28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial, and to remand those claims when the factors favor remand.

ATWOOD v. THOMPSON · filed 2023-03-29(c)

Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion to relinquish jurisdiction over Mr. Atwood's state law claims. Those claims are REMANDED to Shelby Superior Court.

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

Sharp v. Community High School District 155 · filed 2023-03-30(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims for failure to state a claim, the Court, using its discretion, declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss related state-law claims without prejudice when it dismisses all federal claims in the operative complaint.

Henry v. Alabama State Department of Education (MAG+) · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Henry’s state-law claims because he recommended that all federal-question (Title VII) claims should be dismissed with prejudice. While the court is adopting the Recommendation to the extent that all Title VII claims will be dismissed (the hostile-work-environment claim with prejudice, the sex-discrimination and retaliation claims without prejudice), the court also adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the state-law claims, on this complaint, be dismissed. However, as with the sex-discrimination and retaliation claims, the state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice, and Henry will be granted leave to file a final 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.

Grosse-Rhode v. Annucci · filed 2023-04-03(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are removed from the complaint.

Bogle v. Brasfield · filed 2023-04-06(c)(3)

Accordingly, and as an exercise of its discretion, the Court chooses to remand this case to the state court from whence it came.

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

Ford v. Rivas · filed 2023-04-12(c)(3)

Because the Court has resolved all federal claims, the Court, using its discretion, declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Lawrence v. Lawson · filed 2023-04-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

TEKsystems, Inc. v. Andiamo Consulting, LLC · filed 2023-04-19(c)(3)

Thus, because the claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction—Count X—has been fully resolved and Plaintiff has not pleaded any other basis for jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Quinlan v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office · filed 2023-04-25(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), when federal-law claims that serve as the basis of subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed, and only state-law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction remain, a district court has broad discretion to decline jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c) favors declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed, especially when a remaining state law claim raises an unresolved question of state law.

Norton v. Town of Brookhaven · filed 2023-05-16(c)

In doing so, the district court failed to recognize that, where at least one of the remaining state law claims raised an unresolved question of state law, comity counsels strongly against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. ... Therefore, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against the Town after the dismissal of the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has resolved the federal claim to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Morgan v. Sisay · filed 2023-05-17(c)(3)

To the extent that Morgan’s Complaint raises state law claims of medical malpractice and negligence, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Such claims will be dismissed, without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Vyas v. Sofinski · filed 2023-05-19(c)(3)

Lastly, the court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims in the complaint. See 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 resolving all federal claims.

Asimah v. CBL Properties · filed 2023-06-05(c)(3)

Because the Court has resolved all federal claims, the Court, using its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim.

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

Lewis v. DMH Investments LLC · filed 2023-06-07(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) expressly permits the district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in the event, as was the case here, the federal claims are resolved.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand pendent state law claims when all federal law claims have been eliminated.

Pyles v. PrimeCare Medical of West Virginia, Inc. · filed 2023-06-20(c)(3)

And, pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), courts have consistently ruled that “'a federal district court has discretion under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction to remand a properly removed case to state court when all federal- law claims in the action have been eliminated and only pendent state-law claims remain.'” Wood v. Crane Co., 764 F.3d 316, 321 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 345 (1988). Thus, because no federal law-based causes of action remain, (see ECF No. 4), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives federal district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after they dismiss every claim within their original jurisdiction.

Ellis v. Brown · filed 2023-06-26(c)(3)

Congress, through 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), has granted federal district courts discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” in situations where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction... .”

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

Blair v. Frenchko · filed 2023-06-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Lockridge v. Larson · filed 2023-06-29(c)(3)

Having granted judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff’s federal claims, the court will relinquish jurisdiction over his state law claim of negligence and dismiss that claim without prejudice. See Boyd v. Bellin, 835 F. App’x 886, 889 (7th Cir. 2021); 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Friedberg v. Betts · filed 2023-06-30(c)(3)

Because all of the claims over which this Court had federal question jurisdiction have been disposed of, this Court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Pascual.

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.

Douris v. City of Henderson · filed 2023-07-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district 1) court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where “the district court has 2|| dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 10] over the remaining state-law claims.

