28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Tymoshenko v. Firtash · filed 2014-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed those claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the SAC’s state fraud claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Reddy v. Gilbert Medical Transcription Service, Inc. · filed 2014-10-14(c)(3)

Furthermore, without a viable federal claim, the district court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Reddy’s remaining state law claims.

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

Santos v. Iron Mountain Film & Sound · filed 2014-11-25(c)(3)

Lastly, the District Court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, once it had dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and municipal law claims when all federal claims fail.

Phillips ex rel. B.P. v. City of New York · filed 2015-01-07(c)(3)

Because all of plaintiffs’ federal claims fail, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state and municipal law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially when the case remains at an early stage and dismissal will not unfairly prejudice the parties.

Fiberlight, LLC v. National Railroad Passenger Corpration · filed 2015-03-02(c)(3)

To be sure, federal courts are permitted to exercise supplemental (or “pendent”) jurisdiction over state law claims that “form part of the same case or controversy” as federal claims over which they have original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), but courts may also “decline” to exercise such jurisdiction in certain circumstances, see id. § 1367(c). ... Additionally, this case is still at an early stage procedurally, and it appears that a decision not to exercise jurisdiction over FiberLight’s anticipatory breach claim against TWTC will not unfairly prejudice the parties. ... Therefore, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over FiberLight’s remaining state law claim against TWTC.

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

Nixon v. Franciscan Health System · filed 2015-03-19(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed Nixon’s Title VII claim against FHS – the only claim “over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) – it did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Nixon’s state law battery claim against Dr. Mian.

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

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. v. Currey · filed 2015-04-07(c)(3)

Since the district court properly dismissed the Alliance’s constitutional claims, it was not improper for the court to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [pendent state law claims] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; early dismissal of the federal claims favors declining jurisdiction.

Levine v. Pelham · filed 2015-04-15(c)(3)

When the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the other claims in the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, the relevant considerations support a decision to decline 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.

Beau DuBois v. Ware · filed 2015-04-21(c)(3)

Finally, the district court acted within its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over, and dismissing without prejudice, any state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

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

Petrossian v. Cole · filed 2015-05-27(c)(3)

Because the Court dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it had the authority to decline to exercise supplemental 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.

Coleman v. Sellars · filed 2015-05-27(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Coleman has not shown any abuse of discretion.

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

Pellerin v. Nevada County · filed 2015-07-01(c)(3)

The district court did not err in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. A district court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to dismiss a supplemental state-law claim without prejudice after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, based on the relevant discretionary factors.

Evans v. City of Talladega · filed 2015-09-28(c)(3)

Once section 1367(c)(3) is satisfied, “the district court possesses the discretion to dismiss supplemental claims” and must weigh a “host of factors.” ... Those factors weigh in favor of dismissing Ms. Evans’s breach of contract claim. Therefore, the Court dismisses without prejudice Ms. Evans’s breach of contract claim against the City.

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

Brown v. Condux Tesmec, Inc. · filed 2015-09-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... This court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

Grinols v. Electoral College · filed 2015-11-02(c)(3)

Because the district court dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Lemmons v. Houston · filed 2015-12-02(c)(3)

However, “supplemental jurisdiction is not a matter of the litigants’ right, but of judicial discretion.” Estate of Harshman v. Jackson Hole Mtn. Resort Corp., 379 F.3d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir. 2004); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). After the district court resolved the claims against Drs. Karunapuzha and Troutt, it dismissed Mr. Lemmons’s remaining claims. This was consistent with the magistrate judge’s recommendations, and we discern no abuse of the court’s decision.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been eliminated.

Wichansky v. Zowine · filed 2015-12-11(c)(3)

Second, to the extent the Court could exercise jurisdiction over this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court may — and does — decline to do so. This order eliminates all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, enabling it to decline to exercise jurisdiction over state claims.

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

Blakely v. City of Laurel · filed 2016-03-25(c)(3)

It was also proper for the court to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against Payton, because it had dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3).

