28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

STEPHENS v. MCMANN · filed 2025-09-08(c)(3)

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

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

Naramore v. City of Jasper, Alabama · filed 2025-09-08(c)(3)

Because the court grants summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ federal law claims, see supra Part III.A–B, there is no longer an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law breach of contract claims. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bryant v. City of Berkeley · filed 2025-09-12(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment as to Bryant’s federal causes of action, the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

TROTTER v. LOGAN · filed 2025-09-16(c)

Having resolved all claims within its original jurisdiction, the court exercises its discretion and relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the Estate's assault, battery, and respondeat superior claims.

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

Davenport v. Sukowaty · filed 2025-09-17(c)(3)

Because the court has concluded that the plaintiff has no federal claim, the court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claim.

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

Barkai · filed 2025-09-19(c)(3)

Finally, because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s federal law claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim.

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

WINDOM v. ZATECKY · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

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

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

Holmes v. City of Chicago · filed 2025-10-08(c)(3)

However, because there are no longer federal claims in the case, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over these claims, and dismisses them without prejudice to their refiling in state court.

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

FARRONE · filed 2025-10-24(c)(3)

The only remaining claim, Count 3, arises under the PHRA, and the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that state-law claim.

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

DOE · filed 2025-10-27(c)(3)

Because we have now disposed of those claims on summary judgment in defendants’ favor, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state claims.

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

Graham · filed 2025-11-12(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and remands the state claim to the Allen Circuit Court.

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

Lauritsen v. Hiawatha National Bank · filed 2025-11-18(c)(3)

Generally, federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial. ... The court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

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

Green · filed 2026-02-26(c)

Because the Court agrees that summary judgment is appropriate as to Plaintiff’s federal causes of action, it likewise agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the remaining state-law claims should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

MORGAN · filed 2026-03-05(c)(3)

The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims under § 1367(c)(3), and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

VI Carnival Committee, Inc. v. Boschulte · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

InPcu.rsuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Count Three of the Complaint, which is a local claim as to Halvor Hart in his individual capacity.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally favors relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are resolved before trial, unless judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity warrant retaining them.

Carlson v. County of Chippewa · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

Generally, federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015). In unusual cases, the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity will warrant the exercise of jurisdiction. See Wright v. Assoc. Ins. Cos. Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir. 1994). This is not such a case. The court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

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

Itson · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

Given that the court has granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to all of Plaintiff’s claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Dawn Walega v. MacGregor · filed 2026-04-07(c)(3)

Walega does not appear to directly address this issue in her opening brief, but the District Court also did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims after granting summary judgment for Lackawanna County on her federal claims.

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

Brown · filed 2026-04-15(c)(3)

Finally, because the Court has resolved Brown’s federal claims, it will relinquish jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Williams Electronics Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904, 905 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting that district courts are expressly authorized “to dismiss a supplemental claim when the federal claims have dropped out of the case”). Brown’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice so that he may pursue them in state court, if he so chooses.

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

J.M. v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. · filed 2017-12-13(c)(3)

Because the Court will grant summary judgment on Plaintiff's constitutional claims, the only claim remaining in this case will be Plaintiff's claim for negligence/gross negligence against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, S.C. Code § 15-78-10. The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's negligence claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and will remand this case to the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for Kershaw County.

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 are gone.

Hale v. London · filed 2020-01-17(c)(3)

Where, as here, the District Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court has discretion to retain or decline 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 resolving the federal claims.

Hazard-Chaney v. Optima Healthcare · filed 2001-12-18(c)(3)

There being no independent basis for ... subject matter jurisdiction over Hazard-Chaney’s remaining state law claims and no compelling basis for me to keep them in federal court, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after it disposes of the claims supporting original jurisdiction.

Ingram v. Papa John's International, Inc. · filed 2006-03-17(c)(3)

Having disposed of the two claims on which removal jurisdiction was premised, un- der § 1367(c)(3) the district court had com- plete discretion whether to dismiss, without prejudice, the supplemental state law claims. Its exercise of that discretion was proper.

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

Anderson v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-05-14(c)(3)

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the merits (ECF No. 45) is granted in part as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and remands those claims to the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas.