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

HATCHIGIAN v. PECO/EXELON ENERGY COMPANY · filed 2023-07-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed all outstanding federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hatchigian’s state law claims. A court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction [over state law claims] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has resolved the federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Giddings v. Centurion Behavioral Health Staff · filed 2023-07-13(c)(3)

To the extent Giddings raises state law claims of medical malpractice and negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses those claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Stewart v. Garcia · filed 2023-07-17(c)

Stewart's federal claims, along with the echoing claims under Arkansas law, will be dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stewart’s other claims of negligence under Arkansas law. They will be dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Johnson v. Briarly · filed 2023-07-25(c)(3)

Having determined that the federal claims over which this Court has jurisdiction should be dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

JONES-SINGLETON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH · filed 2023-07-27(c)(3)

District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claim when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also D & D Assocs., Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of N. Plainfield, 552 F. App’x 110, 117 (3d Cir. 2014) (affirming district court order that declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims following entry of summary judgment as to federal law claims).

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

Hood v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources · filed 2023-07-28(c)(3)

Given that all federal claims have been dismissed, the court concludes that the balance of factors weighs strongly in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), Counts V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Hines v. Sammons · filed 2023-07-31(c)(3)

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 dismissing all federal claims, based on the balance of relevant considerations.

Clark 585601 v. Junck · filed 2023-07-31(c)(3)

Here, because the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims against all Defendants, 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 a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Mayo v. Kentucky Department of Corrections · filed 2023-08-01(c)(3)

Finally, having dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” in situations when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”); Wee Care Child Ctr., Inc. v. Lumpkin, 680 F.3d 841, 849 (6th Cir. 2012).

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

Stanislaw v. Thetford Township · filed 2023-08-02(c)(3)

Given that no federal claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claim arising under state law.

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

Morris v. Tondkar · filed 2023-08-04(c)

At screening the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Morris’s Wisconsin state law claims. Now that the court has granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the federal claims, it declines to continue to exercise that jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c); Bailey v. City of Chicago, 779 F.3d 689, 696 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

Hughes v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc. · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

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.

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

Powell v. Simon · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

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

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

Hussey v. Beth Israel Medical Center · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

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

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

MOSLEY v. BANK OF AMERICA · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

Having dismissed Mosley’s federal law claims with prejudice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims contained in the ... Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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.

Lozano v. Butte County · filed 2023-08-11(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... With this principle in mind, the Court declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are resolved before trial, with a presumption favoring relinquishment unless circumstances support retention.

Moore v. Town of Merrillville, Indiana · filed 2023-08-11(c)(3)

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. ... Therefore, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims, and this case will be remanded to state court.

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

Aery v. Lewis · filed 2023-08-11(c)(3)

More importantly, having concluded that the R&R correctly rejected Mr. Aery’s constitutional claims, the Court further agrees with the R&R that supplemental jurisdiction should not be exercised over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McGarrity v. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. · filed 2023-08-16(c)

As the Court noted in its previous remand order, a district court may decline to continue exercising its supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed or abandoned. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous. Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir. 2007); Behlen v. Merrill Lynch, 311 F.3d 1087, 1095 (11th Cir. 2002). District courts, moreover, are encouraged to refrain from exercising said jurisdiction where all federal claims have been eliminated prior to trial. See Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004). Here, all of Plaintiff’s federal law claims have been eliminated prior to the summary judgment stage. Defendants do not oppose remand. The Court therefore declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. The instant action is remanded to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decide whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are resolved.

Johnson v. Barr · filed 2023-08-18(c)

On remand, as there is no longer any federal claim in this case, the district court may determine, using its sound discretion, whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims or to remand this case to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has resolved the federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Saunders v. YesCare, Corp. · filed 2023-08-23(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff raises state law claims of medical malpractice and negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and thus will dismiss such claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

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

Taylor v. Planning & Zoning Commission · filed 2023-08-25(c)(3)

Because summary judgment has been granted as to all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to entertain Plaintiff’s state law claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the Connecticut Constitution. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction if “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after it resolves the federal claim, particularly when it has devoted no substantial judicial resources to the state law claim.

Salka v. Campbell · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

The Court therefore chooses to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claim, which is brought under state law. ... As the Court has not engaged in any meaningful review of the merits of the state law claim and has not otherwise committed substantial judicial resources to it, declining to exercise jurisdiction is proper.

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

Yu v. ByteDance Inc. · filed 2023-09-01(c)(3)

As a result, the complaint as of the date of this Order only includes state-law causes of action, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining purely state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Cash v. Simmons · filed 2023-09-13(c)(3)

The foregoing analysis disposes of all Cash’s federal causes of action, leaving only state claims. When the Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Thus, this Court refuses supplemental jurisdiction and remands this case to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims have been adjudicated and to dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice.

