28 U.S.C. § 1367

When federal claims are resolved before trial, the court ordinarily declines supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

Vogelsberg, Jeffrey v. Kim, Young · filed 2019-08-13(c)(3)

If the federal claims are resolved before trial, the general rule is that the court must decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

Abergel v. Professional Claims Bureau Inc. · filed 2019-08-13(c)(2)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s sole federal claim, the Court “declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over any claims Plaintiff advances that arise under state law.

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

Ferguson v. Wabasha County · filed 2019-08-15(c)(3)

Under these circumstances, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and the state claims will be dismissed without prejudice to bringing them in state court.

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

Bookenberger v. Terrebonne Parish · filed 2019-08-16(c)(3)

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

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

Obi v. Koehler · filed 2019-08-19(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal district court is authorized to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims once it has dismissed all of the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the related federal claims before trial, based on the balance of judicial economy, avoiding multiple suits, and avoiding needless state-law decisions.

Brown 708862 v. Beaudry · filed 2019-08-20(c)

Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. ... Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” ... Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant Thompson. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claim against Defendant Thompson 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.

West v. Winchell · filed 2019-08-21(c)(3)

Plaintiff argues that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, but the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because I recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s only claim arising under federal law, I further RECOMMEND the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and DISMISS without prejudice those remaining claims.

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

Love, Xavier v. Hoffmann · filed 2019-08-23(c)(3)

In this instance, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Love’s claims against Heberlein and Schroeder because I am granting summary judgment to the prison staff defendants on all of the federal 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, with judicial economy and fairness informing that choice.

Kennedy v. Borough of Minersville Pennsylvania · filed 2019-08-23(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The interests of judicial economy and fairness compel me to decline to exercise jurisdiction over these 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 federal claims.

Jernigan v. City of Montgomery, Alabama · filed 2019-08-26(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

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

Sullivan v. HCA Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2019-08-27(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if only issues of state law remain after the court has dismissed all federal claims.

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

Smalls v. County of Suffolk · filed 2019-08-27(c)(3)

Regarding their pendant state law causes of action against the Defendants, having determined that the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims and their § 1986 claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Harris v. Jester · filed 2019-08-29(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed all of his federal law claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after the federal claims are dismissed before trial, based on the balance of judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state-law issues.

Spencer 753452 v. Grand Rapids, City of · filed 2019-08-30(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Dutcher v. The State of Nebraska Department of Corrections · filed 2019-08-30(c)(3)

But the Court can also remand that claim to state court. See § 1367(c)(3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988). ... Accordingly, the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction, and will remand the plaintiff's state-law claim.

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

Eisenberg v. The County Of Nassau · filed 2019-08-30(c)(3)

As set forth above, the Court dismissed all of Eisenberg’s federal law claims on the pleadings. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action and dismisses these claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

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.

Hines v. Patton · filed 2019-09-05(c)(3)

Accordingly, having granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Fontaine v. Ramineni · filed 2019-09-09(c)(3)

Especially because Fontaine cannot attain relief from N.P. Cornwall in this Court, the balance of factors favors declining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Washington, James v. Schueler, R. · filed 2019-09-10(c)(3)

In this instance, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims against Anderson and Gohde because I am granting summary judgment to defendants on all of the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and the predominance of state issues.

De Rossitte v. Vowell. · filed 2019-09-11(c)(3)

But the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, 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 go against doing so.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remand them when the federal claims have been eliminated before trial.

Bohling v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · filed 2019-09-11(c)(3)

But "[i]n the usual case in which all federal- law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." ... The Court finds no factor that distinguishes this case from the usual case. ... Accordingly, the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction, and will remand the plaintiff's state-law claims.

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

Siberius v. American Military University & American Public University Systems · filed 2019-09-13(c)(3)

Having found that the plaintiff has not stated any plausible federal claim, which was the basis of removal herein, and there being no diversity of citizenship, the undersigned declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and REMANDS this matter to the Circuit Court of Wood County.

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

Ridgley v. Wexford Health Sources Inc. · filed 2019-09-13(c)(3)

Further, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any common law medical negligence claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Teas, William v. Suliene, Dalia · filed 2019-09-17(c)(3)

In this instance, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims because I am granting summary judgment to defendants on all of the federal claims.

