28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Gavin/Solmonese LLC v. D'Arnaud-Taylor · filed 2014-12-24(c)

Given that Plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed, I decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local claims after disposing of the federal claims.

Kromenhoek v. Cowpet Bay West Condominium Ass'n · filed 2014-12-24(c)(3)

With the disposition of the federal claims in this case, the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the local claims is discretionary. Exercising that discretion, the Court will decline jurisdiction over the remaining local claims.

Section 1367(c) requires a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims are dismissed, and retaining unresolved local claims in those circumstances can be an abuse of discretion.

Araya v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2014-12-30(c)(1), (c)(3)

Guided by this precedent, we are constrained to hold that the District Court abused its discretion. Unfortunately, the District Court did not explain in its opinion whether or how it applied its discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims in this case.

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

Walters v. Cowpet Bay West Condominium Ass'n · filed 2015-01-02(c)(3)

With the disposition of the federal claims in this case, the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the local claims is discretionary. Exercising that discretion, the Court will decline jurisdiction over the remaining local claims.

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

Williams v. Savory · filed 2015-01-07(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment to defendants on all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’ state-law claims.

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

Wilson v. Miller · filed 2015-01-20(c)(3)

Because there are no remaining claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local law claims after disposing of the federal claim.

Sanders v. Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2015-02-10(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any common law claims or claims arising under District of Columbia law.

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

Brown v. Purdue University North Central · filed 2015-02-13(c)(3)

However, because this state law tort claim is the only remaining claim in this case, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this matter any further. Principles of comity encourage the court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all of the federal claims are disposed of prior to trial.

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

Hopkins v. Springfield Housing Authority · filed 2015-02-24(c)(3)

But the court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hopkins’s state-law claims after dismissing all of his federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims after it grants summary judgment on the federal claims.

Lee v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2015-02-24(c)(3)

As the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the City on Plaintiffs’ Shaw claims, the Court has discretion to dismiss these supplemental state law claims.

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

Teague v. Armstead · filed 2015-03-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Teague’s claim for spoliation of evidence filed pursuant to state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Glover v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-03-16(c)(3)

Here, the only claims remaining in this case arise under the common law of the District of Columbia. Under these circumstances, and in consideration of the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Counts II, IV, and V of the amended complaint, and will dismiss those claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Flores v. Danberg · filed 2015-03-24(c)

Having concluded that summary judgment of the federal claims is appropriate, the court will exercise its discretion and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims for tor-tious interference and under the Whistle-blowers’ Act.

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

Virgil Hall v. Warden Loretto FCI · filed 2015-04-09(c)(3)

the District Court did not abuse its discretion in ... declining to consider them in the absence of any 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 after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hoostein v. Mental Health Ass'n · filed 2015-04-13(c)(3)

Accordingly, since the court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ FHA claims, this court, in its discretion, declines to exercise its 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 granting summary judgment on the federal claims.

Rowe v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2015-04-16(c)(3)

But because the court properly granted summary judgment in favor of United on Rowe’s federal claims, the court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims. Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1248 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

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

Vlad-Berindan v. Life Worx Inc. · filed 2015-04-28(c)(3)

... and the District Court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hoy v. Yamhill County · filed 2015-05-08(c)

The court has discretion to decline jurisdiction over supplemental claims under the conditions set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Each factor favors maintaining jurisdiction over Hoy’s state law claims -in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim once all federal claims have been resolved.

Lalowski v. City of Des Plaines · filed 2015-06-17(c)(3)

As a result, all of Lalowski’s federal claims have been resolved, and on remand, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state adminis- trative review claim.

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

Burton v. Ozburn Logistic · filed 2015-06-23(c)(3)

Burton’s remaining allegations, including defamation, slander, and her attempts to receive Pennsylvania unemployment and/or workers’ compensation benefits, all arise under state law, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Burton’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, and ordinarily it should do so.

Hernandez ex rel. J.V. v. Board of Education · filed 2015-06-30(c)(3)

The Court initially exercised supplemental jurisdiction over this claim because it emerged from the same nucleus of operative facts as the two federal question claims, but this justification is no longer operative. ... The Court perceives no circumstances in this case that counsel it to reject the ordinary rule in this circuit and exercise jurisdiction over an action now predicated entirely on state law; therefore, the Court will remand the NMTCA claim to state court.

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

Ramirez v. Amazing Home Contractors, Inc. · filed 2015-07-14(c)(3)

By issuing judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs only federal claim, it is within the Court’s discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court finds no compelling' reason to do so, and thus will dismiss Plaintiffs remaining claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims after the federal claims are resolved through qualified immunity.

