28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Logerfo v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association · filed 2023-12-27(c)(3)

But the Court is not required to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. A court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” under various different circumstances, including when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

WEEMS v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2023-12-28(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,10 it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any purported state law claims.

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

Smith v. Stack · filed 2024-01-02(c)(3)

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

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

Second Amendment Foundation v. Ferguson · filed 2024-01-09(c)(3)

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

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

Morrison v. Dallas County Human Sex Trafficking Task Force · filed 2024-01-12(c)(3)

Having accepted the recommendation and dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction, the Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s new state-law claims pled in his motion for leave to amend.

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

Briggs v. Campbell · filed 2024-03-20(c)(3)

When a “court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” any additional claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Consequently, the court will dismiss without prejudice the local law claims.

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

Naicom Corporation v. Dish Network Corporation · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed Counts I through VI, the Court also dismisses Count VII pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).23 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that “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 after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Community Realty Property Management, Inc. v. Glaude · filed 2024-04-03(c)(3)

But a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over any claim brought under Section 1367(a) if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... However, Chief Judge Seeborg dismissed this case on February 16, 2024.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, with a presumption favoring that choice.

Whaley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2024-04-18(c)(3)

To be clear: To the extent that the complaint is intended to sue the alleged tortfeasor for negligence, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over that ordinary state-law claim, as both the plaintiff and the tortfeasor are allegedly residents of Nebraska and the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). There is nothing to overcome the presumption of declining 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.

Newton v. Lairson · filed 2024-04-24(c)(3)

These are Kentucky state-law claims, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Delux Public Charter, LLC v. County of Westchester, New York · filed 2024-07-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any outstanding state or local law claims.

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

Bond v. Patriot Mortgage Corporation · filed 2024-07-03(c)(3)

As is the case here, if the Court dismisses the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Thus, having considered the balance of factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

ST CLAIR v. BOWERS · filed 2024-07-11(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and it declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 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.

Strauss v. I.K.M.J. Joint LLC · filed 2024-08-15(c)(3)

The Court declines to adjudicate the motion as it relates to the assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unjust enrichment claims because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Ottele v. Martinez · filed 2024-08-23(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where, as here, all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

MEDINA v. LITTLE · filed 2024-08-27(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Medina’s medical negligence claim because we dismissed all claims over which we have original jurisdiction.

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

GARCIA v. CITY OF PERTH AMBOY · filed 2024-09-04(c)(3)

Having “dismissed all claims over which [this Court] has original jurisdiction” with respect to Defendants, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims that Plaintiff asserts against Defendants.

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

Quiroz v. City of Dayton · filed 2024-09-12(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. This decision is within the discretion of the district court. The court finds Plaintiffs’ conclusory objection to Judge Hawthorn’s recommendation unavailing, and accordingly, it is overruled.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction when there is no affirmative justification to retain the claim.

Wan v. Dong · filed 2024-09-16(c)(3)

The upside of all this is that, even if the Court might have had original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law gross negligence claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the Court does not have original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s failure to pay wages claim, and that claim should be dismissed because there is no affirmative justification to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

McCarty v. Village of Lakemoor · filed 2024-09-23(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that the 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. That is the case here.

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

Walters v. Transforce, Inc. · filed 2024-10-25(c)(3)

After weighing the above factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in Verst Group’s Crossclaim and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Avila v. Promesa, Inc. · filed 2024-10-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s claims of which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any of Plaintiff’s claims under state law that have not already been dismissed in this order.

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

Munden v. Pineda · filed 2024-11-08(c)(3)

Where, as here, a district court grants summary judgment on all federal claims, in its discretion, “the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” Smith v. City of Enid ex rel. Enid City Comm’n, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the Court is granting summary judgment on Mr. Munden’s sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of his state law claim of excessive.

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

SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC · filed 2024-12-20(c)(3)

The dismissal of plaintiff’s federal cause of action means that the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” and “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over defendant’s purely state-law counterclaims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). For the same reasons as apply to plaintiff’s non-trade secret state-law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over defendant’s counterclaims.

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

Cooley v. Servicemaster Co. LLC · filed 2025-01-02(c)(3)

Having reviewed the authorities cited by Plaintiff, the court agrees that consideration of the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s PAGA claim and remanding this case to the Sacramento County Superior Court.

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

Gracey General Partnership v. City of Clarksville, Tennessee · filed 2025-01-10(c)(3)

Because the court will dismiss the other counts, over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claim and will dismiss Count I.

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

Wardell v. Pitt County, North Carolina · filed 2025-01-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims over which Wardell alleged this court had original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over Wardell’s remaining state-law claim.

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

POWELL v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2025-01-22(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Bentley and, as a result, Claims 6–10 against Bentley are dismissed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Barrett v. Quest Diagnostics · filed 2025-02-03(c)(3)

Since Plaintiff does not allege diversity jurisdiction and the Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law causes of action.

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

Odynocki v. Delta Air Lines Inc · filed 2025-02-11(c)(3)

These factors weigh in favor of dismissing plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim without prejudice so that he may assert that claim in state court. The Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice after resolving the claims supporting original jurisdiction.

Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Geebo LLC · filed 2025-02-12(c)(3)

Given the parties’ filings, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Produce Source Partners, Inc. v. 7-Eleven, Inc. · filed 2025-02-24(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not authorize a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction while a claim within its original jurisdiction remains.

McDowell v. The Board of Trustees for Perry Township, Stark County, Ohio · filed 2025-03-11(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court finds inapplicable the discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” because it has not “dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The motion to remand is thus DENIED.

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

Richmond v. State of South Dakota · filed 2025-03-14(c)(3)

Because Richmond has not stated a viable claim within this Court’s original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law tort claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all claims within its original jurisdiction are subject to dismissal.

Holtzclaw v. Pittman · filed 2025-03-24(c)(3)

Further, as all claims over which this Court would have original jurisdiction are subject to dismissal, supplemental jurisdiction is inappropriate here.

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

JONES v. STELLER INNOVATIONS LLC · filed 2025-04-01(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.” ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Steller’s counterclaim and finds that remand of that claim is warranted.

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

Ouaziz v. Clarke · filed 2025-04-07(c)(3)

The counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, which are brought pursuant to state law and over which the Court does not appear to have 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.

Merrick v. State of Arizona · filed 2025-04-25(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Merrick’s state law claims and remanding those claims to the state court. See Dyack v. Northern Mariana Islands, 317 F.3d 1030, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) permits the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where the district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

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

Hughey v. Tippah County, Mississippi · filed 2025-04-28(c)(3)

As for the Plaintiff's state law claim for assault and battery against Mason, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) because the Court is dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

O.C. v. PARKLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2025-05-14(c)(3)

Since no claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction remains, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and the state‑law counts are dismissed without prejudice as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it resolves all claims within its original jurisdiction and to dismiss those state law claims without prejudice.

Temple v. Reliance First Capital LLC · filed 2025-06-04(c)(3)

Because the court resolves the only claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court WILL DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Temple’s state law claims against Defendants and WILL DISMISS those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

People of The State of California v. Eli Lilly and Company · filed 2025-06-04(c)(3)

As an initial matter, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims “if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (emphasis added); see also New Rock Asset Partners, L.P. v. Preferred Entity Advancements, Inc., 101 F.3d 1492, 1508 (3d Cir. 1996) (explaining dismissal of federal jurisdiction-granting claim “triggers a discretionary decision on whether jurisdiction over a state law claim should be declined pursuant to § 1367(c)(3)”). Since the Court has determined the People’s post-removal disclaimer statements were not effective to foreclose the possibility that the People would seek to recover for Defendants’ actions to assist the federal government with administering FEHBA and TRICARE, there is still an original jurisdiction claim pending.

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

Pettitt v. The Procter & Gamble Distributing LLC · filed 2025-06-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Kahahawai v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc. · filed 2025-06-06(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim in Count II for Gross Negligence.

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

Frazier v. Minneapolis, City of, The · filed 2025-06-09(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Frazier’s state-law wrongful-death claim.

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

JONES v. FEATHERSTONE CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC · filed 2025-06-11(c)(3)

Having “dismissed all claims over which [the Court] has original jurisdiction,” the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law Plaintiff may have intended to assert.