LADS Network Solutions, Inc. v. Agilis Systems, LLC · filed 2023-09-14(c)(3)

What it will do, and what it should have done at oral argument on the second motion for summary judgment, is decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ three state- law based Counterclaims because all federal claims have been adjudicated and no independent basis exists for jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Plaintiff.

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

Hampton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-09-22(c)(3)

A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims like these even after the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). But a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction instead. ... Having dismissed Hampton’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state claims. They are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Seale v. The Trustees Of Columbia University in the City of New York · filed 2023-09-26(c)(3)

Having found that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Godfrey v. Little · filed 2023-09-26(c)(3)

As such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

RUSSELL v. BENDER · filed 2023-10-04(c)

Having dismissed Mr. Russell’s federal law claims with prejudice, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

Wagner v. JD Cleaning Service, LLC · filed 2023-10-30(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... There is not a compelling reason to maintain jurisdiction over the state claims, and therefore, they are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-contract claim after dismissing the federal claims.

FRAZIER v. CARTER · filed 2023-11-02(c)

Having dismissed any federal claims, the Court does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Frazier's breach of contract claim.

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

Peterson v. City of Yakima · filed 2023-11-07(c)(3)

Here, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction for several reasons. First, the Court no longer has any federal claims to proceed with. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims when federal claims were dismissed).

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

Pigott v. Gintz · filed 2023-11-14(c)(3)

Similarly, the third factor weighs in favor of declining jurisdiction over the state law claims, as all claims that gave the federal court jurisdiction have been dismissed, and the only remaining claims against Deputy Gintz are for state law causes of action. ... Thus, in consideration of the foregoing factors, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Deputy Gintz.

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.

Chapman v. University of Toledo · filed 2023-11-21(c)(3)

I will not reach this issue because, having dismissed Plaintiff’s sole federal law claim, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

J.M. v. Miller Creek School District · filed 2023-11-22(c)(3)

As the court has adjudicated the only federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Baine v. Diaz · filed 2023-11-28(c)(3)

To the extent that Baine raises state law claims of medical malpractice and negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and thus will dismiss such claims, without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Tallman v. Jeanpierre · filed 2023-11-29(c)(3)

The court has concluded that Dr. Jeanpierre is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff’s federal claims. The court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

Elliston v. Caron · filed 2023-12-05(c)(3)

As no federal claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Elliston’s state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (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 all federal claims are resolved before trial; ordinarily it does so absent unusual circumstances.

Christensen, Daniel v. Weiss, William · filed 2023-12-07(c)(3)

“Absent unusual circumstances, district courts relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims if all claims within the court's original jurisdiction have been resolved before trial.” ... So the court will dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice to plaintiffs refiling them in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and limited discovery and argument on the state claims may leave no justification for retaining them.

Crooker v. Tessitore · filed 2023-12-11(c)(3)

Here, as the parties have only conducted discovery on the issue of probable cause and little argument has been presented regarding Plaintiff’s state-law claims, the court finds no affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Counts VI and VII.

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

Armijo v. Adams County · filed 2023-12-13(c)(3)

And because Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim arises under Colorado law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, and therefore, dismisses the claim without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Kleeberg v. The Berkshire Gas Company · filed 2023-12-14

However, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this sole remaining state law claim, and the Clerk’s Office is directed to remand this case to the Massachusetts Superior Court and close it on this court’s docket.

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

Grossman v. New York State Office of Mental Health, Buffalo Psychiatric Center · filed 2023-12-14(c)

Even if this Court had original jurisdiction over Grossman’s ADEA claim despite the effect of the Eleventh Amendment, this Court would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Grossman’s NYSHRL claims.

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

Boyles v. Blytheville Arkansas, City of · filed 2024-01-02(c)(3)

In the absence of any federal question, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ Arkansas Civil Rights Act claims and state-law tort claims.

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

The Estate of William Scales v. ATU Local 1181 · filed 2024-01-02(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims he may be asserting.

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

Jackson v. Warner Music Group Corp. · filed 2024-01-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed those of Plaintiff's claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction (his federal-law claims), the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any of his state-law claims that remain.

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

Cunningham v. Bonwich · filed 2024-01-11(c)(3)

But, in the absence of a federal claim, the Court is not inclined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that state-law matter.