Ross v. City of N.Y. · filed 2015-07-20(c)(3)

Because we hold that Mullings is entitled to qualified immunity on Ross’s federal claims, we also direct dismissal of the supplemental state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

When the federal claims are resolved and the state-law claims have not been the focus of the litigation, the district court should ordinarily relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Howlett v. Hack · filed 2015-07-21(c)(3)

In a situation like this one, where the state-law claims have not been the focus of the litigation, the better practice is for the district court to relinquish its jurisdiction over them.

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, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Rodriguez v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-07-27(c)(3)

Here, with the dismissal of Count VI, no claim remains over which the Court has original jurisdiction. And the Court finds that the balance of the factors weighs against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining District of Columbia statutory and common law claims. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise its jurisdiction over the remaining claims, and it will not reach the other arguments raised in defendants’ motion to dismiss.

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 resolved, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

James v. City & County of Honolulu · filed 2015-08-26(c)(3)

Judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction over James’ state law claims. The court therefore declines' jurisdiction over James’ remaining claims.

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

L-3 Communications Corp. v. Jaxon Engineering & Maintenance, Inc. · filed 2015-09-01(c)(3)

In sucli circumstances, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) grants discretion to the Court to decline to exercise further subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims;" indeed, the 10th Circuit states that the Court “usually should” decline to do so.

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

Lynch v. Custom Welding & Repair, Inc. · filed 2015-11-06(c)(3)

Having disposed of all of the federal claims in this case, I find it appropriate to decline to exercise jurisdiction over Lynch’s IDCPA claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only federal claim when addressing the state claims serves efficiency.

Joe Sanfelippo Cabs Inc. v. City of Milwaukee · filed 2015-12-07(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed plaintiffs’ only federal cause of action, I need not retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. ... In the present case, however, it appears that my analysis of plaintiffs’ Takings Clause claim disposes of plaintiffs’ state law claims as well. Therefore, in the interest of efficiency, I will address them.

Reversal of the dismissal of federal claims warrants vacating a decision under § 1367(c)(3) declining supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Cuellar-Aguilar v. Deggeller Attractions, Inc. · filed 2015-12-15(c)(3)

Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals of these claims and vacate its decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Arkansas minimum wage claim.

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

Bunch v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-12-23(c)(3)

As discussed supra, the Court has rejected all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, the only claims over which it had original jurisdiction, and thus remand is appropriate.

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

Kline v. Mortgage Electronic Security Systems · filed 2015-12-23(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” a state law claim if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Thus, the statute gives the Court the power to, at its discretion, dismiss Kline’s state law claims against the Defendants, based on the dismissal of the FDCPA claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Hillware v. Snyder · filed 2015-12-29(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over any non-federal claims and remands those claims to D.C. Superior Court.

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.

Flanders v. Dzugan · filed 2016-01-11(c)(3)

In light of this Court’s conclusion that the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on each of their federal § 1983 claims, the Court will decline to exercise continued supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed early and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor doing so.

Louis ex rel. G.A.H. v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2016-01-14(c)(3)

There has been no significant activity aside from the Amended Complaint and the briefing on the motion to dismiss, and several state-law claims remain. Accordingly, we believe that the Cohill factors favor our declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal claims remain and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice for refiling.

Doe v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center · filed 2016-01-26(c)(3)

In light of the disposition of Plaintiffs Title IX claims outlined above, no federal claims remain in this litigation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs three state law claims. Those claims shall be dismissed without prejudice for refiling.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand local law claims after disposing of the only federal claim.

Jordan v. District of Columbia · filed 2016-01-29(c)

Having granted summary judgment to Defendants on the only count founded on federal law, the Court retains only supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining District law claims and has discretion to decline to exercise that jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Court will remand the remaining claims to the District of Columbia Superior Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after resolving all federal claims, taking fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity into account.

Kean v. Manchester, et al. · filed 2016-02-04(c)(3)

Given that all federal claims in Kean’s complaint are resolved, and taking into account the factors identified in Camelio, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kean’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after it resolves the federal claim.

Blow v. Bijora, Inc. · filed 2016-02-04(c)(3)

As the Court has resolved the federal question (the TCPA claim) in favor of Akira, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim (the ICFA claim), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Shaffer v. Fayette County of Pennsylvania · filed 2016-02-19(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where the federal claims are no longer viable. ... There is no federal interest in deciding this claim, and judicial economy, convenience, and fairness are not served by this court, instead of the state court, resolving this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when it dismisses all federal claims before trial; those claims may be dismissed without prejudice.