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

MAY v. ERIE COUNTY · filed 2025-07-11(c)(3)

Because this Court has presently dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs putative state law claims. ... Accordingly, the Court need not presently address the viability of ... Plaintiff’s state law claims but will instead allow Plaintiff an opportunity to reassert those claims in an amended pleading.

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

Thomas v. Mohiuddin · filed 2025-07-21(c)(3)

Because all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas’ state law claims.

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

KANAPESKY v. TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRANDYWINE · filed 2025-07-23(c)

And having “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Court will so decline, as the parties have set out no “extraordinary circumstances” that would warrant exercising supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

Campbell v. Walker · filed 2025-07-31(c)(3)

The only other basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims would be supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but because the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” id. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Peters v. City of Torrington · filed 2025-08-05(c)(3)

As I have dismissed all claims over which I have original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Peters’s other state-law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims after the claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Jose Moreno, Jr. v. Winchell s Donut House · filed 2025-08-05(c)

In light of the dismissal of the claims against Defendant United States, and after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims alleged against the remaining defendants.

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

Megatel Homes LLC v. City of Mansfield, Texas · filed 2025-08-22(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may 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 it resolves all claims within its original jurisdiction.

LEINHEISER v. HOEY · filed 2025-08-25(c)(3)

As this Court perceives no affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction in this matter, and as this Court has now entered summary judgment as to all of Plaintiffs federal claims, this Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's medical negligence claims and therefore dismisses them without prejudice at this time.

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

WINWOOD v. WHITEKO · filed 2025-09-04(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because it will dismiss all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the Court will remand these claims to state court.

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

Hyde v. Horn CPA Group (INMATE 1) · filed 2025-09-18(c)(3)

Because all claims over which this court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed (see Docs. # 5, 8, 9), supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims in the amended complaint should be declined. ... Neither the complaint nor the amended complaint establishes an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the state-law claims, and the court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Williams v. Simpson · filed 2025-09-26(c)(3)

Moreover, even if the counterclaim is not moot, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim, which depends upon the success of now- dismissed claims.

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

McKenzie · filed 2025-10-16(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the only alleged basis for jurisdiction rests on the now dismissed claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Uminski · filed 2025-10-20(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)(3).

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

Lall v. N.Y.C. Housing Auth. · filed 2025-10-21(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state or local law because it “‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 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.

Conniff · filed 2025-11-24(c)(3)

Fourth, to the extent that Plaintiff asserts any state law claims, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended that this Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. See Dkt. No. 15 at 11. Magistrate Judge Dancks explained that “[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.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). ... Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.

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

Bernardino v. Diaz · filed 2025-12-22(c)(3)

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

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

Leiva · filed 2025-12-29(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed the Second cause of action (failure to pay overtime), and related derivative causes of action, over which it has original jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action are independent state law claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims in the interest of comity and to promote convenience and fairness to the parties.

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

FATA · filed 2025-12-31(c)(3)

Having “dismissed all claims over which [this Court] has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims Plaintiff asserts against Defendants.

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

Kunzer v. Foster · filed 2026-01-05(c)(3)

We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kunzer’s state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (allowing district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim after dismissing all original jurisdiction claims); King v. City of Crestwood, 899 F.3d 643, 651 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review).

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

LUNSFORD · filed 2026-01-09(c)(3)

The Court has now dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lunsford’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

United Financial Casualty Company v. Aman Expedite · filed 2026-01-28(c)(3)

Next, the Court concludes that the factors this Court must consider in determining whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—weigh in favor of declining 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.

Hart · filed 2026-02-19(c)(3)

Because the only claims against Defendants over which this Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, this 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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Saini · filed 2026-02-20(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed the claims against the United States— the only claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Because the remaining claims sound in state law alone, a state court is better suited to hear them. Exercising supplemental jurisdiction would not promote judicial economy, comity, or fairness. The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Sainis’ remaining claims and remands them to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

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

KCD KC Disposal LLC v. City of Independence · filed 2026-02-23(c)(3)

Finally, and most importantly, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, which alone is sufficient reason to decline supplemental jurisdiction. See id. § 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.

Dorsey · filed 2026-02-24(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 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 it disposes of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Barnett · filed 2026-03-17(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment on all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law causes of action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hylton v. District of Columbia Office of Risk Management · filed 2026-03-25(c)(3)

Because there are no remaining federal issues for this Court to resolve, and because the only remaining claim arises under the D.C. Code, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over that claim and instead remands the remainder of this case to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

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

BRADEN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL HOUSING SERVICE, FORMERLY FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION · filed 2026-04-09(c)(3)

Under these circumstances, and considering that Plaintiff originally filed this action in state court and Arvest Bank has yet to be served, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim for wrongful foreclosure against Arvest Bank.

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

Arnold v. Holmes · filed 2026-04-13(c)(3)

In light of this dismissal, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Holmes’s state law counterclaims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 & n.7 (1988).

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

Brunson v. Benedict College · filed 2026-05-26(c)(3)

We have reviewed the record in conjunction with the issues Bruson raises on appeal and find no reversible error. ... See also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[D]istrict 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 after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Burk v. Townsend · filed 2026-05-28(c)(3)

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

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

Weise · filed 2026-06-23(c)(3)

Because Richmond has not stated a claim within this Court’s original jurisdiction that survived the motion to dismiss, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law tort claims.

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

Weise · filed 2026-06-23(c)

ORDERED that this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Richmond’s state-law claim against Judge Lange under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) because all claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed, Richmond’s state-law claim against Judge Lange is 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.

Dopp v. Loring · filed 2007-08-30(c)(3)

In any event, while it is true Dopp alleged a state law conversion claim in his complaint, the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction over it, as well as Dopp’s other state law claims, because the federal claims had been dismissed. It did not abuse its discretion in doing so.

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

Ferguson v. County of Clearwater · filed 2024-03-25(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining claims, and therefore those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Teeter v. Boland · filed 2021-02-18(c)(3)

The 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).

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

Tate v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-12-17(c)(3)

On remand, the court is free to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the common ... law claims inasmuch as we have upheld its summary judgment grant on all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the claims that supported original jurisdiction.

Barrios v. American Property Management, Inc. · filed 2019-10-08(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), having dismissed Plaintiff’s tenth, eleventh, and twelfth causes of action, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ remaining ... claims, which solely arise under state law; and ... IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Lopez v. Downtown Las Vegas Events Center · filed 2021-09-22(c)(3)

Since the Court has dismissed all claims over ... which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over ... Plaintiffs emotional distress state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; when considering remand, it should weigh economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Davila v. Aetna US Hlthcare · filed 2002-10-31(c)(3)

Section 1367(3) allows a district court to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3). The district court should evaluate whether remand furthers “the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”

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

Davis v. Great Western Bank · filed 1992-12-04(c)(3)

Because the only claim over which the Court had original jurisdiction now has been dismissed from the case, § 1367(c)(3) applies.

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

Rigano v. County of Sullivan · filed 2007-04-13(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims because, as set forth above, none of plaintiffs federal claims are sufficient to survive summary judgment.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after it grants summary judgment on the federal claims.

Maynard v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF DELAWARE AND DELAWARE COUNTY, INC. · filed 2010-01-11(c)(3)

Because the court will grant summary judgment to defendant on the federal claims, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs supplemental state law claim.

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

Delebreau v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2011-01-18(c)(3)

Given that I have granted summary judgment to Bay-view on all of plaintiffs’ claims over which the court had original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining state-law breach of contract claim.

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

Damiani v. Duffy · filed 2018-11-09(c)(3)

The District Court correctly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Damiani’s state law claims where Damiani’s federal claims could not survive summary judgment.

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

U.S. Specialty Insurance Company v. Hard Rock Tile & Stone · filed 2021-09-07(c)(3)

However, having granted partial summary judgment in favor of USSIC on USSIC’s rescission claim, the court has effectively disposed of all claims over which it had original jurisdiction and may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after the claims supporting original federal jurisdiction are dismissed, considering judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity, even if it previously exercised supplemental jurisdiction.

In Re Latex Glove Products Liability Litigation · filed 2005-06-03(c)(3)

The Court must continue to exercise authority over this matter, if at all, by means of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction at any stage of the litigation and the fact that it may have previously exercised such jurisdiction is not a bar to later relinquishing it. ... Additionally, considerations of judicial economy, fairness, convenience to the litigants and principles of comity with the state courts dictate that this Court decline any further exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the parties to this lawsuit.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it has disposed of all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, taking account of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

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

In this case, the Court has disposed of all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... The Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Koresko’s remaining proposed claim.

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

Anderson v. the Foster Group · filed 2007-10-16(c)(3)

Nothing in the record before the court indicates that “the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, or comity” counsel in favor of this federal court determining Plaintiffs’ state law claims after having dismissed all federal claims. ... Thus, the court exercises its discretion to decline jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Counts V and VI are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the claims supporting original jurisdiction, including for reasons of comity.

Grant v. Winik · filed 2013-06-11(c)(3)

Nevertheless, as the basis for this Court's jurisdiction has been dismissed, in the interest of comity the Court will exercise its discretion and dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims without prejudice so that, if Plaintiff wishes, she may obtain a ruling on these claims from a Pennsylvania Court.

When claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c)(3) calls for declining supplemental state law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness affirmatively justifies retaining them.

United States ex rel. Silver v. Omnicare, Inc. · filed 2016-11-28(c)(3)

Thus, the Court finds no sufficient affirmative justification for retaining supplemental jurisdiction of the remaining state law claims. Those claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Silver’s right to refile in the appropriate state forum (or fora).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Procraft Cabinetry, Inc. v. Sweet Home Kitchen & Bath, Inc. · filed 2018-09-24(c)(3)

After weighing the relevant factors, the Court does not see any reason to depart from general rule. Accordingly, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaims.

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

Hepstall v. Humana Health Plan, Inc. · filed 2019-04-24(c)(3)

These factors decidedly weigh in favor of the Court exercising its discretion 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 all claims supporting original jurisdiction have ended, absent an affirmative justification to retain them based on judicial economy, convenience, or fairness.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. v. NEU · filed 2019-09-26(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline to hear state law claims they would otherwise have supplemental jurisdiction to entertain pursuant to § 1367(a). ... Under the present circumstances, dismissal of the state law claims is appropriate.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law third-party claims after the original action settles when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not favor retention.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's Subscribing to Policy ARK000251 v. Han Wong Restaurant Inc. · filed 2020-03-12(c)(3)

The Court may choose either to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), or else to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction following dismissal of the claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the Court does not find that factors of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness to the litigants weigh in favor of the Court retaining jurisdiction over the third-party claims.

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

Essex One, LLC v. Town of Essex · filed 2020-08-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines, in its discretion, to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims, including its Article 78 Petition.

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

Bodge v. United Technologies Corporation · filed 2020-09-18(c)

In light of the fact that the claims against Raytheon have been dismissed and those are the only claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction, and after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims alleged against the remaining defendants.

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, with comity, convenience, fairness, and judicial economy informing that choice.

E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Pestmaster Services, Inc. · filed 2020-09-28(c)(3)

Despite these arguments, the court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims here. Comity weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims because the state court is competent to hear those claims and is likely to have a better understanding of the relevant state law.

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

Wellons v. PNS Stores, Inc. · filed 2020-10-22(c)(3)

Once every claim over which the court has original jurisdiction has been dismissed, retention of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under Section 1367(c) is discretionary. ... Upon review of the Carnegie-Mellon factors, the Court concludes that remand is appropriate here.

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, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Sheppard v. Staffmark Investment, LLC · filed 2021-02-23(c)(3)

Since the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s arbitrable claims, and the state law PAGA claim is all that remains of Plaintiff’s lawsuit, in the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness the Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over the PAGA claim and instead remands the PAGA claim to state court where it was originally filed.

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

Buboltz v. R.C. Willey Home Furnishings, Inc. · filed 2021-03-05(c)(3)

I have granted summary judgment on the only claims supporting original jurisdiction in this court. ... The remaining requests for relief raise only Nevada state law issues that should be resolved by Nevada courts. Although the case has progressed to the summary judgment stage, the parties may economically and conveniently resolve the case in state court on remand because no further discovery is required. ... I therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of the state law claim, and I remand this case to the state court.

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

Escobar v. Capstone Logistics, LLC · filed 2021-03-10(c)(3)

Here, comity weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claim because the state court is competent to hear such claims and may have a better understanding of the relevant state law.

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

Christopherson v. Bushner · filed 2021-04-29(c)(3)

Here, the remaining claims are part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims, and the Court has supplemental jurisdiction. However, the Court may decline to exercise its authority to adjudicate these claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Upon consideration of all relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Jimenez v. Young's Market Company, LLC · filed 2021-12-20(c)(3)

Courts generally find these factors against retaining jurisdiction when PAGA is the sole remaining claim after the dismissal of CAFA claims, and this Court finds the same. ... Accordingly, the Court would not be inclined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction predicated on the initial CAFA removal.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Horton v. Americool Heating & A/C LLC · filed 2023-05-01(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as a matter of discretion. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity normally favor doing so.

Wells v. Creighton Preparatory School · filed 2023-09-20(c)(3)

In these circumstances, “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” normally weigh against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. ... “This case is no exception.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy informing that choice.

Plagakis v. Outsource Utility Contractor Corp. · filed 2023-12-12(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and the Court 3 will therefore exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's 4 remaining state law claims. See 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 claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guiding that choice.

Conlon v. Baber · filed 2024-01-22(c)(3)

Pursuant to 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 has original jurisdiction.” ... The court believes that the balance of factors set forth in Carnegie-Mellon weighs in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

Jason Smith, I v. Evans · filed 2022-01-24(c)(3)

With the failure of Smith’s federal claims, the court had the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over purely state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Coleman, 925 F.3d at 351.

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

CAMP v. CIRCLE K STORES · filed 2022-02-07(c)(3)

However, because the only claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Willis v. Multnomah Defenders Incorporated · filed 2022-02-24(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent plaintiff alleges claims for relief under state law, although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, the Court may also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As discussed above, plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a plausible federal claim for relief. If plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint which cures the deficiencies noted, plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed as well.

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

Atkins v. Smyth County Virginia School Board · filed 2022-02-25(c)(3)

Because I have granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to Counts II and V, which provide the basis for federal question jurisdiction, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Atkins’ state-law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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.

Thacker v. Goins · filed 2022-03-16(c)(3)

But as the Court will dismiss all claims for violation of § 1983 over which it had original jurisdiction for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as set forth above, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Tennessee law.

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

Nicholsen v. United States · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

The underlying complaint is the only claim based on federal question jurisdiction, and none of the other claims satisfy either diversity or admiralty jurisdiction. Because the Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, the Court will dismiss Dennery’s crossclaim, counterclaim, and third-party complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as well.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline to address a state law claim when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Davies-Garcia v. County of Kings State Superior Family Law · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

In the absence of any cognizable federal claims, the Court declines to individually screen Plaintiff’s purported state law 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.

Aldridge v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

Here, the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants on all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Aldridge’s 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.

Lindow v. Conservatorship of Carl E. Lindow · filed 2022-04-06(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)@).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction and to remand the state law claim to the court from which the case was removed.

Wells v. Locke · filed 2022-04-07(c)(3)

Because I will dismiss all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim and will remand the claim to the Circuit Court of Marion County, Missouri, from which this case was removed.

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.

The Estate of Derrick Staton v. Bottalico · filed 2022-04-15(c)(3)

The conditions of § 1367(c)(3) are met in this case. ... And because I have dismissed the only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim against Officer Bottalico.

After dismissing the original claim, a court may retain supplemental counterclaims briefly to allow a voluntary dismissal motion before remanding them under § 1367(c)(3).

Austin v. Orangeburg Homes LLC · filed 2022-04-15(c)(3)

court, however, declines to remand Defendant’s counterclaims at this time and retains jurisdiction over this matter for 30 days to allow Defendant to file its motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss its counterclaims. If no such motion is filed within 30 days, the court will adopt the Report’s recommendation to remand Defendant’s counterclaims to the Orangeburg County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not require declining supplemental jurisdiction after the original claims are dismissed when a nonparty seeks limited intervention to modify an existing protective order.