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

Talbert v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2016-08-09(c)(3)

In addition, the District Court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Talbert’s state law claims once it dismissed his other claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts broad discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within their original jurisdiction.

Elmore v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. · filed 2016-12-23(c)(3)

A district court has broad discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Foye v. Wexford Health Sources Inc · filed 2017-01-10(c)

Foye’s remaining allegations of medical malpractice and medical negligence arise under state law, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Foye’s state law claims in the absence of any actionable federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Elkadrawy, 584 F.3d at 174.

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

Ehlers v. Dirkes · filed 2017-01-25(c)(3)

A district court generally has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it has dismissed all the 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.

Oien v. County of San Bernardino · filed 2017-02-21(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a “district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Chance v. Zinke · filed 2017-04-18(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff asks the Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, the Court declines to do so, having dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Burrell v. Bayer Corp. · filed 2017-05-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. Such is the case here. Accordingly, the court will decline to exercise supplemental 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.

Hubbard v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan · filed 2017-06-06(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hubbard’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction); Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).

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

Scott v. American Security Insurance Co. (In re Scott) · filed 2017-06-14(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims at issue in the Cross-Complaints.

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

Russell v. Redstone Federal Credit Union · filed 2017-10-03(c)(3)

Lastly, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, including fraud, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties, because it had already dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Johnson v. Rose Duncan · filed 2017-10-04(c)(3)

Because the District Court dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction and did not specifically address Count V, it was proper to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that count.

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.

Baker v. Phillips · filed 2018-02-09(c)(3)

In the discussion above, the court dismissed all plaintiff’s claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Because plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress involves determinations of state law only, the court declines to exercise supplemental 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.

Hamilton v. Tiffany & Bosco Pa · filed 2018-02-26(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hamilton’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (the district court may in its discretion “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has ‘dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” (citation omitted)).

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

NHI-2, LLC v. Wright Property Management, Inc. · filed 2018-03-02(c)(3)

Courts can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the “court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, this Court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. As such, this Court declines to hear the claims contained in the third party complaint.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the claims against the sole defendant cannot proceed.

Jones v. Justice of the Peace Court 3 · filed 2018-03-08(c)(3)

Consequently, Jones’s claims could not proceed against the Justice of the Peace Court, the sole defendant. ... Also, given the foregoing, the District Court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Haaland v. Presbyterian Health Plan, Inc. · filed 2018-02-28(c)(3)

Having now determined that Plaintiffs' claims against PHP are preempted, unexhausted, and subject to dismissal, the Court will remand Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims against Defendant Presbyterian Healthcare Services and Gregg Valenzuela.

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

Lambert v. Trump Int'l Hotel & Tower · filed 2018-03-31(c)(3)

I have dismissed all claims over which I had original jurisdiction, as well as any state law claims governed under the same standards as their federal counterparts. Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NYCHRL claims, and these claims are dismissed without prejudice to filing in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after resolving the claims within its original jurisdiction; a limitations period that leaves time to refile in state court does not favor retaining jurisdiction.

Landmark American Insurance Company v. Deerfield Construction, Inc. · filed 2018-05-03(c)(3)

The Court, therefore, concludes that there is no danger of a statute of limitation period running such that the Court should retain jurisdiction over the parties’ supplemental, state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims when it has dismissed the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Collymore v. Suffolk County Sheriffs Department · filed 2018-05-22(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any other claims, if any, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3) where any claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to dismiss supplemental claims without prejudice after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hackler v. City of Dyer, Arkansas · filed 2018-05-23(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the claims over which the Court has supplemental jurisdiction will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Mardenborough v. Government of the Virgin Islands et.al · filed 2018-07-03(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “the district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court finds that the local law claims asserted in this matter are better left to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Chance v. Zinke · filed 2018-08-06(c)(3)

The district court’s alternative ruling was well within its prerogative. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (allowing district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction); City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997) (emphasizing that district courts have significant discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction). Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district court’s order.

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

Jorge Yarur Bascuñan, Tarascona Corp. v. Daniel Yarur Elsaca, CristiáN Jara Taito, Oscar BretóN Dieguez, GM & E Asset Mg · filed 2018-09-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only claims over which it has original jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed or abandoned.

Jones v. Coty, Inc. · filed 2018-10-02(c)(3)

While Franks’ individual state-law claims might be subject to supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (because original jurisdiction was initially proper as to her class claims), the subsequent dismissal / abandonment of her class claims weighs in favor of this Court declining to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction and instead dismissing the remaining claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support dismissing state-law claims when federal claims within the court’s original jurisdiction remain.

Ramos v.Drews · filed 2018-10-16(c)(3)

This court has not dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims arising under federal law, however, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (granting original jurisdiction over claims “arising under” federal law), and so dismissal of plaintiffs’ state law claims under § 1367(c)(3) i) is inappropriate.

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

Ogunsalu v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist. · filed 2019-01-11(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). As such is the case here, we affirm the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Ogunsalu’s state law claims.

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

Livingston v. N.C. State Bar · filed 2019-02-04(c)(3)

The court has dismissed Livingston's claims over which the court has original jurisdiction. To the extent that Livingston raises state law claims, including claims under the North Carolina Constitution, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state-law claims when dismissal of an aggregated diversity claim drops the amount in controversy below the jurisdictional threshold.

Broadway v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · filed 2019-03-04(c)(3)

The court agrees with the Fourth and D.C. Circuits' position that the court may dismiss the remaining state-law claims in this instance.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; the usual practice is to dismiss those state claims without prejudice unless an exception warrants retaining them.

Rodriguez v. City of Chicago · filed 2019-03-27(c)(3)

Because that disposition results in 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 claim in Count I and resolve Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. ... In sum, the Court concludes that none of the exceptions to the “usual practice” applies in this case. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment without prejudice and dismisses Count I with leave to refile both in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; absent unusual circumstances, courts ordinarily do so when those claims end before trial.

Coleman v. City of Peoria, Illinois · filed 2019-05-24(c)(3)

After disposing of Coleman’s § 1983 claims on their mer‐ its, the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction over four of Coleman’s state law claims and dismissed them with‐ out prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if … the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”). The court ex‐ plained it retained jurisdiction over the malicious prosecution claim because its probable cause determination was disposi‐ tive for that claim. 13D CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3567.3 (3d ed. Apr. 2019 supp.) (“[A]lthough it is unusual, it is permissible for the fed‐ eral court to decide one supplemental claim on the merits while declining to hear another supplemental claim.”). A federal court’s decision to exercise supplemental juris‐ diction over state law claims is discretionary. United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); see also Dargis v. Sheahan, 526 F.3d 981, 990 (7th Cir. 2008). Absent unusual circumstances, district courts relinquish supplemental juris‐ diction over pendent state law claims if all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been resolved before trial. Dargis, 526 F.3d at 990; see also Sharp Elec. Corp. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 505, 514 (7th Cir. 2009). We see no abuse of discretion in the district court following that typical approach in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over crossclaims after it resolves the claims within its original jurisdiction.

SCHLAFLY v. THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2019-06-17(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the crossclaims because it already resolved the competing claims on the Policies.

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.

Miles v. Birmingham, City of · filed 2019-06-26(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “[a] district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim...if...the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... In light of this precedent, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims. Accordingly, these claims are due to be dismissed without prejudice.

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

RASKAS v. LATTICE, INC. · filed 2019-07-03(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim and dismiss it without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims.

Rios v. Jenkins · filed 2019-07-15(c)(3)

Having dismissed both federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count III, and will dismiss that count without prejudice.

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

RASHEED v. FLOYD COUNTY CPS · filed 2019-07-16(c)(3)

Only Rasheed’s state law claims for misrepresentation and negligence remain. The court does not have original jurisdiction to hear these claims and it declines to take supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating the court may decline to take supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”). Rasheed’s state law claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

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

Brown v. Microsoft Corporation · filed 2019-08-09(c)(3)

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

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

GAYDEN v. DIODATI · filed 2019-08-14(c)(3)

Finally, having “dismissed all claims over which [this Court] has original jurisdiction,” the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims (Counts III, IV, and V).

