Sieverding v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2010-03-15(c)(3)

To the extent Ms. Sieverding alleges violations of state law, ... the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Sieverding v. United States Government · filed 2010-03-15(c)(3)

To the extent Ms. Sieverding alleges violations of state law, see, e.g., Compl. ¶ 123 (defamation); Am. Compl. ¶ 24, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) ("district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" where "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction").

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal claim remains; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Smith v. Albert Einstein Medical Center · filed 2010-04-28(c)(3)

Having stated no federal claim, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Smith v. City of Lebanon · filed 2010-07-19(c)(3)

In the absence of any viable federal claim, the District Court properly declined jurisdiction over Smith’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Smith v. Link · filed 2010-07-20(c)(3)

Finally, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Smith’s purported state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

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

Kareem v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · filed 2010-07-27(c)(3)

This decision results in the dismissal of all claims over which this Court exercised original ... jurisdiction, and supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of the claims will be declined.

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

Lurie v. Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, P.C. · filed 2010-08-09(c)(3)

The Court has determined that summary judgment is proper with 'respect to the claims in plaintiffs complaint over which it has original jurisdiction. All of the causes of action described in defendant’s counterclaim are founded in state law and have been found to lack an independent basis in the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. The Court can and will exercise its discretion to dismiss them.

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

Lurie v. Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, P.C. · filed 2010-08-09(c)(3)

However, district courts have discretion to refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in certain circumstances, including when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id.

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

Paletti v. Yellow Jacket Marina, Inc. · filed 2010-08-31(c)(3)

Furthermore, because the district court dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it was within its discretion to dismiss Paletti’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction are dismissed).

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

Parker v. NutriSystem, Inc. · filed 2010-09-07(c)(3)

The District Court was free to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because it “dismissed all claims over which it [had] original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing the claims supporting original jurisdiction, subject to abuse-of-discretion review.

Spyridakis v. The Riesling Grp Inc · filed 2010-10-01(c)(3)

Finally, the District Court exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) not to exert supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim for unpaid invoices, remanding the claim to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. ... Having determined that the District Court properly dismissed Spyridakis’s claims under the WPCL, for wrongful discharge, and breach of the duty of good faith, and finding no abuse of discretion in the decision to remand the remaining breach of contract claim, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

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

Bennon L. Prine, Jr. v. Chailland Inc. · filed 2010-11-09(c)(3)

We doubt, in any event, that there was any abuse of discretion arising from the district court’s dismissal of the state-law claims, since 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) allows district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.”

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

Kirby v. Yonkers School District · filed 2011-02-11(c)(3)

As all Kirby’s federal constitutional claims must fail, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Lang v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. · filed 2011-03-24(c)(3)

Because M & T Bank’s counterclaim can remain pending following dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim, although this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of M & T Bank’s counterclaim, this comports with the requirements of Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the remaining claims and to dismiss that claim without prejudice.

Harman v. Datte · filed 2011-05-17(c)

The District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law breach of contract claim, having dismissed the Harmans’ remaining claims. The District Court did not err and properly dismissed this claim without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

McGregor v. Shane's Bail Bonds · filed 2011-06-10(c)(3)

However, she never explains why this was error in light of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Shelby v. Enlers · filed 2011-06-20(c)(3)

Shelby’s federal claims are without merit, and thus the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Rhyne v. Henderson Cnty., 973 F.2d 386, 395 (5th Cir. 1992).

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

Lizotte v. Leblanc · filed 2012-01-05(c)(3)

However, since the district court properly dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it had an adequate basis for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

N'Jai v. Pittsburgh Board of Public Education · filed 2012-06-06(c)(3)

To the extent that N‟Jai challenges this determination, we conclude that the District Court acted within its discretion. See Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Group, Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 174 (3d Cir. 2009) (“A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if „the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.‟” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3))).

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

Harvey v. Loftus · filed 2012-11-27(c)(3)

Finally, we concur in the District Court’s decision to not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law malpractice claim against Loftus.

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

Philpott v. Lt. Weaver · filed 2012-12-05(c)(3)

Furthermore, we agree that Philpott’s defamation claim failed as a matter of law to state a claim under section 1983, see Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 710-12 (1976) (injury to reputation alone cannot support claim for deprivation of liberty interest without accompanying alteration of legal status or right), and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Philpott’s state-law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction); Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 647 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Verbanik v. Harlow · filed 2013-01-28(c)(3)

Finally, we agree that the District Court appropriately decided not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Verbanik’s state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice because all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction were dismissed.

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

Horn v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2013-04-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining tort claims against the local defendants and will dismiss the case.

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

Michael Field, Jr. v. Berman · filed 2013-06-03(c)(3)

Because Count VI alleges a state law claim and all of the claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction were properly dismissed, we affirm dismissal of Count VI on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McDonald v. Burl Cain, Warden · filed 2013-10-24(c)(3)

McDonald’s argument regarding supplemental jurisdiction lacks merit, as a district court is authorized to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Anderson v. Gates · filed 2013-12-06(c)(3)

Additionally, the Court exercises its discretion and declines supplemental jurisdiction to hear the claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) because the Court will dismiss all claims over which original jurisdiction is asserted.

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

Stone v. Louisiana Department of Revenue · filed 2014-02-12(c)(3)

Because this Court is dismissing the remainder of Stone’s claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stone’s remaining state-law defamation claim.

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

Jones v. Norton · filed 2014-03-07(c)(3)

Because the court is now dismissing all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Assault/Battery and Wrongful Death claims.

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

Greco v. Senchak · filed 2014-06-10(c)(3)

As the claims over which the court has original jurisdiction are dismissed, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28. U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Williams v. Horry-Georgetown Technical College · filed 2014-06-17(c)(3)

The Court adopts the recommendation and declines to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Smith v. Midland Mortgage · filed 2014-06-19(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim because it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial when it has invested little judicial resources.

McNair v. State · filed 2014-08-21(c)(3)

Here, as in Seals, the district court has not devoted significant judicial resources to the resolution of the federal claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice.