28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Anderson v. FREDERICK FORD MERCURY, INC. · filed 2010-03-17(c)(3)

Because the court has disposed of all of the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ramos-Echevarría v. Pichis, Inc. · filed 2010-03-22

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction in the instant case, as there is no actionable cause of action under a federal statute, hence, the state claims may be dismissed.

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

GJ Ex Rel. EJ v. MUSCOGEE COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. · filed 2010-03-25(c)(3)

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

Gude v. ROCKFORD CENTER INC. · filed 2010-03-26(c)(3)

Because the complaint fails to state a federal claim, to the extent plaintiff raises claims under Delaware law, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claim.

Starkes v. Haile · filed 2010-04-20(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claim.

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

Crehan v. Davis · filed 2010-05-18(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court DECLINES supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The state-law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Madura v. Lakebridge Condominium Associationi · filed 2010-06-14(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss a supplemental state law claim after granting judgment on the federal claim.

Rizzi v. City of Indian Wells · filed 2010-06-21(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Rizzi’s supplemental state law claim once it had granted judgment on the federal 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.

Cohen v. Stevanovich · filed 2010-07-01(c)(3)

Nor will supplemental jurisdiction be exercised over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. “A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Mauro v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. · filed 2010-07-22(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims given the absence of any federal claims that survive the motions for summary judgment and dismisses such claims 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.

Anderson v. Kitchen · filed 2010-07-30(c)(3)

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... We discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of the supplemental state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Guillen-Gonzalez v. JC PENNEY CORP., INC. · filed 2010-08-16(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain to ground supplemental jurisdiction over the Commonwealth claims, Guillen’s claims pursuant to Law 100 and Law 115 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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 granting summary judgment on all federal claims.

Ali v. KASPRENSKI · filed 2010-08-18(c)(3)

Therefore, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs supplemental state law claims.

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

Woods v. Resnick · filed 2010-08-18(c)(3)

Under § 1367(c)(3), a federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once federal claims have been dismissed. ... Therefore, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law counterclaims and dismiss those claims without prejudice to them being considered in the pending state court action.

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

Hinds v. City of New York · filed 2010-09-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Hinds’ remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, Hinds’ remaining state law claims are DISMISSED.

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

Cohen v. Government of the District of Columbia · filed 2010-10-08(c)(3)

After dismissing all federal law claims over which it has original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c). ... Because the Court will dismiss the only claim under federal law, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining local law claims.

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

Wingo v. Mullins · filed 2010-10-28(c)(3)

Alternatively, with Wingo’s federal claims properly dismissed, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Archie v. Home-Towne Suites, LLC · filed 2010-11-08(c)

The court having concluded that summary judgment is due to be GRANTED as to all of the federal law claims asserted in this case, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after it grants summary judgment on all federal claims.

Ashe v. City of Montgomery · filed 2010-11-30(c)(3)

Because summary judgment has been granted on all federal claims in this case, the court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. Accordingly, Ashe’s state claims will be remanded.

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

Associates v. Porsche Automobil Holding SE · filed 2010-12-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Seitz v. DeQuarto · filed 2011-01-06(c)(3)

No federal claims remain in this case. This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it grants summary judgment on all federal claims.

Urological Surgery Professional Ass'n v. William Mann Co. · filed 2011-01-24(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment to defendants on both of plaintiffs’ federal claims, 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 when no exceptional circumstances justify retaining them.

Goss Ex Rel. Goss v. Alloway Township School · filed 2011-02-07(c)(3)

The Court finds no exceptional circumstances to justify retaining jurisdiction in this case where no federal questions remain. Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining negligence 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, and gives the court broad discretion in that decision.

Workman v. Mingo County Board of Education · filed 2011-03-22(c)(3)

Yet “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) And “trial courts enjoy wide latitude in determining whether or not to retain jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims have been extinguished.” Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995). There is no indication that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Workman’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been resolved before trial, unless a reason warrants retaining them.

BOBAK SAUSAGE CO. v. a & J Seven Bridges, Inc. · filed 2011-03-28(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants as to all claims (Counts I, II, and III) over which it has original jurisdiction, it must now address whether to retain jurisdiction over those state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Finding no justification for departing from that “usual practice” in this case, ... the Court dismisses without prejudice the claims for Unfair Competition, Statutory Deceptive Trade Practices Competition, and Piercing Corporate Veil/Alter Ego asserted in Counts TV through VI of the complaint.

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

Local 727, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority · filed 2011-03-31(c)

Having dismissed all of the federal claims in these suits, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in Counts V-VII of Local 727’s First Amended Complaint and Counts VII and VIII of Carpenters’ Second Amended Complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state or city law claims after dismissing the federal claims that supported original jurisdiction.

McDonald v. City of New York · filed 2011-04-06(c)(3)

As the federal ADA claims — the basis for this court’s federal question jurisdiction' — -have been dismissed, the court is left with a discretionary choice as to whether it will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the Complaint’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering judicial economy and comity.

Rodriguez v. City of Fresno · filed 2011-05-16(c)(3)

This court finds that the ends of efficient use of judicial resources, as well as the interests of comity are best served if the court declines supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Plaintiffs remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed when comity and judicial economy favor remand.

Packard v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Columbus · filed 2011-05-19(c)(3)

In the instant case, we find that comity and the interest in judicial economy favored remand.

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

Wood v. Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees · filed 2011-06-23(c)(3)

Finally, because the district court disposed of all of Wood’s federal claims before trial, its refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the FVPA claim was not an abuse of discretion.

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

Duffy v. INTERN. UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS · filed 2011-06-29(c)(3)

"It is well-settled that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well." Bernstein v. Misk, 948 F.Supp. 228, 243 (E.D.N.Y.1997) (Glasser, J.) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Having dismissed Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims.

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

Dillard v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice · filed 2011-05-25(c)(3)

In addition, the district court has discretion on remand to decide ... whether to remand this state law claim to state court with the other ones. 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 state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Cecil Dudgeon v. Richards · filed 2011-07-07(c)(3)

The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dudgeon’s state-law claims after dismissing his federal claims without leave to amend. 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.

Reed v. Baca · filed 2011-07-22(c)(3)

Under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim either when the state-law claim substantially predominates over the federal-law claims or when the court has dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when convenience and judicial economy favor resolving them in federal court.

Gofron v. Picsel Technologies, Inc. · filed 2011-07-25(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), if a federal district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may, in its discretion, dismiss without prejudice supplemental state law claims brought in the same action. ... Because this case is set for trial on September 26, 2011, convenience and judicial economy favor the resolution of these claims in this Court. Accordingly, the Court will continue to exercise its jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after it resolves the remaining federal claim.

Savoy v. CHARLES COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS · filed 2011-07-26(c)(3)

Because the Court has now granted summary judgment to Defendants on the only remaining federal claim, it is unnecessary to consider the merits of the state-law counts. ... Instead, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs battery and false-imprisonment claims without prejudice pursuant to section 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after the federal claim fails at summary judgment.

Nova Design Build, Inc. v. Grace Hotels, LLC · filed 2011-07-26(c)(3)

We therefore conclude that Nova’s federal claim could not survive summary judgment. The district court was also well within its rights to dismiss the supple- mental state claims without prejudice. 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.

Kaminski v. Commissioner of Oneida County Department of Social Services · filed 2011-08-05(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs’ federal claims have all been dismissed, their state law claims will not be reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) requires a district court deciding whether to remand remaining state-law claims after federal claims are resolved to make a considered assessment of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity and explain its decision.

Taflinger v. United States Swimming, Inc. · filed 2011-08-12(c)

The district court cited the Camegie-Mellon factors — judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity — but then simply stated without analysis that those factors weighed in favor of remand. We are not persuaded that they do, but the absence of an explanation for that assessment is enough for us to conclude that the district court abused its discretion.

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

Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co. · filed 2011-08-17(c)(3)

By granting summary judgment to Ralphs and Cypress Creek on Oliver’s ADA claim, the district court properly disposed of “all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the balance of the factors of “judicial economy, convenience, fair- ness, and comity” did not “tip in favor of retaining the state- law claims” after the dismissal of the ADA claim, Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (quot- ing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cahill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted), the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Oliver’s state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed before trial, particularly when the remaining claims turn on state and local law.

Blazy v. Jefferson County Regional Planning Commission · filed 2011-08-19(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over Blazy’s claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment.

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

Abraham v. Danberg · filed 2011-09-19(c)(3)

However, after determining that summary judgment is appropriate for defendants, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction ... over plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Kohler v. Flava Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2011-09-26(c)(3)

While federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a 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). ... Here, the Court has granted summary judgment for Defendant on all of Plaintiffs ADA claims, therefore, there are no remaining claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law 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.

Strugala Ex Rel. Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. Riggio · filed 2011-10-05(c)(3)

That is the general practice and I follow it here, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims, including those challenging the College Booksellers acquisition.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of all federal claims, and to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Britt v. Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority · filed 2011-10-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Britt’s state law claims. Instead, this Court dismisses them without prejudice 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 judgment eliminates the federal claims before trial.

Jones v. McKenzie, et al. · filed 2011-12-16(c)(3)

In light of the entry of judgment for the defendants on Jones’s federal constitutional claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her 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; retaining divergent state claims while litigation is still in its early stages may be an abuse of discretion.

TPTCC NY, Inc. v. Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. · filed 2011-12-30(c)(3)

We hold that, on these facts, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction was an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial; the balance of relevant factors typically favors declining jurisdiction.

TheMLSonline.com, Inc. v. Regional Multiple Listing Service of Minnesota, Inc. · filed 2012-01-05(c)(3)

Where all federal claims are eliminated prior to trial, the balance of factors to be considered in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state-law claim typically militates against exercising such jurisdiction. ... Such is the case here. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining claims and they will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims have been dismissed or resolved by judgment.

McInerney v. City & County of San Francisco · filed 2012-01-12(c)(3)

There was no abuse of discretion because the district court had dismissed or granted judgment on all of McInerney’s federal claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, and the relevant factors typically favor doing so.

Powell v. Johnson · filed 2012-01-17(c)(3)

Jurisdiction over the state-law claims exists only by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which provides supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same “case or controversy” over which the Court otherwise enjoys jurisdiction. But where, as here, all federal claims are eliminated prior to trial, the balance of factors to be considered in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state-law claim typically militates against exercising such jurisdiction.

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

Ambulance Assoc of Pa v. Highmark Inc · filed 2012-01-25(c)(3)

Because our holding means that Highmark‟s payment scheme does not violate Act 68, the Association‟s federal RICO and Hobbs Act claims fail. Without any claims remaining, save a few state-law contentions, we furthermore hold that the District Court‟s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

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

Morales v. Richardson · filed 2012-01-30(c)(3)

A District Court generally has discretion to keep or dismiss a case when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it grants judgment on the federal claims, even if the state-law defendants were served and participated.

Thompson v. City of Shawnee · filed 2012-02-09(c)(3)

Having granted judgment on the federal claims, the court could decline to exercise jurisdiction under § 1367(c) even if it recognized that Larque had been served and Tecumseh had participated.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts broad discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed, with a presumption favoring relinquishment that is especially strong when the remaining state-law claims raise unsettled issues.

RWJ Management Co. v. BP Products North America, Inc. · filed 2012-02-16(c)(3)

When federal claims drop out of the case, leaving only state-law claims, the district court has broad discretion to decide whether to keep the case or relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state- law claims. A general presumption in favor of relinquish- ment applies and is particularly strong where, as here, the state-law claims are complex and raise unsettled legal issues.

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.

Comprelli v. Town of Harrison, New Jersey · filed 2012-02-16(c)(3)

Therefore, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claims.

Kowolonek v. Moore · filed 2012-02-23(c)

As the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the officers on Kowolonek’s federal claims, it also did not err in declining jurisdiction over Kowolonek’s related state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Mead v. Lindlaw · filed 2012-03-13(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if, among other reasons, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, in its discretion, the Court finds that the balance of factors weigh in favor of the Court declining to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts One, Three, Four, and Five.

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

Redmond v. Sanders · filed 2012-03-13(c)(3)

Having now resolved all of the federal claims asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court declines to retain and exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining statelaw claims.

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

Fernandez v. City of Elizabeth · filed 2012-03-15(c)(3)

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims once the federal cause of action was dismissed.

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.

Priolo v. Town of Kingston · filed 2012-03-20(c)(3)

Consequently, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted as to the Priolos’ federal constitutional claims (Counts IV and V). The court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 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 over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Newton v. LePage · filed 2012-03-23(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims are eliminated before trial.

Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head · filed 2012-03-28(c)(3)

The elimination of all federal claims before trial is generally a sufficient ground in itself for declining supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims.

Rodriguez-Reyes v. Molina-Rodriguez · filed 2012-03-29(c)(3)

Accordingly, defendants motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to articles 1802 and 1803 of the Civil Code and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are GRANTED and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Quick v. Vistacare, Inc. · filed 2012-03-29(c)(3)

Because the federal claims were dismissed before trial, the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity suggest that this court ought to decline jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim against VistaCare. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been resolved.

R.Z. v. Schools · filed 2012-04-11(c)(3)

The Court’s jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which provides for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over claims based upon state law that are closely related to the federal claims in a case. ... Accordingly, 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Galouch v. Maine Department of Professional & Financial Regulation · filed 2012-04-13(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline 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 it has resolved all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Hafez v. City of Schenectady · filed 2012-04-19(c)(3)

Since the Court has granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all of Plaintiffs federal causes of action, and taking into consideration the factors listed above, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state-law causes of action.

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

Chatel v. Carney, et al. · filed 2012-04-26(c)(3)

Having disposed of the federal law claim in this action, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Camelio v. Tim. Fed'n, 137 F.3d 666, 672 (1st Cir. 1998) (district court may decline jurisdiction after dismissing 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 all federal claims are dismissed.

Wee Care Child Center, Inc. v. Lumpkin · filed 2012-04-27(c)(3)

As § 1367(c)(3) expressly permits the district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in the event, as was the case here, the federal claims are resolved, there was no abuse of discretion.

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

Kim v. Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel Goldstein, LLP · filed 2012-05-04(c)(3)

Since the Court has disposed of Kim’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, and therefore dismisses both claims without prejudice.

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

Slade v. Board of School Directors · filed 2012-05-21(c)(3)

Now that the federal claims have dropped out, the Court will follow the general rule by relinquishing jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims.

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

Frank v. County of Ontario · filed 2012-07-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his claims under New York law.

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

Callagy v. Town of Aquinnah · filed 2012-07-27(c)(3)

To the extent that plaintiffs declaratory judgment claim asserts a state law claim, it is dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hester v. Redwood County · filed 2012-08-06(c)

Having dismissed Hester’s § 1983 claims, his remaining claims are all asserted under state law. The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it resolves the federal claims on summary judgment.

Johnson v. Crocker · filed 2012-08-07(c)(3)

Because summary judgment is appropriate as to Johnson’s federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to the extent Johnson raises state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are resolved on summary judgment.

Campbell v. West Pittston Borough · filed 2012-08-15(c)

Because the District Court’s summary judgment with respect to Campbell’s federal claims was proper, the Court did not err by declining jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state claims without prejudice after the federal claims have dropped out of the case.

Osei v. Univ · filed 2012-08-20(c)(3)

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Osei‟s remaining state claims without prejudice to pursue them in state court. A District Court may dismiss pendent state claims after federal claims have dropped out of the case.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims; declining it before trial is the general rule.

Chavers v. Tyrone Morrow · filed 2012-09-17(c)(3)

If a plaintiff asserts federal claims as well as state claims, the federal court may exercise jurisdiction over the entire case. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. If a district court subsequently dismisses the federal claims, its decision whether to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims “is purely discretionary.” ... Here, the plaintiffs have not put forth sufficient reasons to show that the district court abused its discretion by following our general rule.

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

T.W. ex rel. H.W. v. Spencerport Central School District · filed 2012-09-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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.

Rowe v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-09-24(c)(3)

Upon the dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against the District of Columbia, the remaining claims -- defamation and IIED -- are common-law claims over which this Court does not have original jurisdiction. ... In these circumstances, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining tort 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.

Dellutri v. Village of Elmsford · filed 2012-09-28(c)(3)

As all of Plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the federal claims.

Feezor v. Patterson · filed 2012-10-05(c)(3)

Thus, this court never had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs only claims that present a federal question. The court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims against Eddie Bauer and Hanesbrands.

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

Traylor v. Steward · filed 2012-10-10(c)(3)

Finally, having properly dismissed Traylor’s federal claims, the district court was well within its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Traylor’s remaining 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.

Whitehead v. City of New York · filed 2012-10-15(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any and all state law claims of a complaint if the Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Coleman v. Alabama State University · filed 2012-10-24(c)(3)

Because ASU is entitled to summary judgment on all federal law claims, the court in its discretion declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Ismail v. Freeman · filed 2012-10-30(c)(3)

— Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court DECLINES supplemental jurisdiction over all state-law claims against City of Newport Beach and Newport Beach Police Department.

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

Fuller v. Schoolcraft College · filed 2012-11-13(c)

The Court will also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fuller’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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Hunter v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2012-11-29(c)(3)

In its discretion, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the balance of factors favors declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after federal claims are dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Clement v. United Homes, LLC · filed 2012-12-27(c)(3)

Because the Court is ordering plaintiff to show cause why the claims against the other defendants should not also be dismissed, and because the Court is allowing plaintiff leave to amend some of the allegations related to her federal claims, the Court finds that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness would not be served by exercising supplemental jurisdiction. If plaintiff amends to successfully allege a timely federal cause of action, the Court will entertain plaintiffs state law fraud claim at that time; conversely, if plaintiff fails to state a timely federal claim, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law fraud claim.

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

Wawrzynski v. Hibsham · filed 2013-01-04(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wawrzynski’s state law claims after dismissing his § 1983 claims.

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

Marcavage v. City of New York · filed 2013-01-23(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the federal claim has been resolved.

A.M. Ex Rel. McKay v. Taconic Hills Central School District · filed 2013-01-30(c)

Because we affirm the district court’s judgment with respect to A.M.’s federal cause of action, we correspondingly affirm the district court’s dismissal of A.M.’s claim grounded in the New York State Constitution as an inappropriate exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed before trial, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and the predominance of state issues.

A.W. v. Preferred Platinum Plan, Inc. · filed 2013-02-13(c)(3)

But the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary with the Court, and where all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, the factors to be considered in deciding whether to exercise such jurisdiction — judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and predominance of state issues— typically militate against doing so.

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

L. Dieffenbach, Jr. v. RBS Citizens · filed 2013-02-15(c)(3)

We find no error in the District Court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dieffenbach’s pendent state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Borough of W. Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995), and therefore do not address Dieffenbach’s appellate arguments relating to the merits of those claims.

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

Nelson v. District of Columbia · filed 2013-03-08(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim and, thus, will dismiss the case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the case is still in a preliminary phase.

Haug v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. · filed 2013-03-12(c)(3)

Finally, Magistrate Judge Baughman recommends that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims (counts seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) once Plaintiffs federal claims are dismissed because this action has not proceeded beyond a fairly preliminary phase. ... Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Baughman in its entirety.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining common-law claims after it resolves the federal claim.

Bean v. District of Columbia Courts · filed 2013-03-14(c)

Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions and the entire record, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a constitutional claim and, thus, will grant defendants’ motion as to plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. Pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s common claims and, thus, will dismiss the case.

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

Moriarty v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2013-03-20(c)(3)

Here, the only remaining claims are Plaintiffs’ state-law claims against Defendants, and the Court finds that it may properly decline to exercise supplemental federal jurisdiction over those claims in accordance with 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 federal claims; absent a reason to retain them, the usual practice before trial is to dismiss them without prejudice.

Long v. KZF Development · filed 2013-03-25(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ federal claim must be dismissed, and the Court is now required to decide whether to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Finding no justification for departing from that “usual practice” in this case, the Court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs state law claims without discussing their merit under state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claims.

Dolan v. Barile Mechanical, Inc. · filed 2013-03-28(c)(3)

Here, the plaintiffs’ federal claims are not being eliminated, but case law suggests that the same principles apply inasmuch as plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their federal claims. ... Accordingly, it is the Court’s intention to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claim under the New York Lien Law.

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.

Lantz v. Office of the Jackson Township Trustee · filed 2013-03-29(c)(3)

Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to continue to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally calls for a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims have dropped out.

Martin v. Officer Gonzalez · filed 2013-05-09(c)(3)

In any event, a district court should relinquish its pendent jurisdiction over the state-law claims in a lawsuit when all federal claims have dropped out, as was the case here.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after granting summary judgment on all federal claims.

Gallant v. Gallant, et al. · filed 2013-05-31(c)

Summary judgment being granted as to all federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim when resolving those claims would require multiple state-law rulings.

Drake v. Richerson · filed 2013-05-31(c)

Because disposition of the state-law tort claims will require multiple rulings applying state law, this Court, on its own motion, shall remand the remaining counts to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are resolved.

Kandil v. Yurkovic · filed 2013-06-14(c)(3)

Therefore, we will vacate the District Court’s disposition of the state law claims and remand. Of course, we leave to the District Court’s discretion whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the 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 the claims that supplied federal-question jurisdiction.

Kenyon v. Hospital San Antonio, Inc. · filed 2013-06-28(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the EMTALA claims, there is no longer a federal question to ground jurisdiction and the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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, even when the state and federal claims use the same legal standards and facts.

Garges v. The People's Light & Theatre · filed 2013-06-28(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 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining local-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy and comity favor that result.

Steinberg v. District of Columbia · filed 2013-07-02(c)(3)

Here, the Court finds these factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after resolving all claims within its original jurisdiction when the stage of litigation favors doing so.

Rosemann v. Sigillito · filed 2013-07-09(c)(3)

The court notes that, although it shall summary judgment in Enterprise's favor on Counts I and II, the claims over which the court has original jurisdiction, the court may and will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in Counts III and IV. ... The court finds the exercise of such supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate given the stage of the litigation.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the foundational federal claims, especially when the case is at an early stage and substantial state law questions remain.

Van Wagner Communications, LLC v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation · filed 2013-07-10(c)(3)

Counts I, IV and V are before this Court on supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... In this case the factors weigh strongly against retaining jurisdiction over the state law claims. The case is still in the earliest stages and the parties will not be unduly prejudiced by a remand of the state law claims. ... As a result, the Court will decline jurisdiction over Counts I, IV or V and those counts will be dismissed.

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

Maraj v. Massachusetts · filed 2013-07-17(c)

As the parties are not diverse and no federal claim remains, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law battery claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Faulkner Literary Rights, LLC v. Sony Pictures Classics Inc. · filed 2013-07-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed Faulkner’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over its state law claims.

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

Corcino-Rodríguez v. State Insurance Fund · filed 2013-08-08(c)(3)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiffs state law claims when the federal claims that gave it original jurisdiction are dismissed. ... Because defendants are entitled to summary judg ment on plaintiffs’ federal claims, their state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and remand them after the federal claims are resolved.

Norman Green, Jr. v. Huibregtse · filed 2013-08-19(c)

He filed this suit in state court; defendants removed it on the basis of the complaint’s federal claims. With those claims resolved, the state-law claims return to state court. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c). The district court’s judgment was not clear on this, but we modify it to provide explicitly that the court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over all claims under state law and remands these claims to the court in which suit began.

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

Davis v. Town of New Durham, NH · filed 2013-09-10(c)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Sharnese v. State of California · filed 2013-11-04(c)(3)

Once all federal actions were dismissed from the action, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to hear 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 state-law claims after it disposes of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Huff v. Spaw · filed 2014-01-24(c)(3)

Having determined that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ federal claims, only Kentucky state law claims remain. ... The Court’s jurisdiction over each of these claims is solely supplemental under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Pursuant to the discretion provided to this Court by Congress and approved by the Supreme Court, this Court declines to exercise such jurisdiction.

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.

Rosario v. Local 1106 Transport Works of America · filed 2014-01-27(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, this Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs Hybrid § 301 LMRA claim against both Transer-vice and Local 1106 based on the applicable six-month statute of limitations. In light of that ruling, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining State law claim against Local 1106 and dismisses it without prejudice to it being brought in State court.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local law claims when no viable federal claims remain.

Gorokhovsky v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth. · filed 2014-01-29(c)(3)

However, because we conclude that there are no remaining viable federal claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Gorokhovsky v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2014-01-29(c)(3)

However, because we conclude that there are no remaining viable federal claims, we decline to exercise supplemental 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.

Green v. Mobis Alabama, LLC · filed 2014-02-05(c)(3)

Because the federal claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction have been resolved against Green, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against Powers and, instead, dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Tralongo v. Impact Alcohol & Other Drug Abuse Services., Inc. · filed 2014-02-13(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all federal claims, I will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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.

DP Marina, LLC v. City of Chattanooga · filed 2014-02-18(c)(3)

When a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims; accordingly, Counts Three and Four will be 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.

Terry v. Laurel Oaks Behavioral Health Center, Inc. · filed 2014-02-28(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). ... In this instance, the court declines 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 it grants summary judgment on the claims within its original jurisdiction.

McCulloch v. Town of Milan · filed 2014-03-25(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse discretion by declining to interpret a conservation easement agreement governed by state law. McCulloch’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were redundant of her FHA claims, on which the district court properly granted summary judgment to the Defendants.

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.

Tree of Life Christian Schools v. City of Upper Arlington · filed 2014-04-18(c)(3)

It is well settled that a District Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it possessed original jurisdiction. ... Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and (d), the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant without prejudice.

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

Leon v. Department of Education · filed 2014-04-29(c)(3)

In accordance with the guiding principle that district courts will not typically maintain state claims once the anchoring federal claims are dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state and municipal law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to remand remaining local-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Durand v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-05-01(c)(3)

However, the Court concludes that remand to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, rather than the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, is appropriate. First, and most importantly, Plaintiff explicitly seeks the remand of this action to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Second, “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendant jurisdiction doctrine – judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity – will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 (1988). Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and remands this matter to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal claim for relief remains.

Ham v. Anderson · filed 2014-05-08(c)(3)

Because Ham has failed to state any federal claim for relief, the court declines to exercise its 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, especially when the litigation is still at an early stage.

FindTheBest.com, Inc. v. Lumen View Technology LLC · filed 2014-05-19(c)(3)

The federal claims having been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over FTB’s state law claims. This litigation is at an early stage; discovery has not yet commenced, and principles of judicial economy do not counsel in favor of the exercise of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy and comity weighing in the decision.

Steshenko v. Albee · filed 2014-05-20(c)(3)

This case has yet to proceed beyond the pleadings, and thus few judicial resources are wasted by dismissing the case at this stage. Further, dismissal promotes comity by allowing the California courts to interpret state law concerning the state law claims in the first instance. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims — FEHA claim, Bane Act claims, and IIED claim — in Plaintiffs Complaint.

Section 1367 allows a court to remand a remaining state-law claim rather than exercise supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Sheikh v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-06-23(c)(3)

Given that Plaintiff has failed to show diversity jurisdiction, the only available basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining negligence claim is supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, the Court concludes that remand to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, rather than the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, is appropriate.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain a related local law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Moreta v. First Transit of PR, Inc. · filed 2014-07-09(c)(3)

The question is a close one, but on the facts before me, I find that the concerns of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness counsel in favor of exercising 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, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Wu v. Special Counsel, Inc. · filed 2014-07-16(c)(3)

By the same token, they “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such] claim[s] . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the factors weigh against retention of the case.

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

Louis v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-07-23(c)(3)

The Court will therefore dismiss plaintiff’s Counts I-IV without prejudice pursuant to 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 the federal claims are dismissed.

Opoku v. Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates · filed 2014-07-28(c)(3)

Because the District Court had discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Opoku’s state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and since the District Court did not issue an opinion providing its reasoning for declining to do so, we construe the judgment as dismissing Opoku’s state law claims without prejudice.

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

Kalick v. United States · filed 2014-07-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and these claims will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to refiling in a court of competent jurisdiction, presumably the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after granting summary judgment on the sole federal claim.

Meyer v. Santander Consumer USA · filed 2014-08-19(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over Meyer’s state law claims after granting summary judgment on her sole federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Sherard v. Berks County · filed 2014-08-21(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remained, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to entertain Sherard’s state law 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.

Wallace v. State · filed 2014-08-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal constitutional claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to assert pendent jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims of preemption with respect to the County and Town residency restrictions.

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

Gerffert Co. v. Dean · filed 2014-08-29(c)(3)

The Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over Plaintiffs’ related state-law claims, if, among other things, it has already “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” ie., their federal Lanham Act claim of trade dress infringement. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This case, therefore, is the “usual” one in which the Gibbs factors “point toward” the Court’s dismissal of the related state-law claims without prejudice, upon its dismissal of the federal trade dress claim with 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Gizzo v. Ben-Habib · filed 2014-09-05(c)(3)

Here, none of the factors that the Supreme Court enunciated in Cohil/—“judicial economy, convenience, fairness, [or] comity”—militate against such dismissal, and there is no reason to believe that this is not otherwise a “usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial.”

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

Vogel v. Ca, Inc. · filed 2014-09-08(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted summary judgment for Defendant CA on Plaintiffs Title VII claims, over which it has original jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Vogel’s remaining claims for violations of Connecticut’s Fair Employment Practices Act.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice after all federal claims are dismissed, considering comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Parker v. Robertson · filed 2014-09-23(c)(3)

Section 1367 provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... In sum, the court has reconsidered its previous decision and finds that the relevant factors strongly favor dismissal of the state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims are resolved, considering the nature of those claims and the location of witnesses.

Deavers v. Vasquez · filed 2014-11-05(c)(3)

After carefully reviewing all the factors that inform the exercise of this discretionary determination under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court will decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction over this local fracas. None of the remaining issues involve federal policy, and all critical witnesses on both sides appear to be based in Spotsylvania County. This Court will therefore remand the remainder of this action back to the Spotsylvania County Circuit Court, from which it was removed.

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

Gudger v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-11-10(c)(3)

After dismissing federal law claims, a district court may, in its discretion, decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and dismiss the remaining state law claims.

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

Walker ex rel. T.W. v. City of New York · filed 2014-12-05(c)(3)

In accordance with the guiding principle that district courts will not typically maintain jurisdiction over the state claims once the anchor^ ing federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

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.

Dibbs v. Hillsborough County · filed 2014-12-12(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice when it dismisses the federal claims at an early stage.

South Commons Condominium Ass'n v. Charlie Arment Trucking, Inc. · filed 2014-12-23(c)

But having dismissed the federal claims at such an early stage, the District Court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the state law claims without prejudice.