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

O'Brien v. Gularte · filed 2020-06-30(c)

Because the Court grants summary judgment as to all Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction of his state law claims, which will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Guziewicz v. Gomez · filed 2020-07-31(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The same rule applies where a district court grants summary judgment as to all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Fairley 150010 v. Westcomb · filed 2020-08-13(c)(3)

The Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Talley v. Wetzel · filed 2020-09-22(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mehalchick’s report and recommendation is adopted in its entirety, Talley’s objections are overruled, Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are granted with respect to Talley’s federal claims, and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Talley’s remaining state law claims.

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

Moss v. Uribe · filed 2020-10-06(c)

Because summary judgment has been granted to Defendants on the federal claims in this case, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law negligence claim.

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

Blackley v. Spartanburg County · filed 2020-10-07(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on the federal claims, the court lacks diversity, and after careful consideration, 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 it resolves the federal claims by summary judgment.

Neita v. City of Chicago · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

Having determined that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the federal claims, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims for indemnification (Count VII) and malicious prosecution (Count VIII). 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 and dismiss them without prejudice after granting summary judgment on all federal claims.

The Estate of Bishar Ali Hassan v. Municipality and City of Anchorage · filed 2023-05-09(c)(3)

In this case, because the Court has granted summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims based on qualified immunity, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and will instead dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Bronx Conservatory of Music, Inc. v. Bronx School for Music, Inc. · filed 2024-01-04(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment to Defendants on all of the Conservatory’s federal claims, however, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims.

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

Uzakova v. Javaheri · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

Having granted Defendants summary judgment against Plaintiff’s FLSA claims (Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action), this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYLL claims (the other five claims).

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

FRANKLIN v. THE CITY OF WARNER ROBINS · filed 2024-07-09(c)(3)

Because the Court is granting summary judgment on Franklin’s § 1983 and § 1985 claims against Pippio and the City—the claims over which it has original jurisdiction—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Franklin’s state law IIED and Georgia Open Records Act 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, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guiding that choice.

Quinn v. Cardenas · filed 2020-05-15(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims when it has dismissed the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.7 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... These factors weigh against retaining supplemental jurisdiction and in favor of remanding the state law claims to the Maricopa County Superior Court. ... The Court will therefore exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and remand the remaining state law claims to the Maricopa County Superior Court.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. JOHN A. WOOD, and on behalf of the STATES of CALIFORNIA v. ALLERGAN, INC. · filed 2020-06-10(c)(3)

With all of Wood’s federal claims gone, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. ... Here, there is no basis to depart from that general rule. Although Wood initially filed his claims a very long time ago, the case is, as a legal matter, still at an early stage. Thus, the traditional “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” that the Court must consider do not counsel in favor of exercising jurisdiction.

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

Borden-Vasallo (ID 108165) v. Miami County Sheriff's Office · filed 2020-06-18(c)(3)

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when the claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a court must decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness affirmatively justifies retaining them.

SMITH v. SMITH · filed 2020-07-22(c)(3)

The Court does not have original jurisdiction over these claims and may only hear them through its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.3 But the Third Circuit has held that where all federal claims are dismissed before trial, “the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” ... No such affirmative justification is apparent here.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; comity generally favors dismissal before trial.

Clark v. Stone · filed 2020-07-28(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs’ state law malicious prosecution claim arises out of the same incident and shares a common nucleus of operative fact, the Court could exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, the Court now must consider whether it is prudent to grant such supplemental jurisdiction. ... Here, the Court finds that comity favors dismissal. All federal claims have now been dismissed, and generally ... Plaintiffs’ state law malicious prosecution claim is dismissed without prejudice so that Plaintiffs may pursue these claims in a more appropriate forum.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (3) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim when the federal claims are gone and judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not justify retaining it.

WILLIS v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN · filed 2020-08-07(c)(2), (c)(3)

WHEREAS, the Court finds that it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claim under § 1367(c)(2) and (3), and the Court will remand the matter to state court; ... ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this matter as CLOSED.

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

Watison v. Parker · filed 2020-08-10(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it dismisses “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Fairness and comity therefore dictate that the Tennessee courts should be given the opportunity to decide these claims. After weighing the relevant factors, the Court does not find any reason to depart from the general rule, and therefore declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Lewis v. Chase Airport Management Inc. · filed 2020-08-13(c)(3)

Taking into consideration the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law crossclaims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, taking account of judicial economy, federal policy, and inconvenience to the parties.

WB Music Corp. v. Cedar St Investments LLC · filed 2020-08-13(c)(3)

The crossclaims present no underlying issues of federal policy, and as the case is at the default judgment stage, the Court finds no overriding interest in judicial economy or inconvenience to the parties to justify the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cedar Street’s state law crossclaims.

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

Johnson v. Case Ventures, LLC · filed 2020-08-17(c)(3)

The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, Section 1367(c)(3) calls for declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness affirmatively justify retaining them.

SMITH v. SMITH · filed 2020-08-18(c)(3)

Consequently, the Court lacks original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and may only hear these claims through its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. But the Third Circuit has held that where all federal claims are dismissed before trial, “the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). No such affirmative justification is apparent here. Therefore, these claims must also be dismissed, without prejudice to refiling in a court of competent 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; retaining them requires an affirmative justification based on judicial economy, convenience, or fairness.

SCRIPNICENCU v. LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST · filed 2020-08-18(c)(3)

With no surviving federal claims, I decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law tort claims that Plaintiff asserts in the Second Amended Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hubert v. Correction · filed 2020-08-23(c)(3)

The balance of factors here weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The Court finds that principles of comity suggest that Connecticut courts are more suited to determine the viability of Ms. Hubert’s CFEPA claims, which involve Connecticut law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Holmes v. Kraker · filed 2020-08-28(c)(3)

In any event, however, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Schultz that, in the absence of a viable claim pursuant to the federal statute, there is no basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Holmes’ remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally requires a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness affirmatively justify retaining them.

Nahas v. Shore Medical Center · filed 2020-09-18(c)(3)

We review that decision for abuse of discretion, see Maher Terminals, LLC v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 805 F.3d 98, 104 (3d Cir. 2015), and against the backdrop of our case law holding that where all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a district court “must decline to decide the pendent state claims” unless “considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for” ruling on them, North Sound Capital LLC v. Merck & Co., 938 F.3d 482, 494 n.11 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000)); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after resolving all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, and comity.

DeGraw v. Gualtieri · filed 2020-09-21(c)(3)

In the interest of judicial economy, convenience, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim for wrongful death (Count III).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, weighing judicial economy, multiple litigation, and the need to decide state-law issues.

Board 766060 v. Radtke · filed 2020-09-23(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 only federal claim, taking account of comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Alpine County v. South Tahoe Public Utility District · filed 2020-09-24(c)(3)

Comity weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims against defendant because the state court is competent to hear those claims and may have a better understanding of the relevant state law. As for judicial economy, this action is still at the motion to dismiss stage, and plaintiff’s state law claims have not been the subject of any litigation. Judicial economy does not weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Lastly, convenience and fairness do not weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. The federal and state fora are equally convenient for the parties. There is no reason to doubt that the state court will provide an equally fair adjudication of the issues. Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss plaintiff’s remaining state law claims against defendant South Tahoe Public Utility District.

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 comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Tule Lake Committee v. Federal Aviation Administration · filed 2020-09-25(c)(3)

But a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . [if] the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Cordero v. Kisner · filed 2020-09-25(c)(3)

The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, the consideration of judicial economy weighs in favor of this Court declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367(c) 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.

Robinson v. City of Hagerstown, Maryland · filed 2020-10-28(c)

After considering the Carnegie-Mellon factors, 484 U.S. at 350, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in the Amended Complaint.

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

Bank v. Spark Energy, LLC · filed 2020-11-23(c)(3)

Having denied Plaintiff leave to amend his TCPA claims, the Court need not allow Plaintiff to amend his state-law claim under GBL § 399-p, as a matter of supplemental jurisdiction. ... In this case, none of the factors—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, or comity—compels exercising supplemental jurisdiction, and the Court denies Plaintiff leave to amend his GBL § 399-p claim on that ground.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal claims remain before trial, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Munn v. APF Management Company, LLC. · filed 2020-12-10(c)

As Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails to state any federal claims on which relief can be granted, and considering the factors set forth in Cohill, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I or III. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when resolving the state claims serves fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity.