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

McClain v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC · filed 2019-09-17(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over McClain’s remaining state law claims (Second Count), and therefore dismisses them without prejudice. 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 federal claims, and dismissal without prejudice is appropriate when no reason to retain jurisdiction is offered.

Thiess v. City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado · filed 2019-09-19(c)(3)

Given the fact that plaintiff has not responded to defendants’ motion to dismiss and has set forth no argument that the Court should retain jurisdiction over his state law ... claims, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s fifth, sixth, and seventh claims for relief without prejudice.

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

GDHI Marketing, LLC v. Antsel Marketing, LLC · filed 2019-09-20(c)(3)

Having resolved the federal questions over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

El v. Capiak · filed 2019-09-20(c)(3)

Because summary judgment will be granted in favor of Defendant on the federal claims, to the extent there exist any state claims not previously discussed (which is difficult to discern from Plaintiff's pleadings), the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's supplemental state claims under Delaware and New Jersey law.

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

Doyle v. Hogan · filed 2019-09-20(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s free speech and free exercise claims, over which the court has original jurisdiction, will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and they 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, with economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing that choice.

Noland v. Organo Gold International, Inc. · filed 2019-09-20(c)(3)

Based on my consideration of how economy, convenience, fairness, and comity apply to this case, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Noland’s state-law racketeering claims, and I dismiss them without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hanspal v. Epstein · filed 2019-09-20(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court, “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a state law claim when the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... As this matter is in the early stages of litigation, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over these final two requests for injunctive relief.

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; the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity may favor remand when trial in federal court is years away.

Acosta v. California Highway Patrol · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

Because the Court has now granted the parties’ request to continue trial and the first available trial date in this Court is more two years away, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Kropp v. Scott · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

Having rejected the federal claim for relief that gave the Court federal question jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially at an early stage of litigation.

Ramer v. Crain · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

Because this order dismisses the only claim over which the Court has independent subject matter jurisdiction and the litigation remains in its nascent stages, the Court hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Ramer’s state law claims.

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

Sheppard v. Dart · filed 2019-09-25(c)(3)

District Courts maintain broad discretion to relinquish pendent jurisdiction over state law claims when the "anchor" federal claim drops out of the proceeding. See Dietchweiler by Dietchweiler v. Lucas, 827 F.3d 622, 631 (7th Cir. 2016). Sheppard's First Amendment retaliation claim—the sole basis for federal question jurisdiction before the Court—has been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the ten remaining state law claims. The matter is remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County for further proceedings.

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

Landry v. Rogers · filed 2019-09-26(c)(3)

Also, having found that Plaintiffs’ federal claims against Defendants should be dismissed, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims should be declined.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissal of the only federal claim, particularly when the case is in its early stages and local-law questions remain.

Griffith v. Educap Inc. · filed 2019-09-27(c)(3)

This case is not so exceptional that supplemental jurisdiction remains appropriate after the dismissal of the only federal claim. The case is still in its early stages, and the parties have yet to engage in any discovery.

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

Sprole v. State of New York · filed 2019-09-27(c)(3)

Hence, there is no claim as to all Defendants except the State of New York over which the Court may exercise original jurisdiction. ... Consequently, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against R. Sprole, Martin, Jagel, Alderman, and Kirby.

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.

Snellgrove v. Common Bond Title, LLC (MAG2) · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state- law claims when it has dismissed all federal-law claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Exercising its discretion, the court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Jasmaine f/k/a Duane L. Fox v. Arron · filed 2019-09-30

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff purports to bring a claim for slander or any other state law claims against any of the named Defendants based on her security classification, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to any purported state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

BUTU v. BERGEN COUNTY / CITY OF HACKENSACK · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Because the Court dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any intended state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Rizzi v. Park Hotels and Resorts, Inc. · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s objections are overruled; the Report is accepted in its entirety; and, for the reasons set forth therein, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s ADA claims against it pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted; plaintiff’s ADA claims are dismissed in their entirety for lack of standing; plaintiffs’ state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); and plaintiff is granted leave to file a third amended complaint in accordance with the Report, provided that plaintiff serve and file the third amended complaint by no later than October 31, 2019, or he will be deemed to have waived his right to file a third amended complaint.

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

TAYLOR v. STEAK N SHAKE ENTERPRISES, INC. · filed 2019-10-02(c)(3)

The Title VII claims were the only claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law battery claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Leiser, Jeffrey v. Hannula, Joan · filed 2020-05-01(c)(3)

I dismissed Leiser’s negligence claim against Bentley because the general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial, and Leiser was not proceeding against Bentley on any federal claims.

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

ROUND v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2020-05-01(c)(3)

Since the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal claims against Ross, it will decline to extend jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims against him under § 1367(c)(3).

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

(PC) Austin v. Sherman · filed 2020-05-04(c)(3)

As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, it will be recommended that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims be denied and that those claims be dismissed.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of the claims within its original jurisdiction, considering the stage of the case and whether any federal claim remains.

Weiss v. Easter · filed 2020-05-06(c)(3)

Here, it is still relatively early in the case from a procedural standpoint, and Plaintiff’s remaining claim is purely a state law claim. Considering the relevant factors, the Court therefore dismisses the state law negligence claim—and any other state law claims the complaint is reasonably construed as asserting—as against all remaining defendants without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Polk v. Jones · filed 2020-05-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed Polk's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims for malicious prosecution and false arrest.

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

Valencia v. The Board of Regents, University of New Mexico · filed 2020-05-14(c)(3)

Given that this body has only limited jurisdiction, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over standalone state law issues. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As a result, the Court will dismiss these claims without prejudice.

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

Ervin v. Collins · filed 2020-05-19(c)(3)

Based upon the lack of any federal claim, pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 should not be exercised, even if this Court could conceive of any state-law claims.

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

Williams v. Lewis · filed 2020-05-19(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Therefore, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over William’s state intentional infliction of emotional distress 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; when that happens before trial, declining jurisdiction is generally appropriate.

Dispensa v. National Conference of Catholic Bishops · filed 2020-05-21(c)(3)

Where, as here, all federal claims are dismissed before an action reaches trial, it is generally appropriate for a federal court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.

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

8 ERIE ST. JC LLC v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY · filed 2020-05-21(c)(3)

Namely, § 1367(c)(3) provides that a “district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... As a result, the Court does not reach any issues concerning counts over which it exercises supplemental jurisdiction.

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

HOOK v. NORVELL · filed 2020-05-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court need not address whether Hook has waived the immunity argument, because the Court elects to proceed in the alternative and will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Tamburo v. Elite Auto Credit, Inc. · filed 2020-05-27(c)(3)

But the supplemental-jurisdiction statute also allows the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In this case, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to do so.

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

Malik v. City of New York · filed 2020-05-27(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Malik’s pendent 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 when no federal claims survive.

Bell v. Blasing · filed 2020-05-28(c)(3)

Furthermore, since there are no surviving federal claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice after disposing of the federal claims when no special circumstances favor retaining them.

Szany v. Garcia · filed 2020-05-28

But on its own, the case against Garcia is a case which I do not have federal jurisdiction over and there are no “special circumstances” that counsels in favor of allowing it to continue in federal court. ... Accordingly, the claims against Garcia will be dismissed, without prejudice.

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

Island Intellectual Property LLC v. Stonecastle Cash Management LLC · filed 2020-05-29(c)(3)

Here, because all of Island’s federal claims have been dismissed at an early stage of this litigation, the Court declines in its discretion 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 after dismissing the federal claims.

Iler v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. · filed 2020-05-29(c)(3)

Upon dismissal of the Ilers’ federal claims, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Marathon Petroleum Company LP · filed 2020-06-01(c)(3)

And with the federal claims dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, which will be dismissed without prejudice. Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 625 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 2010) (“When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims, or remanding them to state court if the action was removed.” (quoting Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254–55 (6th Cir. 1996))); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction”).

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

Zanoli v. Keurig Dr. Pepper · filed 2020-06-11(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiff’s federal claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the Court exercises its discretion and elects not to consider Plaintiff’s supplemental state- law claim, which arises under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B.

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

(PS) Meyers v. County of Sacramento · filed 2020-06-15(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s federal claims must therefore be dismissed. Similarly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, and thus they must be dismissed as well. ... A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

QUIAH v. THE DEVEREUX FOUNDATION, INC. · filed 2020-06-19(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all Plaintiff’s federal law claims, I may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s 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 a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Montpelier One LLC · filed 2020-06-28(c)(3)

District courts “may”—and often do—“decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if, as here, they have “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” id. § 1367(c)(3).

When federal claims are dismissed before trial, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Weso v. Thomson · filed 2020-06-29(c)(3)

The court follows this presumption and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Weso’s state law claims.

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

(PS) Pierson v. Sutter Health · filed 2020-06-29(c)(3)

Here, the undersigned has found plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims fail as a matter of law, and has thus recommended dismissal. No further claims are stated under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction was not alleged (as defendants appear to be California residents). Thus, the undersigned recommends the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims stated in the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Yang v. An Ju Home, Inc. · filed 2020-06-29(c)(3)

Here, because all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims.

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

United States of America v. Supervalu Inc · filed 2020-07-01(c)(3)

The False Claims Act claims asserted in Count I are Dismissed with Prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

When federal claims drop out before trial, § 1367(c)(3) permits the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, which ordinarily should be relinquished.

Anderson v. City of Algoma · filed 2020-07-07(c)(3)

Generally, when federal claims drop out of a case, federal courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. ... The court follows this presumption and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

McCormick v. The Housing Authority of Baltimore City · filed 2020-07-15(c)

With the dismissal of every claim over which this Court would have original jurisdiction, this Court must decide whether to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”). ... This Court will exercise that discretion in this case, and will remand this case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for adjudication of Plaintiff’s landlord- tenant claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after an amended complaint removes the only purported federal claim.

Lipian v. Frumkin · filed 2020-07-15

The Court will not retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to a Title IX claim that was never even purposefully or fully pleaded.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after dismissing the federal claims before trial.

BLAIS v. WILLISTON CROSSING EAST LLC · filed 2020-07-17(c)(3)

To the extent Blais relies on pendant jurisdiction, I agree with the magistrate judge that the court should decline to consider the remaining state claims.

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

(PC) Snyder v. Robertson · filed 2020-07-20(c)(3)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, it will be recommended that the Court decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

(PC) Bobadilla v. Knight · filed 2020-07-20(c)(3)

Based on the above recommendations, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants for whom no federal claims remain.

Harley v. Guida · filed 2020-07-21(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against the defendants as to whom no federal claims remain – namely, Tseng, Murn, Malik, NYCHA, NYPD, “City Marshal Edward Guida Incorporated,” and “Marshal City Of New York Badge #14 Incorporated.”

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

Stewart v. Wang · filed 2020-07-22(c)

To the extent that Stewart’s complaint asserts any state law claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when no federal question remains.

Kaplan v. University of Louisville · filed 2020-07-24(c)(3)

The only basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over these claims is supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. There no longer being a question of federal law before it, the Court declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction over Dr. Kaplan’s remaining claims.

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

Kinard v. Crew · filed 2020-07-24(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), I have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Since plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, I see no reason to maintain jurisdiction over the remaining city law claim.

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

Rivers v. San Diego County · filed 2020-07-29(c)(3)

Therefore, in the absence of any viable federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court exercises its discretion and DISMISSES all Plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Pierce v. Granite City Police Dept. · filed 2020-07-29(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, however, the district court has discretion to either retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claims or dismiss them. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Kennedy v. Schoenberg, Fisher & Newman, Ltd., 140 F.3d 716, 717 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 870 (1998). The general rule is to dismiss the pendent state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), (3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 (1988). The Court will follow the general rule here. Counts 3 through 7 shall be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Martinez v. Startek USA, Inc. · filed 2020-08-02(c)(3)

However, because the Court enters judgment in favor of Startek on all of Mr. Martinez’s Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims, there are no longer any claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the Court may – and indeed should – decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Ehlerding v. DSG Indiana, LLC · filed 2020-08-04(c)(3)

Because that disposition results in the dismissal of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court must address whether to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress and rule on both Klopfenstein and Mills’ Motions for Summary judgment on these claims. ... In sum, the Court concludes that none of the exceptions to the “usual practice” applies in this case. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the state law claims without prejudice and dismisses the state law claims with leave to refile in state court.