Dwyer v. Southwest Airlines Co. · filed 2022-04-19(c)(3)

This court finds that it retains jurisdiction to permit intervention for the limited purpose of modifying a protective order that remains in effect. For the same reason, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction would not be appropriate.

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

SANSEVERO v. COUNTY OF MERCER · filed 2022-05-11(c)(3)

Because this Court will dismiss all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, this Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's additional state law claims at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Quinn v. Powell · filed 2022-05-25(c)(3)

Even if this Court construes Plaintiffs’ Complaint as asserting a claim for equitable relief for Plaintiffs’ share of the proceeds that derives from the alleged exploitation of their work—not simply the co-ownership of the work–the Court declines to extend subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in cases where the “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 when the complaint fails to state a federal claim.

Pehringer v. State of Idaho · filed 2022-06-03(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after the claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed, weighing comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

KMW ENERGY INC v. CHOLA TURBO MACHINERY INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED · filed 2022-06-28(c)(3)

Given the unique procedural posture of this third-party action, “comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness” weigh in favor of dismissal of KMW Energy’s Third-Party Complaint.

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

Mullins v. Inthink, Inc. · filed 2022-06-30(c)(3)

And because the court dismissed every claim over which it had original jurisdiction, it didn’t abuse its discretion when declining supplemental jurisdiction over Mullins’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.

Tamfu v. Martin · filed 2022-06-30(c)(3)

Also, to the extent Mr. Tamfu intended to assert claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Florida law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, and they are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (A district court may 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 after the claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Washington State Nurses Association v. MultiCare Health Systems · filed 2022-08-02(c)(3)

In declining jurisdiction under section 1367(c)(3), the Court “must first identify the dismissal that triggers the exercise of discretion”—here, the Unions’ voluntary dismissal of their statutory claim—“and then explain how declining jurisdiction serves the objectives of economy, convenience and fairness to the parties, and comity.” Trs. of Const. Indus., 333 F.3d at 925. ... The factors weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands the Unions’ claim to the King County Superior Court.

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

Collinson v. Rose · filed 2022-08-04(c)

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

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.

Salinas v. IA Lodging San Diego L.L.C. · filed 2022-08-08(c)(3)

Furthermore, because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s UCRA claim.

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

Johnson v. Mast · filed 2022-08-09(c)(3)

Having “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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.

Advanced Exteriors, Inc v. Allstate Corporation, The · filed 2022-08-19(c)(3)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if there is a jurisdictional basis for doing so, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim, which will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and remand them to state court.

Butler v. Crum · filed 2022-08-19(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed the only claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and will remand the matter back to the Circuit Court of Maryland for Prince George’s County.

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

Santiago v. Meyer Tool Incorporated · filed 2022-08-30(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court 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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Beck-Green v. The Town of Fine, New York · filed 2022-09-06(c)(3)

Where, as here, a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy informing that choice.

FLORES-HERNANDEZ v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2022-09-09(c)(3)

Here, the factors weigh against the Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The Court has dismissed the FTCA claims—the claims with original jurisdiction——and only the state law claims against Preschel and Masterson remain. In light of the fact that the Second Action is already pending before this Court against the same defendants and with the same claims, judicial economy weighs against the Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Valles v. Fort Mason · filed 2022-09-13(c)(3)

Thus, weighing the relevant factors, the Court declines to assert 61] supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, which are dismissed without prejudice to their presentation in a state court action.

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

Martens v. City of Findlay · filed 2022-09-22(c)(3)

Finally, having dismissed all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Martens’s 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.

CARROLL v. TOTARO · filed 2022-10-04(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Carroll’s state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of personal property, and spoilage of evidence because we dismissed all claims over which we have original jurisdiction.

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

Shunn v. IDOC · filed 2022-10-05(c)

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

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

United States v. Currency $66,369 · filed 2022-10-14(c)(3)

Since all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction have concluded, the Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over what, in essence, might be a claim for an alleged legal malpractice case that could be in state court.

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

Mayer v. State of Washington · filed 2022-11-03(c)(3)

Having disposed of the federal claims in this action, the Court declines to retain 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.

CARROLL v. TOTARO · filed 2022-11-07(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Carroll’s state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of personal property, and spoilage of evidence because we dismissed all claims over which we have original jurisdiction.