Powell v. Pittsfield, City of · filed 2020-12-14(c)(3)

7 In addition to Plaintiff’s federal claims, which this court has jurisdiction over pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As to the state-law claims against Alexander and Grady, the court exercises supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses those claims because they are time barred on the same basis as the federal claims. Under these circumstances, therefore, dismissal of the state-law claims asserted against Alexander and Grady “best serves the interests of fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity,” as “no substantial question of state law is presented.”

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Walker v. The City of Dothan, Alabama (CONSENT) · filed 2020-12-21(c)(3)

The remaining claim raises issues of state law only that do not implicate federal interests in any manner. Further, because 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) tolls the state statute of limitations, there is no unfairness to Walker resulting from dismissal. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Walker’s remaining state law claim against Defendants and dismisses the claim without prejudice to his right to pursue it in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) favors declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, particularly when fairness and comity favor state-court resolution.

Lambert v. Davidson County, District Attorney · filed 2020-12-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court has decided not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Tennessee Open Records Act claim because, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), there is a “strong presumption in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state-law claims after dismissing federal anchor claims.” Martinez v. City of Cleveland, 700 F. App’x 521, 523 (6th Cir. 2017); see also Taylor v. First of Am. Bank- Wayne, 973 F.2d 1284, 1287 (6th Cir. 1992) (holding that “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims [generally] should be dismissed as well’). Fairness and comity dictate that the Tennessee courts should decide this claim, which alleges that state actors violated state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims have been resolved, with judicial economy and comity informing that choice.

Haegele v. Judd · filed 2020-12-29(c)(3)

Furthermore, the Court finds that principles of judicial economy and comity weigh in favor of the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. Accordingly, because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment with regard to the federal claims, and diversity jurisdiction does not exist, the Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the FWDA claims.

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

BLM Of The Shenandoah Valley, LLC v. Smith · filed 2023-03-14(c)(2)

Because the court is dismissing the only federal claims in the case, the court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and to dismiss them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

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

Kiss v. Torres · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

Where a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over any remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court finds nothing that distinguishes this Action from “the usual case.” ... Thus, Plaintiff’s state claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Soso v. The New York City Department of Education · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

Having considered judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

WOOD v. PALACE ENTERTAINMENT · filed 2023-03-29(c)(3)

Furthermore, the court will decline to further exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff H.W.'s remaining state law claim for negligence/reckless conduct at Count III.

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

Humana, Inc. v. Biogen, Inc. · filed 2023-03-31(c)

In light of the dismissal of Counts 1 and 2, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. ... Here, the two federal claims have been dismissed. What remains are 52 state-law claims, brought under the laws of 30 states. Apart from the complaint and motions to dismiss, no substantial litigation has occurred. Under the circumstances, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

TOWNSEND v. THE BOROUGH OF WORTHINGTON · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

The Court concludes that no “extraordinary circumstances” exist such that the Court should invoke supplemental jurisdiction to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case.

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

Bednar v. Donka · filed 2023-04-12(c)(3)

In consideration of all Cohill factors, the Court does not exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Defendants Donka and StoneRidge Senior Care. These claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Brown v. FBOP · filed 2023-06-09(c)(3)

Having resolved Brown’s federal claims, the Court reaches no conclusion regarding any asserted state law claims. Instead, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. The balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining jurisdiction over those state law claims.

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

BOZELL v. MADDIX · filed 2023-08-02(c)

The Court can also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, but has discretion whether or not to do so. Carlsbad Tech, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Court considers "the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity," City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. Of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (quotation and citation omitted), and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it resolves all federal claims, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Jones v. Blair Wellness Center, LLC · filed 2023-08-09(c)(3)

When deciding whether to exercise this discretion, district courts should “consider and weigh . . . the values of judicial economy, convenance, fairness, and comity.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 353-57 (1988). ... However, because the Court granted summary judgment on these claims on June 30, 2023, it does not have original jurisdiction over any of the pending claims in this action. ... For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted by the Counter-Plaintiffs.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claim is eliminated, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and forum manipulation.