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

Christian Construction Inc v. Owens · filed 2024-01-18(c)(3)

Inthe absence of any basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over both Parnell’s Arkansas Civil Rights Act and harassment 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.

McClain v. Hughey · filed 2024-01-24(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court declines 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Jackson v. Jones · filed 2024-01-30(c)(3)

In this case, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and thus declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendent state law claims.

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

Escalante v. Escalante · filed 2024-01-31(c)

Under these circumstances the court generally declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

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

Shabazz v. Graham · filed 2024-02-14(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff does not currently state a federal claim, the Court declines, at this time, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after resolving all federal claims, particularly when the state claims require a separate inquiry under evolving state law.

Grimm v. Garnet Health · filed 2024-02-15(c)(3)

Given the “separate and independent inquiry the Court would need to undertake in this evolving area of law and that the parties have not briefed the [NYSHRL] claims distinctly and adequately, the factors of convenience, comity and judicial economy favor declining jurisdiction” over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims, and dismisses same without prejudice.

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

Na'im v. Payne · filed 2024-03-04(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law medical malpractice and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); King v. City of Crestwood, 899 F.3d 643, 651 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review).

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

Servis v. Jang · filed 2024-03-04(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the 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.”

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

Jefferies v. City Of Cincinnati · filed 2024-03-07(c)(3)

Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after the dismissal of federal claims is a decision of pure discretion.

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

McArthur v. Property Management · filed 2024-03-08(c)(3)

Moreover, because there are no federal law claims remaining and there is no diversity jurisdiction based on the citizenship of the parties, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims that might arise under state law.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after it resolves all federal claims, dismissing the state claim without prejudice.

Smola v. Chronister · filed 2024-03-08(c)(3)

Because Smola’s only remaining claim is a battery claim under Florida law, the Florida battery claim is DISMISSED WITH- OUT PREJUDICE in accord with 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This order declines supple- mental jurisdiction over the remaining battery claim under Florida law, but the claim is dismissed without prejudice to Smola’s right to assert the claim in a Florida court.

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.

Herrera v. The Village of Angel Fire · filed 2024-03-13(c)(3)

Thus, given that the Court has now resolved all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to hear related state-law claims, but the court generally should relinquish jurisdiction over them when all federal claims are resolved before trial, absent unusual circumstances.

James, Carlos v. Butzke, Heather · filed 2024-03-18(a)

This court only has supplemental jurisdiction over that claim under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), which permits a federal district court to hear a state-law claim if it is related to a federal claim in the same action, but absent unusual circumstances, district courts are to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if all federal claims have been resolved before trial. Coleman v. City of Peoria, Illinois, 925 F.3d 336, 352 (7th Cir. 2019). Nothing in this case suggests unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claim, the court will decline to do so; rather, relinquishing jurisdiction appears particularly appropriate here, since a disputed, threshold issue concerns whether plaintiff complied with the state’s notice of claim requirements to pursue a negligence claim under Wisconsin common law, and plaintiff may refile his claim in state court, subject to any applicable statute of limitations.

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

Collins v. AutoZone, Inc. · filed 2024-03-19(c)(3)

Once a plaintiff's federal claims are gone, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

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

Grider v. City of Auburn Alabama · filed 2024-03-21(c)(3)

The Court finds that comity and judicial economy are better served by declining to decide the state law matters involved in this case. Accordingly, pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII 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.

Smith Land Company, Inc v. City of Fairlawn, Ohio · filed 2024-03-22(c)(3)

Because this Court dismisses all federal claims against Defendants, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Three and Eight.

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

Hutchinson, M.D. v. Northwell Health, Inc. · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

Having determined that plaintiff’s § 1981 claims cannot proceed as currently pleaded, the Court must consider the appropriate disposition of the remaining claims. Per 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims “if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims.

Morris v. Patterson · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

As to the second point, because the Court is dismissing all of Mr. Morris’s federal claims, the Court agrees with Defendants that its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Morris’s sole state- law claim is inappropriate.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the case is still in its initial stages.

Sowe v. Navy Federal Credit Union · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims if, inter alia, the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” or, “in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” ... After considering the Carnegie-Mellon factors, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendent state law claims. This case is in its initial stages and only state law claims remain.

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

Gray v. Passero · filed 2024-04-02(c)(3)

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

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

Reed v. Ally Financial · filed 2024-04-05(c)(3)

Additionally, whether or not a court exercises supplemental jurisdiction once all claims over which the federal court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed is discretionary. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009). ... Finding no compelling reason to retain jurisdiction over a state controversy, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 60) as to her state law claims against Mac Haik.