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.

Turner v. Nolan · filed 2019-08-27(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Turner’s state law claim.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Spec's Family Partners, Ltd. v. The Executive Director of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission · filed 2019-08-28(c)(3)

When a “district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” it may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the Court finds that the claims against Defendants in their official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and the claims against the Defendants in their individual capacity are dismissed based upon absolute immunity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law malicious prosecution claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

White v. Simpson · filed 2019-09-09(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the claims over which the Court has supplemental jurisdiction will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Giles v. Alto Partners, LLLP · filed 2019-09-12(c)(3)

Because the Court in dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Munt v. Roy · filed 2019-09-13(c)(3)

Again, because Munt fails to identify the claims in question, and his federal claims fail, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, to the extent they exist.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after a plaintiff formally waives the federal claims, but an informal statement that no federal claim was intended does not suffice.

Monteiro v. City Of Brockton · filed 2019-09-25(c)(3)

That statement is not a formal waiver. Plaintiff therefore has not waived his federal claims, and the court is required to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Brown v. Microsoft Corporation · filed 2019-10-01(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Jordan v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance · filed 2019-10-04(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are settled when the remaining state-law claim is uncomplicated and its resolution is clear.

Connelly, Timothy v. Dan Lepke Trucking LLC · filed 2019-10-16(c)(3)

Although the parties have settled all the federal claims, it is appropriate to retain jurisdiction in this case because the remaining state-law claim is not complicated and its resolution is clear from the text of § 103.455.

When all federal claims are removed and the case is in its early stages, the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remand the case to state court.

(PC) Hill v. Cross · filed 2019-10-22(c)(3)

Because the federal claims have been removed and this case is in its early stages, the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims and should instead remand the case to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court, and usually counsels it, to decline supplemental jurisdiction once all claims within its original jurisdiction have been resolved.

Thoupe v. University of Denver · filed 2020-01-29(c)(3)

As 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) explains, the Court may – “and usually should” -- decline to continue to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction once it has resolved all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Trexis Insurance Corporation v. Tallevast · filed 2020-01-29(c)(3)

Here, the Court has determined that all potential federal claims should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with § 1367, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant Tallevast’s state law claim, and instead will dismiss it for lack of ... jurisdiction.

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

Trotter v. Peters III · filed 1997-01-09(c)(3)

With the federal claims having been decided prior to trial, the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental state claims. ... We also conclude the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over Trotter's supplemental state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims when all federal claims have been resolved through arbitration and the case is far from ready for trial.

Zandman v. Citibank, N.A. · filed 2020-02-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, all federal claims in this action having been resolved, and no basis for diversity jurisdiction existing, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) supports declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal claims have been eliminated before trial by adverse judgment or procedural default, particularly when discovery has not begun.

Robinson v. Webster County, Mississippi · filed 2020-03-11(c)(3)

Having determined that Robinson’s federal claims fail as a matter of law, the Court, in accordance with the general rule in the Fifth Circuit, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pending state law claims. The only federal claims not dismissed as a result of this Order are the claims asserted against Patterson, for which default has been entered due to his failure to file a responsive pleading. Thus, all federal claims have been eliminated either via adverse judgment through this Order or through the entry of a procedural default, and the Fifth Circuit’s general rule therefore supports declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Abdelhalim v. Lewis · filed 2020-06-17(c)(3)

All federal claims herein fail, thus the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the common law conspiracy claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Torres v. Correct Care Solution · filed 2020-06-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims the amended complaint can be liberally read to assert. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

JACKSON v. ROSEN · filed 2020-06-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Jackson’s federal law claims, the Court will not 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.

Alkarawi v. Diaz · filed 2020-06-29(c)

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

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

Owens v. United States · filed 2020-06-30(c)(3)

Furthermore, as Plaintiff’s remaining claim against Defendant Harris sounds in state law, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim and dismiss it without prejudice.

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.

Tripathy v. The City of New York · filed 2020-06-30(c)(3)

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

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

Allen v. Hummer · filed 2020-08-06(c)

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

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

Bourgeois v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated · filed 2020-08-06(c)(3)

Because this case now contains only state-law claims, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain it.

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

Cabrera-Martinez v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2020-08-14(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ individual state law claims because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Harbord v. MTC Financial Inc · filed 2020-08-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and so has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hoke v. United States of America · filed 2020-08-28(c)(3)

Regarding courts’ supplemental jurisdiction, a “district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Here, the court finds that it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, and that the remaining claims are better suited to resolution in state court.

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

BRADY v. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR, COUNTY OF BERGEN · filed 2020-08-28(c)(3)

But the Court does not reach these arguments because, to the extent any such state law claims are alleged, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Brightwell v. Warden of MCI-J · filed 2020-09-15(c)(3)

Because Brightwell’s constitutional claim fails, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed, and to remand that claim to state court.

Big Red Box LLC v. Grisel · filed 2020-09-16(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court can decline to exercise jurisdiction over a supplemental claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s conversion claim against Tye Grisel and remands the claim to state court.

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

MURGULY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2020-09-18(c)(3)

Because the Court “dismissed all claims over which it ha{d] original jurisdiction,” the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's negligence claims against the remaining parties.

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

Pickett v. Boise Police Department · filed 2020-10-07(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(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bartlett v. All American Asphalt · filed 2020-10-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s Section 204 claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Murrell v. Coash · filed 2020-11-13(c)(3)

Finally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any surviving or intended state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3)(court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over 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 related state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Raley v. Bob Williams · filed 2020-11-16(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Raley’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

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

Garcia v. Din Tai Fung Restaurant, Inc. · filed 2020-11-20(c)(3)

In light of these factors, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining PAGA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Francis v. City of Athens · filed 2020-11-30(c)(3)

Rather than order additional briefing on this issue, and because the Court has disposed of all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Henderson v. Town of Greenwood · filed 2020-12-07(c)(3)

As § 1367(c)(3) lists as an appropriate reason to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Quire v. City Of New York · filed 2021-01-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed the complaint’s only federal claim well before trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Gilroy v. Baldwin · filed 2021-01-29(c)(3)

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gilroy’s state-law claim because, as we’ve held, it properly dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

(PC) Angel Ruiz v. Fortune · filed 2021-01-29(c)(3)

To the extent that he is, because the Court has found that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable federal claims, the Court finds that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims is not appropriate.

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

(PC) Eastman v. Tuolumne County Jail · filed 2021-02-12(c)(3)

As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, it is recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Hughes v. Miller · filed 2021-02-24(c)(3)

Because the claims against Judge McGarrity have been dismissed, I would not use such claims as a basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims against the other defendants, even if I were permitted to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction).

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

CIMA Developers Limited Partnership v. The City of West Chicago, Illinois · filed 2021-02-25(c)(3)

Because the Court is granting defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ constitutional claims with prejudice — over which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction — the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law malicious prosecution claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Weber v. Little · filed 2021-03-03(c)(3)

Because the Amended Complaint fails to state federal claims, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims.

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

FirstEnergy Corp. v. Pircio · filed 2021-03-08(c)(3)

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

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff fails to state a cognizable federal claim.

Redick v. Sonora Police Department · filed 2021-03-17(c)(3)

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

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

WRIGHT CROFT v. DONEGAL TOWNSHIP · filed 2021-03-25(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs’ federal claims will be dismissed as to all Defendants, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged in Counts IV and V. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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

Delavega v. Burns · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the federal claims and there is no complete diversity of citizenship, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ 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.