JF ex rel. DF v. Carmel Central School District · filed 2016-03-02(c)(3)

Although this proposition is correct, Plaintiffs offer no reasons as to why the Court should exercise such discretion in this case or why the Comt should depart from the Supreme Court’s direction that where, as here, all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district courts should generally decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... These 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 dismissing the federal claims, considering the stage of litigation and the state-law issues involved.

Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc. · filed 2016-03-09(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs federal-law claims; the early stage of the litigation; and the multiple issues of state law implicated by Plaintiffs remaining claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these non-federal causes of action.

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

Williams v. City of Austin · filed 2016-03-16(c)(3)

Because the federal law claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction have been resolved in the City’s favor, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’ remaining requests for declarations under state law.

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

Cano-Rodriguez v. De Jesus-Cardona · filed 2016-03-29(c)

Because summary judgment is proper on Cano’s federal claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over his ancillary state-law claims, and so they are dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Doe v. Torrington Board of Education · filed 2016-03-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Doe’s state law claims. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) (“[I]f the federal claims are dismissed before trial ... the state claims should be dismissed as well.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Counts Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, and Fourteen are therefore dismissed without prejudice to refiling them in state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claim is dismissed when the state claims predominate and judicial economy and comity favor remand.

Watson v. City of Allen · filed 2016-05-05(c)

Even so, in this case, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction was an abuse of discretion. ... State claims substantially predominate over the federal claim, which has been dismissed, arid considerations of judicial economy favor remand.

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.

Gross v. Wright · filed 2016-05-13(c)(3)

Nonetheless, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” as occurred here. Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... For these reasons, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ D.C.-law claims.

After all federal claims are resolved, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Pollard v. District of Columbia · filed 2016-06-09(c)(3)

In the instant case, the Court has determined that these factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims. Plaintiffs’ state law claims sound entirely in District of Columbia tort law, an area of law far more familiar to the District of Columbia Superior Court. Furthermore, although this case has had a protracted procedural history in federal court, none of the work put in to date has addressed Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims; the decision turns on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, with a general preference for declining jurisdiction before trial.

Heggemeier v. Caldwell County, Texas · filed 2016-06-23(c)(3)

Whether a district court abuses its discretion after § 1367(c)(3) has been satisfied depends on “common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Enochs v. Lampasas Cty., 641 F.3d 155, 158–59 (5th Cir. 2011). And based on these factors, we have elucidated the general rule that “a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial.” Brookshire, 554 F.3d at 602. While this rule is “neither mandatory nor absolute,” id., we find that the district court acted within its discretion to dismiss the pendant state-law claims under § 1367(c)(3).

When federal claims are resolved before trial, a district court may decide the remaining state-law claims if judicial economy, convenience, and fairness affirmatively justify retaining supplemental jurisdiction.

Neelu Pal v. Jersey City Medical Center · filed 2016-07-15(c)(3)

When the claims over which a district court has original jurisdiction are resolved before trial, “the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000). Here, once the District Court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate with respect to the federal claims against Dr. Holmes, all that remained were the state-law claims against the JCMC Defendants. We find no error in the District Court’s discretionary decision to resolve those state-law claims, for we believe that the aforementioned considerations weighed in favor of this approach.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims before trial, and to dismiss the state-law claim without prejudice.

Hackenmueller v. Fadden · filed 2016-07-22(c)(3)

The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, however, and where all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, “even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hackenmueller’s state-law claim, and it will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after resolving the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not favor retaining them.

Donnelly v. Kutztown Area Transport Service, Inc. · filed 2016-07-29(c)(3)

Because those considerations, especially considering the expedited nature of this ruling, do not weigh in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of Donnelly’s claims, seeing as they are all grounded in state law, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over them.

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

Crenshaw v. Diamond State Port Corp. · filed 2016-08-11(c)(3)

The Court has concluded that summary judgment is appropriate as to Plaintiffs federal claim. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims on the merits.

Charley v. Total Office Planning Services, Inc. · filed 2016-08-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3), a district court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state claims may, in its discretion, dismiss those claims without prejudice if it dismisses all federal claims on the merits. We exercise that discretion now, and dismiss the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims without prejudice.

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

White v. Washington Nursing Facility · filed 2016-08-31(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

Okonkwo v. The Callins Law Firm, LLC · filed 2016-09-15(c)(3)

Having concluded that Plaintiff was unentitled to relief on her only federal claim, the district court abused no discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

Saunders v. Davis · filed 2016-09-15(c)(3)

Having determined that Mr. Saunders’s federal claims must be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining District of Columbia 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.

Cotton v. Ben Hill County · filed 2016-09-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims after it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... PlaintifPs remaining state law claims are dismissed to allow Plaintiff to pursue his claims in a more appropriate forum.

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

Roberts v. City of New Haven · filed 2016-09-26(c)(3)

In light of my grant of summary judgment as to the federal claims in this case and the lack of the parties’ attention to the state law tort claims in their briefing, I will decline in my discretion 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 after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Cain v. Christine Valmy International School of Esthetics, Skin Care, & Makeup · filed 2016-10-20(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims is within the Court’s discretion if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs claims that were based on a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and there being no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally favors relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims are resolved before trial, but a court may retain jurisdiction when resolution of the state claims is clear or the state and federal claims raise similar issues.

Doe No. 55 ex rel. Doe's Mother v. Madison Metropolitan School District · filed 2016-11-16(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial. ... However, when the resolution of the state law claims is clear or the state and federal claims raise similar issues, the court may retain jurisdiction. ... Both of those circumstances apply to this case.

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

Meyers v. Kishimoto · filed 2016-11-17(c)(3)

That brings the case within § 1367(c), which provides that the district courts “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if ... (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction.” ... For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted by Plaintiff Meyers in his Amended Complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, but does not require the court to consider that choice sua sponte when no party raises it.

International Longshore & Warehouse Union v. Port of Portland · filed 2016-12-27(c)(3)

Once the district court dismissed the federal claim, the court could have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Section 9 state law claim. ... However, the district court is not required to sua sponte analyze whether it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, id., and there is no evidence that either party raised the issue.

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

Wevodau v. Pennsylvania, Office of the Attorney General · filed 2017-01-04(c)(3)

Here, the court finds that no considerations of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness provide an affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction after the court has disposed of Plaintiffs federal claim. ... The court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and will remand this case to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after disposing of all federal claims, and dismissal of the federal claims before trial generally favors declining that jurisdiction.

Zubrod v. Hoch · filed 2017-01-08(c)(3)

Where, as here, all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the balance of factors to be considered in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims typically militates against exercising such jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed, with a presumption favoring declination when dismissal occurs before trial.

Durand v. Litscher · filed 2017-02-03(c)(3)

A district court may'decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and the presumption is that the court will do so if all federal claims have .been dis...missed before trial. ... This is what we understand the district court to have done, and that decision was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, subject to its discretion to retain them when circumstances warrant.

Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital · filed 2017-02-15(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain in this case, there is a presumption that .the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over her Wisconsin state-law claims. ... Since it does not appear that any circumstances exist warranting the continued exercise of jurisdiction over Reed’s state-law claims, those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims or dismiss them without prejudice.

Boseman v. Upper Providence Township · filed 2017-02-27(c)(3)

Because the facts surrounding the probable cause determination are in dispute here, see supra n.7, we will vacate the dismissal of this claim and remand to the District Court to either exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim or to dismiss it without prejudice so that Boseman can pursue it in state court.

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

Grubbs v. Marconi · filed 2017-02-27(c)(3)

Having determined that summary judgment is appropriate as to plaintiffs federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs State law claims for assault and battery.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after dismissing the federal claims, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Barnes v. District of Columbia · filed 2017-03-03(c)(3)

While federal district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that “form part of the same case or controversy” as federal claims over which they have original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), where the federal claims on which a federal court’s jurisdiction relied have been dismissed, the court has discretion in deciding whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Edmondson & Gallagher v. Alban Towers Tenants Ass’n, 48 F.3d 1260, 1265–66 (D.C. Cir. 1995). ... In the instant case, each of these factors weighs in favor of dismissing the plaintiff’s state claims 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, ordinarily dismissing the state claims without prejudice when the federal claims end before trial.

Mirocha v. Palos Community Hospital · filed 2017-03-08(c)(3)

If the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court’s supplemental jurisdiction persists, but the court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... In these circumstances, the usual rule applies and dictates dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiffs state law claims in Count III through Count X.

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

Tjaden v. HSBC Bank USA, National Ass'n · filed 2017-03-10(c)(3)

Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 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 federal claims.

Neurological Surgery, P.C. v. Travelers Co. · filed 2017-03-21(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ ERISA claims, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’, state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Derolf v. Risinger Bros. Transfer, Inc. · filed 2017-04-21(c)(3)

Jurisdiction over this matter was invoked by the Court’s federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Having disposed of the federal claims, the Court hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and therefore passes no judgment on their viability.

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

Sui v. Marshack · filed 2017-05-18(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

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

Call v. Badgley · filed 2017-05-19(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment as to all Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and hereby REMANDS Plaintiffs remaining state law causes of action to Humboldt County Superior Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the sole federal claim is dismissed early in the case.

Hadar v. Broward County · filed 2017-05-31(c)(3)

Because Hadar’s sole federal-law claim had dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remained, the court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction by dismissing the remaining claims without prejudice.

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.

Rohrbaugh ex rel. Rohrbaugh v. Lincoln Intermediate Unit · filed 2017-06-16(c)(3)

Finally, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ra-nay’s remaining tort claim against Kreuz pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) because Plaintiffs’ federal claims will be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

When the federal claims are resolved, § 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain or dismiss a remaining state-law claim after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

De Ritis v. McGarrigle · filed 2017-06-29(c)(3)

On remand, the District Court should “consider . . . the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in order to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction over . . . [that] pendent state-law claim[]” or to dismiss that claim without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the lone federal claim is resolved and dismiss the state-law claim without prejudice.

Werkheiser v. Pocono Township Board of Supervisors · filed 2017-08-10(c)(3)

The Court simply declined to exercise jurisdiction as permitted by § 1367(c)(3) and did not err by dismissing the claim without prejudice.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c)(3) ordinarily permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice.

Hagan v. Quinn · filed 2017-08-14(c)(3)

Plaintiffs offer no argument in their appellate brief to justify a departure from this usual course, and they certainly do not show that the district court abused its discretion. On the contrary, the court might well have abused its discretion if it had retained jurisdiction over a strictly state-law claim in an area where important state policy goals may conflict.

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.

National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp. v. New York State Energy Research & Development Authority · filed 2017-08-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed both federal defendants and all federal causes of action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Damiani v. Duffy · filed 2017-10-04(c)(3)

Having determined that summary judgment is appropriate as to the federal claims, the Co,urt declines to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental 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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Crochran ex rel. Shields v. Columbus City Schools · filed 2017-10-04(c)(3)

After analyzing the relevant considerations, the Court concludes that it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. The case has not proceeded to trial yet. Moreover, this case implicates questions of Ohio, not federal, law. These issues as well as the other state law issues are best resolved by an Ohio court.

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

Humphrey v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2017-10-20(c)(3)

Additionally, the District Court justifiably declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Humphrey’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (holding that when federal claims are dismissed before trial, federal courts should not separately entertain pendent state claims).

When all federal claims are dismissed, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, but must dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Gordon v. University of Texas Medical Branch · filed 2017-11-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, the district court had discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gordon’s state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Rhyne v. Henderson Cty., 973 F.2d 386, 395 (5th Cir. 1992). But when a district court exercises its discretion and dismisses the state-law claims, it must do so without prejudice so that the plaintiff may refile in the appropriate state court. See Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 246 (5th Cir. 1999). The court erred by dismissing the defamation claim with prejudice.

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, and to dismiss those state claims without prejudice.

Smith v. City Of Mobile · filed 2017-12-12(c)(3)

In accordance with the foregoing analysis, it is ORDERED that Stimpson’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 59) is GRANTED as to the remaining federal claims against him in Counts I and III, which are DISMISSED with prejudice; that all remaining state law claims in this action are DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the authority to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3); and that the pending motions for summary judgment (Docs. 58, 59) are MOOT to the extent they are not otherwise disposed of in this order.

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

Ameti ex rel. United States v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. · filed 2018-02-06(c)(3)

In granting summary judgment on all the federal claims and the associated state claims falling under the same analysis, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Springboards to Educ., Inc. v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist. · filed 2018-01-22(c)

Having granted summary judgment on all of Springboard's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Springboard's state takings claim.

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 the pretrial proceedings, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Foxfield Villa Assocs., LLC v. Robben · filed 2018-02-26(c)(3)

The clear majority of issues in this case were always state law claims and should properly be decided by a state court, especially now that the single federal claim is dismissed. The court finds that the balance of factors favors dismissal. The court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it disposes of the federal claims and no independent basis for jurisdiction remains.

Decraene v. Olcese · filed 2018-03-01(c)(3)

With the Court's grant of judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff's federal claim, only the state law claims remain, and there is no independent basis for jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining local-law claim after resolving the federal claim when equitable factors favor dismissal.

Ryan v. District of Columbia · filed 2018-03-02(c)(3)

However, given that summary judgment must be entered in the District’s favor on the federal claim, this Court must decide whether to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the state-law claim. ... This Court has determined that the applicable factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ryan’s remaining claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after disposing of the sole federal claim when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh against retaining it.

Ryan v. Dist. of Columbia · filed 2018-03-02(c)(3)

This Court further concludes that the equitable factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh against the retention of this case through the discretionary exercise of the Court's supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law DCWPA claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the federal claims are withdrawn early in the litigation.

Alper, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC · filed 2018-03-05(c)(3)

Therefore, it is appropriate under the circumstances to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that will be the only claims remaining in this case when the amended complaint is docketed.

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

Li v. Hughes · filed 2018-03-23(c)(3)

There are no viable federal claims in Li’s proposed second amended complaint, and I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any viable state- law claims.

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

Abdollahzadeh v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP · filed 2018-03-26(c)(3)

As there are no remaining federal claims in this action, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Abdollahzadeh’s state-law claims.

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

Sanders v. City of Hodgenville · filed 2018-03-28(c)(3)

Having disposed of the only basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sanders's remaining state-law claims.

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

Fraser v. Mta Long Island Rail Rd. · filed 2018-03-31(c)(3)

For the reasons stated above, the court grants summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's Title VII, NYSHRL and EPA claims. However, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's NYEPL and City-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy and comity favor local adjudication.

Barry Farm Tenants and Allies Association, Inc. v. District of Columbia Housing Authority · filed 2018-04-30(c)

In this case, the factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Just as in Fouch v. District of Columbia, the Court has not invested significant time or resources on the state law claims, as compared to the significant time that it has devoted to the federal 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.

Harris v. Village of Ford Heights · filed 2018-06-06(c)(3)

Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Count II cannot continue without a viable underlying constitutional claim against Burke, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harris’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remand them after all federal claims are eliminated, taking fairness, convenience, judicial economy, and comity into account.

Donna Esty, individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Hagen Esty-Lennon v. Town of Haverhill, et al. · filed 2018-06-08(c)(3)

The sole basis for this court’s jurisdiction over the state-law claims is supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In light of the above rulings, however, there are no longer any federal claims in this case. ... The court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remands them to state court.

Section 1367(c) 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 informing that choice.

Smith v. Federal Title & Escrow Company · filed 2018-06-21(c)

At this early stage of proceedings before discovery has commenced, the Court finds that these factors do in fact weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction and allowing these issues of purely D.C. law to be determined,by the body that knows them best_the D.C. courts.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after dismissing the only federal claim.

Lizama v. Anz Guam, Inc. · filed 2018-07-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal cause of action, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the pendent state-law claims.

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

Sullivan v. Town of Southampton · filed 2018-07-19(c)(3)

As to the state law claims, because they arise out of the same facts relevant to the federal claims, this court has discretion as to whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Having disposed of the only federal claims in the case, the court DENIES without prejudice summary judgment on all other counts and remands those counts to state court for further proceedings.

After federal claims are dismissed before trial, Section 1367 generally does not support retaining related state-law claims when state law permits timely refiling in state court.

PC v. The Bandas Law Firm PC · filed 2018-07-20(c)(3)

Accordingly, the general rule applies in this case, and the supplemental jurisdiction statute does not support continuing jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Anderson v. District of Columbia · filed 2018-07-24(c)(3)

By statute, this Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. ... At this early stage of proceedings before discovery has commenced, the Court finds that these factors do in fact weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction and allowing these issues of purely D.C. law to be determined by the body that knows them best-the D.C. courts.

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

Trahan v. Clayton Dublier & Rice · filed 2018-07-30(c)(3)

As there is no remaining viable federal claim, we find the district court did not err in declining to take supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Trahan’s state law causes of action. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Taylor v. I.C. Systems, Inc. · filed 2018-07-30(c)(3)

Because neither party has sought summary judgment on the ICAA theory or otherwise addressed that theory substantively, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to adjudicate Count II and dismisses it without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after granting summary judgment on all federal claims.

Benson v. Kennametal, Inc. · filed 2018-08-07(c)

Because the Court is granting summary judgment to Defendant on all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, it will dismiss without prejudice the state law claims over which it is exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Dix v. Edelman Financial Services, LLC · filed 2018-08-14(c)(3)

Having resolved all federal causes of action, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims ... pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Tahir v. Delany · filed 2018-08-23(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Tahir’s state law claims after dismissing his federal claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the federal claims are dismissed early and no sound basis supports retaining the state claims.

E. Drake v. Costume Armour, Incorporated · filed 2018-09-06(c)

As there was no sound basis for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, we affirm the dismissal of the suit.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering the stage of the case and prejudice to the plaintiff.

Deppner v. Spectrum Health Care Res., Inc. · filed 2018-09-11(c)(3)

In this case, the factors weigh against retaining Deppner's state-law claims. The case has not progressed beyond defendants' first motion, and the Court has not developed any familiarity with Deppner's state-law claims. Moreover, Deppner will not be prejudiced in any way by dismissal. ... Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Deppner's state-law claims, it will dismiss Counts I, IV, and V for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

Howard v. Miller County Court · filed 2018-10-25(c)(3)

When, as in this case, all of a plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, a federal district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Green Solutions Recycling, LLC v. Reno Disposal Co. · filed 2019-01-07(c)(3)

Having resolved the federal claims in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, and calls for a discretionary decision that can be reviewed on appeal.

Hubbard v. OK Dept of Human Services · filed 2018-12-28(c)

Without the benefit of explanation or analysis to assess the district court’s discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367, and having affirmed the dismissal of the Hubbards’ federal claims, we reverse the dismissal with prejudice of the state law claims and remand to the district court.

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

The Depot, Inc. v. Caring for Montanans, Inc. · filed 2019-02-06(c)(3)

We note, however, that because we affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs’ ERISA claims, the district court is also free on remand to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and allow plaintiffs to bring them in state court.

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

Greene v. Hense · filed 2019-02-25(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against non-diverse defendants where all federal claims have been dismissed. ... Given these factors, the Court will utilize its discretion to decline jurisdiction over plaintiff’s gross negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.

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

Williams v. Chicago Transit Authority · filed 2019-03-06(c)(3)

For the reasons discussed in the court’s first opinion, 2017 WL 4467456, at *5, and in an exercise of its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court relinquishes its supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’s state law claim and dismisses that claim for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are resolved before trial, after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Jain v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Butler School Dist. 53 · filed 2019-03-12(c)(3)

The Court does not see any reason to continue exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law claims, and, after having considered the factors of "judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity," id. , the Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims, and dismisses Counts III and IV without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are resolved, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Jain v. Butler Illinois School District 53 · filed 2019-03-12(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts IIT and IV, the remaining state-law claims, and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claim before trial when there is no reason to retain them.

Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co. · filed 2019-03-19(c)(3)

Finding no justification for departing from that "usual practice"... in this case, Plaintiff's state law claims are 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Corley v. Vance · filed 2019-03-27(c)(3)

A district court has discretion to "decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" after "dismiss[ing] all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." ... Here, all factors weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily favors relinquishing remaining state law claims; work on the federal claim alone does not require retaining them when the court has not examined the state claims.

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

Here, although the Court has devoted significant resources to the disposition of the federal claim on summary judgment, it has not delved deeply into the state law claims. ... Thus, while there clearly are instances in which ... this is not one of them.

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

Caudle v. State of ILL. · filed 2019-04-05(c)(3)

Further, because no federal claims remain, even if the state law claims were timely filed, the Court in its discretion would decline the exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those remaining claims.

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

Martinez-Rodriguez v. Giles · filed 2019-05-20(c)(3)

By granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs' federal claims, the Court only has pendant-or supplemental-jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. In its discretion, the Court declines to exercise this jurisdiction. Idaho state court is the better forum for Plaintiffs' state law claims. Consequently, these claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim after resolving the federal claims, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing whether to remand it.

Phanthalasy v. Hawaiian Agents, Inc. · filed 2019-05-30(c)(3)

Here, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction over the conversion counterclaim and remanding it to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts broad discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within their original jurisdiction; substantial time and judicial resources spent on the case can justify retaining it.

CH Bus Sales, Inc. v. Geiger · filed 2019-06-03(c)(3)

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and Eighth Circuit law both afford the Court “broad discretion” in jurisdictional situations like this one, the general rule is that a federal district court should only continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse state law suit if a “substantial amount of time and judicial resources” have been “expended” on a case.

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

Gwin v. McWherter · filed 2019-06-04(c)(3)

Because all of the federal claims are being dismissed, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law. Those state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McCray v. Beaumont · filed 2019-06-28(c)(3)

With no remaining federal claim for relief, the Court declines to take supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. 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 claim, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Mourabit v. Klein · filed 2019-07-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claim, the Court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise or not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim. ... Weighing these factors, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim.

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, particularly when the case is at an early stage and the remaining issues are matters of state law.

Ogles v. Security Benefit Life Insurance Company · filed 2019-07-12(c)(3)

Given these considerations, and given the early stage of this litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ogles’s state-law unjust-enrichment claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it resolves all federal claims before trial, with comity and state-court interests favoring that choice.

Victor v. ELA Area Public Library District · filed 2019-07-19(c)(3)

Because Victor has no remaining federal claims, her state-law claims are dismissed for want of federal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Paramount Media Grp., Inc. v. Vill. of Bellwood, No. 17-1562, 2019 WL 3161843, at *5 n.2 (7th Cir. July 16, 2019). Although the parties have briefed the merits of summary judgment on the defamation claim, “the principle of comity encourages federal courts to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367(c)(3)” when they resolve all federal claims prior to trial. Hansen v. Bd. of Trustees of Hamilton Se. Sch. Corp., 551 F.3d 599, 607 (7th Cir. 2008). Here, there is no federal interest in the remainder of the parties’ dispute; the state courts have a greater interest in interpreting Illinois defamation principles and should be given the opportunity to resolve that claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has disposed of the federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Cowher v. Pike County Correctional Facility · filed 2019-07-23(c)(3)

However, to the extent any state law claims do remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those 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, with comity and other practical factors guiding that choice.

Roosevelt Irrigation District v. United States · filed 2019-07-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed that claim, the Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law causes of action.

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

Edokobi v. Mondo Internatioal, LLC · filed 2019-07-29(c)(3)

In the absence of federal question jurisdiction, I will exercise my discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims under Maryland law.

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

Metoyer v. Fudge · filed 2019-07-29(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims arising under Oklahoma law and those claims are dismissed without prejudice. See 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.

Cournoyer v. Fischer · filed 2019-07-29(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on Cournoyer’s federal claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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.

Juste v. Lawrence · filed 2019-07-31(c)(3)

However, the Court 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). In this case, the Court has found that all federal claims must be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after resolving the federal claims against the same defendant at summary judgment.

Becky Bishop v. Bosquez · filed 2019-07-31(c)(3)

But the court reasonably declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims when it decided Bishop’s federal claims against Bosquez at summary judgment.

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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Wehmeyer v. Bolka · filed 2019-07-31(c)(3)

The federal statute that allows supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims also provides that the 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). ... Considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, see Wright, 29 F.3d at 1251, this Court does not find a basis to retain jurisdiction of the case. ... Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Count V of the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

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

Bisono v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc. · filed 2019-08-02(c)(3)

As this Court has dismissed the Plaintiff’s only claims sounding in federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Brashear v. Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County · filed 2019-08-05(c)(3)

With the federal claims dismissed, the court must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the assault and battery claim. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3). ... Having disposed of the federal claims prior to trial and finding no consideration which causes the court to conclude that it should retain jurisdiction over the state law claim, the court, in the exercise of its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the assault and battery claim.

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

Stewart v. Hammond City · filed 2019-08-06(c)(3)

In dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3).

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

STAHL v. BAUER AUTOMOTIVE, INC. · filed 2019-08-07(c)(3)

In its discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), 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 a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims.

Morrow v. Capra · filed 2019-08-07(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), having dismissed plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law negligence claim against the maintenance supervisor at Sing Sing.

Section 1367(c) calls for reconsidering supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims before reaching their merits when the federal claims have been resolved and the federal and state laws differ.

Silguero v. CSL Plasma, Incorporated · filed 2019-08-09(c)

Before addressing the merits of the case, the district court should reconsider whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Silguero’s and Wolfe’s state law claims in light of the revelation that the federal and state laws are different in this context and the affirmance of the judgment in CSL’s favor on the federal claims, leaving no current federal law claims.

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

Lindita Coku, M.D. v. The New York and Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2019-08-12(c)(3)

Section 1367 authorizes courts to “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). The Court has dismissed Dr. Coku’s Title VII claims. Within seven days of this Order, the parties shall show cause in writing why the Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over Dr. Coku’s 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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. O'Neill · filed 2019-08-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear any state law claims set forth in the complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally calls for relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are resolved before trial.

Bennett, Walter v. Wolf, Jody · filed 2019-08-13(c)(3)

The general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015). Defendants ask the court to dismiss Bennett’s claims under § 1367(c)(3) and Bennett has not responded to that request, so I see no reason to depart from the general rule. I will dismiss Bennett’s state law claims without prejudice to his refiling them in state court.