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

Kidwell-Bertagnolli v. County of Sonoma · filed 2024-04-10(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court, in its discretion, declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Deputy Ordaz and the County.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when all federal claims are dismissed.

Friday v. Carver · filed 2024-04-17(c)(3)

To the extent that the Plaintiff attempts to assert a claim for breach of contract under North Carolina law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as no federal claim has passed initial review.

Section 1367(c) gives courts discretion to dismiss state-law claims after dismissing the associated federal claims and to retain state-law claims alongside pending federal claims.

Fox 425694 v. Heeke · filed 2024-04-18(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). Because Plaintiff has failed to state valid federal claims against Defendants Miracles, Haug, Olsen, Henry, Richardson, Palmer, Blair, Picono, Stevenson, Unknown Parties #1 and #2, Ward, Rewerts, Smith, Wits, Hawkins, Garcia, and London, the Court will dismiss his state law claims against these Defendants. However, because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Heeke, Milrowski, and Gailes, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims as to these Defendants.

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

Neary v. Driscoll · filed 2024-04-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed Neary’s federal claims for the reasons set forth above, 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Law Offices of Phoenix Thottam v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association · filed 2024-04-22(c)(3)

Here, Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed all federal claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Sokolowski v. Kuber · filed 2024-06-12(c)(3)

The court has concluded that the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff’s federal claims. The court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Murdock v. Brown · filed 2024-07-15(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Murdock’s claim for prospective injunctive relief under the Pennsylvania Constitution and will dismiss this claim without prejudice to Murdock refiling it in an appropriate Pennsylvania state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726–27 (1966).

When all federal claims are resolved before trial and only state law claims remain, a court should generally decline supplemental jurisdiction.

L.M.W. v. Arizona, State of · filed 2024-08-09(c)(3)

Generally, when all federal claims have been resolved before trial, and only state law claims remain to be tried, this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

GIBSON v. DONALDSON · filed 2024-08-09(c)

Having resolved all claims within its original jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion and relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Gibson'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.

Shelton v. Curry Case retained as to Curry and Gregory. Other severed and transferred to Northern District of TX, Abilen · filed 2024-08-12(c)(3)

In this case, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s pendent state law claims.

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

Miller v. Winner · filed 2024-08-15(c)(3)

Because Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Miller’s federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Miller’s state law claims.

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

KIRBY v. BOROUGH OF WOODCLIFF LAKE · filed 2024-08-20(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim “under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Doe v. Mercy Cath. Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 567 (3d Cir. 2017). As this Court has already determined that summary judgment is appropriate in the foregoing federal claims, and because all parties are New Jersey citizens and/or New Jersey entities and so there is no diversity jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Tyner v. Dagilas · filed 2024-08-21(c)(3)

A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim like this even after the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). But a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction instead. ... Having granted summary judgment to the defendants on Tyner’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Maryland claim.

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

Cruz v. City of Pottsville · filed 2024-08-29(c)(3)

The court agrees with the R&R and will not exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Wade v. Brighton Health Center Emergency · filed 2024-09-06(c)(3)

Given that the Court dismissed the only claims over which it has original jurisdiction (the federal claims), it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

L.M.W. v. Arizona, State of · filed 2024-09-13(c)(3)

This state law issue predominates. As a result, comity and fairness both favor remand. Further, economy favors remand because the state court will decide this issue of state law, rather than the federal court perhaps needing a certified question process.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has resolved all federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Gifford v. Hamilton County Government · filed 2024-09-13(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants as to Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

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

Shipp, Booker v. Lobenstein, Kenneth · filed 2024-09-23(c)(3)

Here, neither party identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over Shipp’s state-law claims. I will decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Shipp’s state law claims.

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

Munck v. Simons Foundation · filed 2024-09-26(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim where all claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will not evaluate the NYSHRL or NYCHRL claims.

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

Towner v. Bold Team LLC · filed 2024-09-27(c)(3)

Having addressed all of Towner’s claims under federal law, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all these state claims.

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

Tabor v. Morgart · filed 2024-09-27(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ claims under the Tucker Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Four and Seven, brought under the Connecticut Constitution and Connecticut state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after disposing of the claim that supplied federal jurisdiction.