Schroder v. Johnson · filed 2021-04-12(c)

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

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

Sumter v. The City of Orlando · filed 2021-04-13(c)

All claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction having been dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Perez v. Midland National Life Insurance Company · filed 2021-04-20(c)(3)

Because neither party raises a federal claim and the Court is without diversity jurisdiction, see [ECF No. 71], the Court may exercise its discretion to no longer exercise supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

CARATINI v. POWELL · filed 2021-05-14(c)(3)

Assuming that he is, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims because the amended complaint fails to state a federal claim, and Plaintiff does not assert diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

(PC) King v. Lemos · filed 2021-05-21(c)(3)

Since, as discussed infra, Plaintiff does not state a cognizable violation of any constitutional right, the Court will decline to exercise supplement jurisdiction as to this state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, although it retains power to hear the supplemental claim.

Great Lakes Insurance SE v. NR 1 Transport, Inc. · filed 2021-06-02(c)(3)

The dismissal of Count IV is not due to want of jurisdiction, but rather is a discretionary decision under § 1367(c)(3) to decline to exercise the supplemental jurisdiction granted by § 1367(a).

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

Fekieh v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2021-06-11(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, and absent some compelling reason otherwise, the Court may decline to exercise it.

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

Hughley v. Greenwald · filed 2021-06-29(c)(3)

It is undisputed that the Court dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction when it dismissed the United States and that only Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim against Greenwald remains. The Court therefore must decide whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s negligence claim. ... The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remand is mandatory.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a cross-complaint after dismissing all claims over which it purportedly had original jurisdiction.

Jensen v. Evolve Skateboards PTY LTD · filed 2021-06-30(c)(3)

Because the court will dismiss all claims over which it purportedly 11 had original jurisdiction, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the cross- 12 complaint at this time.

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.

Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital · filed 2021-07-02(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff fails to state a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Shorter v. Sullivan · filed 2021-08-05(c)(3)

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

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

Wirth v. PHC Las Cruces Inc. · filed 2021-08-09(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Dingle v. Stamford · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

A district court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This Court has original jurisdiction over count two of the second amended complaint but after dismissing that count, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

GIBSON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2021-10-06(c)(3)

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

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

Vandermark v. Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association, (LEEBA) · filed 2021-10-06(c)(3)

A court 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 after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Perry v. City of Harvey · filed 2021-10-07(c)(3)

But a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when, as here, it has dismissed all ...claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Public Water Supply District No. 1 of Greene County, MO v. City of Springfield, MO · filed 2021-10-14(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no independent federal cause of action remains.

Akers v. Conover · filed 2021-11-15(c)(3)

Setting aside the issues with the lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the FTCA, in the alternative, since the Court has found no independent cause of action under federal law, it declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Turner v. Eagan Police Department · filed 2021-12-06(c)(3)

And even if Turner’s claim were construed as a Minnesota common-law false- imprisonment claim, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state-law claim because all of Turner’s federal claims, over which this Court has original jurisdiction, have been dismissed.

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

Scott v. Watson · filed 2021-12-06(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim for gross negligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court, therefore, will dismiss it without prejudice.

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.

Lege v. City of Ketchikan, Alaska · filed 2021-12-16(c)(3)

Pursuant to Section 1367(c), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” As set out above, the court has granted the defendants other than Boneta summary judgment, which will result in the dismissal of plaintiff’s first through third claims over which the court has original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s fifth and sixth claims against Boneta.

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

BROOKS v. WHELTON · filed 2021-12-21(c)(3)

Although Plaintiff does seek to raise a state law slander claim against the Department, because this Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.

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

Brik v. DeLizzo · filed 2021-12-22(c)(3)

To the extent the plaintiff brings state law claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

PENDLETON v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2023-03-23(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Pendleton’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE insofar as Mr. Pendleton seeks to pursue state law claims, over which the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in all other respects, as stated in the Report and Recommendation at ECF No. 12.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims fail and no independent basis for jurisdiction remains.

Jideofor v. City of Minneapolis Police Department · filed 2023-04-07

Accordingly, the R&R did not err in concluding that in the absence of any federal question or other independent basis for jurisdiction over the state law claims, the Court was justified declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state claims.

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

Brown v. Vitucci · filed 2023-04-17(c)(3)

In any event, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We perceive no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

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.