Redden v. Community Health Systems, Inc. · filed 2023-08-21(c)

As noted, Ms. Redden’s amended complaint eliminates her federal claim. Accordingly, the Court will consider the yet-applicable Carnegie-Mellon factors in determining whether to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Consequently, in the absence of “manipulative tactics” that are “too sharp,” id. at 326, the Court concludes that the Carnegie-Mellon factors support remand.

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

Archibald v. Bracey · filed 2023-08-30(c)(3)

Archibald’s remaining state tort claims are dismissed without prejudice because the balance of factors to be considered in whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—points towards declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

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 eliminated, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guiding the choice.

Archer v. The United States of America · filed 2023-09-12(c)(3)

The Court does not have original jurisdiction over these claims and may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. ... All federal claims have been eliminated before trial, and although discovery is nearly complete, the Court does not have specialized knowledge of the facts or remaining claims that would make it more economical, convenient, or fair for the case to remain in federal court. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, which 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, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Thomson v. Alpha Counseling & Treatment · filed 2023-09-19(c)(3)

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, and after weighing the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in light of the above-cited cases, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining claims. Causes of Action Two through Four are thus DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on the balance of judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state-law issues unnecessarily.

Williams 750087 v. Alana · filed 2023-10-03(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)). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, 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 the federal claims are eliminated, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

SEXTON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2023-10-16(c)(3)

Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on the balance of judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state law issues.

Smith 233282 v. Dawdy · filed 2023-11-09(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” ... 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) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Nutter v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, LLC · filed 2023-12-27(c)(3)

As for supplemental jurisdiction, the court finds that the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of remanding the case to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering factors such as limitations, resources spent, and comity.

WILLIAMS v. ROARK · filed 2024-01-18(c)

The Court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state-law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed. ... For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Williams' state-law assault and battery claims against Officer Tovar and Sgts. Roark, Leffler, R. Brewer, and Ashba.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after disposing of all federal claims, with comity and federal policy among the considerations.

Macomber v. State Transport Police · filed 2024-02-22(c)(3)

there are no issues of federal policy underlying the remaining state law claim. Further, comity favors remand since the remaining claim is a quintessential state law question. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining 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, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing that choice.

Scannell v. South Carolina Department of Social Services · filed 2024-03-04(c)(3)

Turning now to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Court remand Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims for consideration by the state court in the first instance, the Court notes that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . if-- . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... After review, therefore, the Court overrules Defendants’ objections and finds it appropriate to remand Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Dancer v. United States of America · filed 2024-03-15(c)

The Court must decide, in its discretion, whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). ... This case is in an early stage. Judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not outweigh concerns about needlessly deciding state-law issues. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ remaining claims because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, based on the balance of judicial economy and avoiding needless state law rulings.

Parish 273839 v. Rewerts · filed 2024-04-26(c)

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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Eisenhauer v. Culinary Institute of America · filed 2024-04-26(c)

The Court now may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the § 194(1) claim because it “has dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction,” as the Second Circuit has affirmed this Court’s grant of summary judgment, which dismissed Eisenhauer’s Equal Pay Act claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Langham v. Granzella · filed 2024-07-15(c)(3)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure § 1367(c)(3), a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Given the early stage in the proceedings, the Court finds this to be the “usual case” in which judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the only remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the case remains at the pleading stage.

City Of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders · filed 2020-04-30(c)(3)

Although the concerns regarding these claims raised in the Court’s previous order remain largely unaddressed, this case has not progressed beyond the pleading stage, and the Court finds no reason to deviate from the usual approach of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with the early stage of proceedings weighing against retaining jurisdiction.

McHargue v. Pickard · filed 2020-06-05(c)(3)

Given the early stage of the proceedings in this case, the Court finds that consideration of the relevant factors weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

After dismissing the federal claim, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim; a general presumption favors relinquishment, especially when litigation is at an early stage.