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

Wyatt, as Administratrix of the Estate of India T. Cummings v. County of Erie · filed 2020-08-05(c)(3)

As noted above, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) makes the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction discretionary when the related federal claims have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice when it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction before trial.

MCCANTS v. BERRINGER · filed 2020-08-10(c)(3)

The 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). ... Therefore, the Court should decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction to Plaintiff’s state-law negligence claim and dismiss the claim 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.

Lebanon Valley Auto Racing Corp. v. Cuomo · filed 2020-08-11(c)(3)

Here, having disposed of all Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state claims.

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

Sexton v. Hamilton County Government (PLR2) · filed 2020-08-12(c)(3)

Because the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims prior to trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

WEATHERS v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2020-08-17(c)(3)

Because the only remaining claims are better resolved by a Pennsylvania court than this Court, this Court will decline to exercise continued supplemental jurisdiction over Count Four.

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

WESTERFIELD v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2020-08-18(c)(3)

Where all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, this Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims fail to state a claim for relief.

Howard v. Carter · filed 2020-08-20(c)(3)

Because Howard has failed to state a federal claim for relief, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Marks v. David Saxe Productions, LLC · filed 2020-08-20(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the only federal claims are extinguished. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Parra v. PacifiCare of Az., Inc., 715 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013). Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and remands these claims back to state court.

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

Mangum v. Town of Wrightsville Beach · filed 2020-08-24(c)(3)

Regarding plaintiffs’ attempt to add claims previously unavailable under state law, such amendment would be futile, where no federal claims remain and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, ordinarily dismissing the state law claims without prejudice.

Reifschneider v. Grossman · filed 2020-08-25(c)(3)

The court follows this presumption and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Plaintiff’s state law claims will therefore be dismissed without prejudice so that they may be pursued in a state forum.

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

Jauquet v. Green Bay Area Catholic Education · filed 2020-08-25(c)(3)

The court will follow this presumption and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’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.

Peterec-Tolino v. Ace American Insurance Co. · filed 2020-08-28(c)(3)

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

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

Bennett v. The City of Montgomery (CONSENT) · filed 2020-08-31(c)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims against Defendants and dismisses those claims without prejudice to her right to pursue them in state court.

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

TAYLOR v. CHESMER · filed 2020-09-08(c)(3)

Where, as is the case here, all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

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

Mendez v. Bath & Body Works, LLC · filed 2020-09-14(c)(3)

Without the dismissed federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mendez’s state and city claims. See Outback Steakhouse, 2020 WL 4273820, at *4 (citing 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 all federal claims, particularly when dismissal occurs early in litigation.

HALLOCK v. MERCK & CO., INC. · filed 2020-09-14(c)(3)

This court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these claims now that all of plaintiff’s asserted federal claims under Section 1983 are being dismissed. When a court has done so, it has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Where, as here, the federal claims are dismissed at an early stage of litigation, declination of supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal claims cannot be considered.

Smith v. PacerMonitor · filed 2020-09-18(c)(3)

Because Smith’s federal claims cannot be considered, the district court operated within its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consider Smith’s defamation claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Rodriguez v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2020-09-18(c)

To the extent that plaintiff also brings medical negligence claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (stating that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . [if] the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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 factors such as the stage of litigation.

Bettis v. Bowser · filed 2020-09-21(c)(3)

If “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over any remaining claims. ... In light of the early stage of this litigation, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Ghandi v. Ehrlich · filed 2020-09-21(c)(3)

Moreover, even if diversity jurisdiction existed, the decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over pendent state law claims is solely within the discretion of the district court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when no consideration justifies retaining them.

B. K. v. GREWAL · filed 2020-09-21(c)

In this case, having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, I find that there are no considerations to justify this Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining state law claims and, therefore, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over those 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.

Cosby v. Oakland County · filed 2020-09-25(c)(3)

However, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As no federal claims remain, the Court exercises that option here.

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

NELSON v. ACRE MORTGAGE & FINANCIAL, INC. · filed 2020-09-25(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims after dismissing all claims that independently support federal jurisdiction.

Warren v. Time Warner Cable Inc. · filed 2020-09-28(c)

“When district courts dismiss all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, they ordinarily dismiss as well as all related state claims.” Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S. Ct. 594, 597-98 (2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over and dismisses the state law claims in Counts Three through Seven without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it has disposed of all federal claims, dismissing the state law claims without prejudice.

Young v. Glanz · filed 2020-09-30(c)(3)

However, it is appropriate here to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because the Court has disposed of all of plaintiff’s federal claims. ... Based upon Birdwell and § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims against Dr. Adusei and CHC, and those 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 resolving all claims within its original jurisdiction.

HALL v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPARTMENT · filed 2020-09-30(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s federal claims in favor of Defendants, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Hogan, Philip v. Syed, Salam · filed 2020-10-01(c)(3)

However, the general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial. ... The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hogan’s state law claims against defendants, which are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Pickard v. Mazda · filed 2020-10-05(c)

Since denying leave to amend as to Counts I and II removes all federal claims in Pickard’s proposed Fourth Amended complaint, the court has discretion to decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction to the remaining state law count. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Because the undersigned would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Pickard’s state law fraudulent misrepresentation claims if they were the only remaining claims, the motion for leave to amend is DENIED as to Count III.

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

Walker v. Greystone Programs Inc. · filed 2020-10-08(c)(3)

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

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

Braun v. Village of Palatine · filed 2020-10-15(c)(3)

The court has determined that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of plaintiff’s federal claims. All that remains are strictly state law claims against in-state defendants: Count I, malicious prosecution under state law; Count II, civil battery under state law; Counts VI and VII, willful and wanton conduct under state law; and Counts VIII and IX, indemnification and respondeat superior under state law. As such, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and declines to address the merits of these claims. 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3).

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

King, Dominic v. Maassen, Tammy · filed 2020-10-22(c)(3)

In this instance, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s negligence claims because I am granting summary judgment on all of the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Rizzi v. Park Hotels and Resorts, Inc. · filed 2020-10-23(c)(3)

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s objections are overruled; the Report is accepted in its entirety; and, for the reasons set forth therein, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s ADA claims against it pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted; plaintiff’s ADA claims are dismissed in their entirety for lack of standing and mootness, without leave to file a fourth amended complaint; and plaintiff’s 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 all claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Tichy v. Reinhart · filed 2020-11-04(c)(3)

Accordingly, because all federal claims have been dismissed, the court will exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and decline to exercise 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 the federal claims.

Stanko v. Smith, King, Simmons, & Conn Law Firm · filed 2020-11-10(c)(3)

Because plaintiff's federal claims will be dismissed, all remaining pendent state claims should be dismissed as well.

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

Jenkins v. NYC DOC Rikers Island · filed 2020-11-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, and as the parties here are not diverse of citizenship, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiff’s other claims to the extent they arise under the state constitution or common law.

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

WHITAKER-JONES v. TULL · filed 2020-11-13(c)

The Court will not address whether any state statute creates a private right of action because the Court has dismissed Whitaker-Jones’s federal claims, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any 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.

Murrell v. Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union · filed 2020-11-16(c)(3)

Therefore, Murrell’s state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After dismissing the only federal claim, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Iler v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. · filed 2020-11-18(c)(3)

In any event, based on its own review, the Court once again agrees with the R&R that dismissal without prejudice of the state law claims is appropriate at this time. ... see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district courts to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all facially plausible federal claims.

McCoy v. Caron · filed 2020-11-20(c)(3)

Because there are no facially plausible federal law claims against any of the named defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a court that dismisses the federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Duncan v. Lee · filed 2020-11-23(c)(3)

In the alternative, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it has dismissed the federal claims.

Clark v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2020-11-23(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed Clark’s only federal claim, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining claims against LVMPD, all of which are based on state law, and remand those claims back to state court where they originated.

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.

Simmons v. Reich · filed 2020-11-30(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts wide discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Bogus v. Harris County District Atty · filed 2020-12-08(c)(3)

In addition, the district court did not abuse its wide discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Heggemeier v. Caldwell Cty., Tex., 826 F.3d 861, 872 (5th Cir. 2016).

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

Foreman v. West · filed 2020-12-10(c)(3)

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and the factors set forth in Carnegie–Mellon, 484 U.S. at 350, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the two State law claims in the 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.

Legister v. Radowitz · filed 2020-12-16(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Gardiniere v. Franciscan Health System · filed 2020-12-17(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff withdrew her federal claims, there are no remaining claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction. The Parties should show cause, should any they have, why the Court should not decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim, which is pursuant to the WPAL.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, if no independent basis for original jurisdiction exists.

Hanna v. American Cruise Lines, Inc · filed 2020-12-17(c)(3)

If there was no basis for original jurisdiction over these claims in this federal court, and the only federal claim has been dismissed, the Court would exercise its discretion and dismiss the other claims without prejudice.

When dismissal of the federal claim before an answer leaves no federal cause of action, the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

Rodriguez v. Hirshberg Acceptance Corp. · filed 2020-12-18(c)(3)

Because this court will dismiss Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim, it will not exercise jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s 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.

Nelkenbaum v. State of New York · filed 2020-12-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims against ADA Wellington over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims plaintiff may be asserting against her.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a clear, uncomplicated state-law claim after all federal claims are resolved.

Hudson, Jennifer v. Eau Claire County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-12-23(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the general rule is that a court should relinquish jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are resolved. ... But the court will retain jurisdiction over Hudson’s state-law claim because it is not complicated and its resolution is clear: Hudson did not comply with Wisconsin’s notice of claim requirement, the claim is time-barred, and it would fail on the merits.

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.

Thomas v. Dart · filed 2020-12-28(c)(3)

And with the federal law claims dismissed, there is no reason for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that state law claim.

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

Bauman v. Protestant Memorial Medical Center · filed 2020-12-28(c)(3)

When a case is before the Court pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, the Court may, in its discretion, relinquish that jurisdiction once the federal claims have been dismissed.

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

SCAFFIDI v. THE HAMMONTON BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2020-12-28(c)(3)

In this case, as the Plaintiffs are voluntarily omitting the only claim over which this Court may have had original subject matter jurisdiction at an early stage in the litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) generally calls for a federal court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are resolved before trial.

Doughty, Matthew v. Grossman, Thomas · filed 2023-03-15(c)(3)

The general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial. ... Therefore, the court will relinquish jurisdiction over Doughty’s state law claim and dismiss it 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.

Gist v. Trinity Services Group · filed 2023-03-15(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff wishes to raise a separate state-law negligence claim against Defendants Wellpath and Kemp related to his medical care, because his federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of the statutory and common-law factors.

Hughes v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc. · filed 2023-03-17(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-diverse state law claims where the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... As both the statutory and common law factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice.

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

Bey-Shinard v. Getachew · filed 2023-03-17(c)(3)

To the extent that Shinard-Bey’s Complaint could be construed as asserting state law claims of medical malpractice and negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and thus will dismiss such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2018).

When all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim and dismiss it without prejudice.

Berg v. Fargo Public School District · filed 2023-03-22(c)(3)

With no federal claim remaining, the Court declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law negligence claim and dismisses the claim without prejudice.

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

Markovic v. Tru Funding · filed 2023-03-23(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismisses the state-law claims without prejudice.

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

Sifuentes v. Dave Inc. · filed 2023-03-23(c)(3)

Without any viable federal claims, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under Section 1367(c)(3), as recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

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

Sifuentes v. TV · filed 2023-03-24(c)(3)

Without any viable federal claims, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under Section 1367(c)(3), as recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing the federal claim on which they depend.

Andino-Hernandez v. Mason · filed 2023-03-24(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court having dismissed Plaintiff’s medical indifference claim, will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims of profession negligence against Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Fogg v. Selene Finance LP · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Selene removed this case based on federal question jurisdiction (Dkt. ## 1 at 2; 1-2), and all federal claims have now been dismissed.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction before trial, a district court ordinarily relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims unless an exception warrants retaining them.

Ortega v. Halliday · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

One of these situations is when the district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... None of the exceptions apply in this case. ... Thus, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction of 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.

Brooks v. Specialty Foods Group, LLC · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed the sole federal claim presented to this Court upon removal from state court, the Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remands them to the Daviess Circuit Court.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on a discretionary balance of relevant considerations.

Stevenson 229119 v. Green · filed 2023-03-28(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.