Oxenrider v. Lebanon County District Attorney · filed 2023-04-24(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

Addison Outdoors, LLC v. Wright National Flood Insurance Service, LLC · filed 2023-05-18(c)(3)

For the second and third factors, the Court notes that the Court has dismissed all claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the second and third factors of § 1367(c) weigh in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction and remanding Plaintiff’s claims to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to consider whether to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Robinson v. Priority Automotive Huntersville, Inc. · filed 2023-06-15(c)(3)

Or the court may consider whether it should continue to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over this case since “all claims over which it had original jurisdiction” have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Maskanian v. Wells Fargo & Company · filed 2023-06-20(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff may be alleging a claim for common law fraud under New York state law, the Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claim, as the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hamilton v. State of Mississippi · filed 2023-06-28(c)(3)

Having found that the USDA must be dismissed from this action, the Court has dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with the general rule in the Fifth Circuit, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hamilton’s remaining state law claims.

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

Miley v. Burns · filed 2023-07-11(c)(3)

We further conclude that the district court properly declined to exercise sup- plemental jurisdiction over Miley’s state law claims because it had dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

DeCastro v. Abrams · filed 2023-07-11(c)(3)

Because DeCastro no longer brings claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Abrams and Peter, see [ECF No. 67], and because the Court dismissed DeCastro’s copyright claims against all defendants, see [ECF No. 133], the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at this time.

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

Doe 1 v. Varsity Brands, LLC · filed 2023-08-02(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once they have dismissed all claims over which they had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, considering the limited substantive activity in the case.

Crawford v. Chevron Corporation · filed 2023-08-14(c)(3)

Here, because very little in the way of substantive activity has occurred (e.g., the sole remaining defendant has not been served with process, there has apparently been no discovery, and a trial has not been set), in its discretion, the Court decides not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

DUPREE v. WETZEL · filed 2023-08-23(c)(3)

Therefore, even if Petitioner could bring a supplemental state law claim for specific performance in a habeas petition, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a claim.

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

Houston v. AT&T · filed 2023-09-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed Houston’s Fourth Amendment claim, the Court no longer has original jurisdiction over any claim and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Houston’s remaining claim Nevada constitutional claim.

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

Hart v. The General Electric Company · filed 2023-09-22(c)(3)

In light of the failure of Plaintiffs’ claims against UAW, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against GE.

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

Webb v. River Birch Park LLC · filed 2023-09-26(c)(3)

Without any remaining claim under the Court’s original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

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

Everett v. Horry County Police Dept. · filed 2023-09-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim for negligent supervision.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all claims supporting original jurisdiction, particularly at an early stage.

Molina v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2023-10-03(c)(3)

When a court has dismissed all claims that give rise to jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims. Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1143 n.7 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). At this early stage, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is unnecessary.

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, especially when litigation is still at an early stage.

Diaz v. State of Connecticut Department of Developmental Services · filed 2023-10-04(c)(3)

This case is in the early stages of litigation. DDS has not filed an answer to Diaz’s complaint, the parties have not begun discovery, and neither this Court, nor the parties, have expended significant resources. Thus, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Diaz’s CFEPA claim and dismiss Count Two without prejudice.

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

Martin, Donald v. Adams, Jaime · filed 2023-10-06(c)(3)

The general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015). In this instance, since the court is granting summary judgment to defendants on all of his federal claims, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining negligence claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining state-law claims after all claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Garey v. Washington State University · filed 2023-10-18(c)(3)

Due to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Title IX claim against WSU and the dismissal of all claims against SAE, a foreign corporation, the Court no longer has federal question or diversity jurisdiction over this action. ... As such, the Court dismisses the remaining claims against Anderson pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Mims-Baptiste v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association · filed 2023-11-08(c)(3)

For these reasons, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Loop Lofts Apartments, LLC v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company · filed 2023-11-28(c)(3)

All claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction having been dismissed, see Doc. [50], the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 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 remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Potrykus v. McLaren Health Care · filed 2023-12-01(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remand Plaintiff’s case against the 12 remaining Defendants to the Bay County Circuit Court.