Shachter v. City of Chicago · filed 2020-07-20(c)(3)

I decline to exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim. See RWJ Management Co., Inc. v. BP Products North America, Inc., 672 F.3d 476, 478 (7th Cir. 2012) (“A general presumption in favor of relinquishment [of supplemental jurisdiction] applies.”) This case is in the early stages of litigation, no substantial time has been invested, and Shachter does not argue against the presumption.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, with the early stage of litigation favoring that choice.

Adeboya v. the District of Columbia · filed 2020-09-01(c)(3)

In light of the early stage of this litigation, the inapplicability of the FTCA, and the apparent state-law basis for the plaintiff’s sole remaining claim against the District, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over related claims after the federal claims are dismissed; that discretionary decision may warrant remand when little federal judicial work has occurred and comity favors state court.

Merkle v. BASF Catalysts, LLC · filed 2020-05-12(c)(3)

The Court finds that none of these exceptions applies. ... In the interest of comity, Illinois courts should resolve the claims. Accordingly, the Court relinquishes its supplemental jurisdiction over the claims and REMANDS this action to the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.

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

Pekney v. The Fort, Inc. · filed 2020-05-18(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).

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 eliminated; the court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in deciding whether to remand.

Niemitalo Inc v. Greenville County · filed 2020-05-27(c)(3)

“[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . if-- . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Thus, based on the foregoing, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and Plaintiff’s motion to remand is granted.

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

Brooks v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-06-09(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ second motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, (ECF No. 58), and DISMISSES all of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. With respect to Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 and REMANDS them to state court.

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

GIBBONS v. THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY · filed 2020-06-30(c)(3)

Multiple factors compel the Court to decline the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and remand this matter to state court. As already has been stated, no federal cause of action remains; the complaint only alleges violations of New Jersey’s anti-discrimination law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and to remand those claims in a removed case when economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor remand.

(PC) Holt v. Gardner · filed 2020-07-17(c)(3)

The district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Moreover, considerations of judicial economy and convenience also favor remand. The court has not issued any substantive or dispositive rulings on 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.

Chavez v. Dona Ana District Attorneys · filed 2022-06-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to federal law, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims for violation of New Mexico's Victim's Right statute and dismisses this case without prejudice.

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

PAGAN v. PEREZ · filed 2022-06-17(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court has discretion to decline jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed from the action. ... In short, I have determined in my discretion that no substantial reasons of economy and fairness require that this state-law case remain in federal court.

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

Powell v. Dunn · filed 2022-06-22(c)(3)

The court acknowledges that its dismissal of Ms. Powell’s state law claims in Counts Eleven and Twelve was premature, as the court had not yet “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). However, the court’s error was harmless, as its ruling on Wexford’s motion for summary judgment disposes of all remaining federal claims in this case, at which point the court can properly decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after a post-removal amendment eliminates the federal claims, considering comity, judicial economy, and possible forum shopping.

Pate v. City of Opa Locka · filed 2022-06-22(c)

The decision of whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction following a post-removal amendment must balance the traditional 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) analysis and the need to guard against forum shopping. ... Therefore, comity weighs in favor of remand, as does section 1367(c). ... Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims that 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.

Jacobs v. COUNTY OF BUCKS · filed 2022-06-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed with prejudice Jacobs’ federal claims, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

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

Illinois Fuel & Retail Association v. Illinois Department of Revenue · filed 2022-06-23(c)(3)

Moreover, the Court has already dismissed the only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. ... This is not such an unusual case, so the Court declines to extend its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim under the Illinois Constitution.

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

Benford v. Streeval · filed 2022-06-28(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed all of the plaintiffs federal claims, the Court concludes that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction over any pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after disposing of the sole federal claim, especially when the remaining disputes are distinct and minor.

Epstein v. Evergreen Computer Solutions, Inc. · filed 2022-06-30(c)

Having entered summary judgment with respect to the sole federal claim in the case, the Court hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to the remaining claims, which involve distinct and de minimus disputes. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Ebel v. G/O Media, Inc. · filed 2022-06-30(c)(3)

Here, consistent with that norm, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and comity strongly favor declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when all federal claims are resolved before trial, absent unusual circumstances.