Hatchett v. Wexford Health Services, Inc. · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Because Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Hatchett’s constitutional count, the only counts remaining are those for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for violations of Illinois’s commercial fraud act. As the Court’s jurisdiction is supplemental and based on Hatchett’s constitutional claim, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction on Counts II and III for state law violations.

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

McVicker v. Muskogee Housing Authority · filed 2024-10-04(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s remaining claims sound in state law and do not implicate federal jurisdiction; this Court declines to exercise pendent or supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on its assessment of the relevant considerations.

Guntle v. Cass County Sheriff's Office · filed 2024-10-08(c)

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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after all federal claims have been resolved.

Spears v. Osceola Police Department · filed 2024-10-25(c)(3)

Last, because no federal claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Spears’s conversion claim for his gold necklace and watch.

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

Persell v. Brown · filed 2024-10-30(c)(3)

In the absence of a viable federal constitutional claim, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law 3}| claims.

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

Rubinov v. Suyunova · filed 2024-10-31(c)

Since plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Assemi v. Assemi · filed 2024-11-07(c)(1)-(3)

Accordingly, § 1367(c)(1)-(3) all favor remand.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal claims are eliminated early in litigation.

Kallman v. Kallmant · filed 2024-11-20(c)(3)

For the reasons stated above, this Court declines 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 all federal claims have been resolved.

White Hawk v. Tribal EM · filed 2024-12-04(c)(3)

All the federal claims have been eliminated prior to trial and the claims which remain are purely state-law tort claims. In respect to the principal of comity, and consistent with the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Carnegie-Mellon and Gibbs the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim when an amended complaint eliminates the federal claim early in the case.

Chapman v. Goodwill of Lane and South Coast Counties · filed 2024-12-05(c)(3)

Under such circumstances, district courts have discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, remand the case, or dismiss without prejudice. ... Given the early stage of the litigation, the Court abstains from exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state claim after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not justify retaining it.

THOMAS v. MUNOZ · filed 2024-12-11(c)

This weighs against exercising supplemental jurisdiction because there will be no duplication of judicial efforts in determining Defendant’s motion for summary judgment; it will be determined either by the state or the federal court. ... Thus, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and give Plaintiff the opportunity to refile his NJCRA claim in state court.

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

Vega v. Friends of Dolphins, LLC · filed 2024-12-27(c)(3)

Having resolved Count II, the only federal law claim, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Count I.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law counterclaim after resolving all federal claims; resolving those claims does not itself eliminate supplemental jurisdiction.

Buser v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · filed 2025-01-14(c)(3)

Although the Court’s decision to dismiss Buser’s federal claims does not rob the Court of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court maintains discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law counterclaim.

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

Byard v. Conry · filed 2025-01-27(c)

Thus, federal question jurisdiction no longer exists, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is declined, and remand is proper.

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

EATON v. PLASSE · filed 2025-02-06(c)

Having resolved all claims within its original jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion and relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Eaton's state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, based on the statutory factors and considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Abshire v. Livingston Parish · filed 2025-02-07(c)

Here, those factors weigh strongly in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are resolved before trial, absent unusual circumstances.

Cortes-Nute, Mario v. Zbaracki · filed 2025-02-07(c)(3)

Absent unusual circumstances, district courts will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if all federal claims have been resolved before trial. Coleman v. City of Peoria, Illinois, 925 F.3d 336, 352 (7th Cir. 2019). Neither party identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over Cortes-Nute’s state-law claims. I will relinquish jurisdiction over those 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.

HALL v. LIGONIER VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2025-02-20(c)(3)

Because summary judgment will be granted on the federal claims in Count I and Count II of the Amended Complaint, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction as to the remaining state law claims in Counts III through IX because it finds no factor favoring retaining jurisdiction of these claims.

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

Stephens v. Brown Wood Preserving Company, Inc. · filed 2025-03-03(c)(3)

Because all federal claims will be dismissed, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and must determine whether to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over Stephens’ remaining state law claims against Koppers, SFH Industries, and Brown Wood, or remand them back to state court. ... Accordingly, all four Carnegie-Mellon factors weigh in favor of remand, and the Court REMANDS Stephens’ claims against Koppers, SFH Industries, and Brown Wood to Jefferson County Circuit Court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims, taking judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state-law issues into account.

Warner 297342 v. Johnston · filed 2025-03-12(c)

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

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

Price v. Pearson · filed 2025-03-13(c)(3)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Therefore, the Court will dismiss these remaining claims without prejudice, affording the plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue these claims against the defendants in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, if they deem it appropriate to do so.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are resolved before trial; absent unusual circumstances, courts generally do so.

Ledford, William N. v. Ribault, Justin · filed 2025-03-14(c)(3)

Absent unusual circumstances, district courts will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if all federal claims have been resolved before trial. Coleman v. City of Peoria, Illinois, 925 F.3d 336, 352 (7th Cir. 2019). Neither party identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over Ledford’s state-law claims. I will relinquish 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.

A.P. v. Dannhauser · filed 2025-03-25(c)(3)

Because none of Plaintiffs’ federal claims remain, and the case is still at the initial pleading phase, 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 adjudicating the claims within its original jurisdiction and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Dixon v. Silva-Markham Partners · filed 2025-03-28(c)(3)

Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate when the Court adjudicates the claims over which it has original jurisdiction and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

FOX v. CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

This court has granted summary judgment as to all federal claims and, after considering factors such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are resolved, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Conway v. City Of Chicago · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

Having considered the applicable factors, the Court sees no reason to continue exercising jurisdiction over Conway’s state-law claim. The IWA claim is therefore dismissed without prejudice.

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

Porter, Qubia v. Hurless, Denise · filed 2025-04-21(c)(3)

Absent unusual circumstances, district courts will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if all federal claims have been resolved before trial. Coleman v. City of Peoria, Illinois, 925 F.3d 336, 352 (7th Cir. 2019). Neither party identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over Porter’s state-law claims. I will decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Compton, Elbert v. Martin, Robert · filed 2025-05-06(c)(3)

Absent unusual circumstances, district courts will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if all federal claims have been resolved before trial. ... Neither party identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over Compton’s state-law claims. I will decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Tiller v. City of Jackson · filed 2025-05-16(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment on Tiller’s ADA and equal-protection claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining, pendent state-law claims.

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

Estate of F.R Jr. v. County of Yuba · filed 2025-05-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, but passes no judgment on the merits of those claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after resolving all federal claims.

Cain v. Ponca City Independent School District I-71 · filed 2025-06-04(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Ralston v. Smith · filed 2025-07-01(c)

In light of my conclusion that Dr. Smith is entitled to summary judgment on Ralston’s deliberate indifference claim, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the inmate’s conclusory claims under state law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims based on the same facts as federal claims and allows a court to decline it after the federal claims are resolved.

Long v. Chronister · filed 2025-07-22(c)(3)

Because each state law claim relies on the same facts as the federal claims, the exercise of supple- mental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is permissible. ... Because the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the federal claims, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is declined.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims have been resolved before trial, absent unusual circumstances.

Werling, Nicholas v. Hefty, Daniel · filed 2025-08-15(c)(3)

Absent unusual circumstances, district courts will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if all federal claims have been resolved before trial. ... Neither party identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over Werling’s state-law claims. I will decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Lien v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC · filed 2025-08-19(c)(3)

Now that this claim is the only one remaining, the Court must consider whether to continue exercising its supplemental jurisdiction or instead decline to exercise jurisdiction and remand the matter to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... These arguments do not justify the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Mercedes-Benz’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Lien’s implied warranty, good faith and fair dealing, and Magnuson-Moss claims and, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining express warranty claim, REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco.

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.

Stowe v. Town of Cheshire · filed 2025-08-28(c)(3)

Because these claims are the only ones over which the Court has original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and therefore dismiss counts 2, 3, 5, and 6 without prejudice.

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

Lathan v. Greenville, City of · filed 2025-08-29(c)(3)

Furthermore, because the court has granted summary judgment as to all federal claims, the only claims that remain arise under state law. The court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s recommendation—to which Plaintiff does not object—that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Beatty v. Gardner · filed 2025-08-29(c)(3)

Having granted defendants summary judgment on all federal claims, this court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Beatty’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court will decline to exercise its discretion to resolve these claims because doing so is not unfair to the parties and does not unduly hinder judicial economy.

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

Looper v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2025-09-02(c)

Because I grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Looper’s federal claims, I decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Looper’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims have been resolved before trial; absent unusual circumstances, courts will ordinarily do so.

Jurjens, Ralph v. Chatman, Jason · filed 2025-09-08(c)(3)

Absent unusual circumstances, district courts will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if all federal claims have been resolved before trial. ... Neither party identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over Jurjens’s state-law claims. I will decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over these claims.