Jones, Priscilla v. Sun Prairie Area School District · filed 2022-07-01(c)(3)

The court would have supplemental jurisdiction over those claims 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. 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). Plaintiffs do not raise unusual circumstances or suggest any other basis for the court’s jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims and remand them to state court.

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

Shipp, Booker v. Lobenstein, Kenneth · filed 2022-07-05(c)(3)

But absent unusual circumstances, district courts will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if all federal claims have been resolved before trial.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of state law claims when the only potential federal claim is resolved at the earliest stage of litigation.

Clemmons v. Bandwagon L L C · filed 2022-07-05(c)(3)

Because the only potential federal claim has been resolved at the very earliest stage of this litigation—the case has been pending less than five months and had no activity other than the filing of an answer and the motion to dismiss—the court must dismiss without prejudice the state law claims that depend on supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Lattimore, Guardian v. City of Southfield · filed 2022-07-05(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

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

GREEN v. MURPHY · filed 2022-07-05(c)(3)

However, when a court dismisses all claims over which it had original federal question jurisdiction, it has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As Plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed at this early screening stage for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any related state law claims.

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.

Freeman v. Southern Company Gas · filed 2022-07-07(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. The Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff’s ERISA claims, the sole grounds for which this Court held original jurisdiction. As such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract under Georgia law.

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

Gorshow v. eQHealth Solutions · filed 2022-08-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Porch v. University of Illinois College of Medicine · filed 2022-08-03(c)

Moreover, even if Plaintiff had exhausted her remedies before the Commission, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim in view of the disposition of all of Plaintiffs federal claims above.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims before trial, taking account of judicial economy and whether deciding state-law issues is necessary.

Cook 290601 v. Washington · filed 2022-08-03(c)(3)

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction.

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

Cartagena v. Martino-Villanueva · filed 2022-08-04(c)(3)

In the absence of any remaining basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court elects not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim against Women’s Care and remands the action—which now includes only the single vicarious- liability claim against Women’s Care—to state court for further proceedings.

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

Choker v. Pet Emergency Clinic PS · filed 2022-08-04(c)(3)

The Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ state antitrust, wrongful termination, and breach of contract claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Doe v. Grindr, LLC · filed 2022-08-05(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, I have discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... All federal claims have been eliminated before trial, and the Cohill factors counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, or Weinreb’s crossclaim for contribution.

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

Mason v. Stirling · filed 2022-08-09(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff has alleged any state law claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

SNYDER v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE · filed 2022-08-25(c)(3)

With all federal claims now dismissed, the Court must determine whether it is appropriate to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. ... For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Snyder's state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it concludes that no federal claim remains.

Harper v. Giese · filed 2022-08-26(c)(3)

Because the court has concluded that the plaintiff has no federal claim, the court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims the plaintiff may have stated in the second amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Lavite v. Dunstan, 932 F.3d 1020, 1034-35 (7th Cir. 2019).

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

Buckhannon v. Wayne County · filed 2022-08-26(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Wayne County’s motion as to the federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims by dismissing them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, based on the relevant discretionary considerations.

Davis v. Chorak · filed 2022-08-26(c)(3)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against Chorak. There is no compelling reason for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claim. Davis may refile this claim in state court. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the assault and battery claim without prejudice.

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

Cook v. Cobb County, Georgia · filed 2022-08-29(c)(3)

After considering all of the factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Talbott-Serrano v. Iona College · filed 2022-08-29(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Aguirre-Hodge, Christian v. Larson, Charles · filed 2022-08-30(c)(3)

The court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim. But in the Seventh Circuit, the usual practice is to dismiss state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial. Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999). I see no reason to depart from the circuit’s general rule in this case. I will dismiss Aguirre-Hodge’s negligence claim without prejudice to him pursuing the claim in state court.

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

MOSLEY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-08-31(c)(3)

Moreover, given the Court has resolved the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state 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.

Melendez v. City of Las Cruces Police Department · filed 2022-08-31(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment to Roohr and dismisses the federal claims and the remaining claims are based entirely on state law, dismissal of Melendez’s state claims is proper.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after disposing of the only federal claim, especially when little litigation has occurred.

Mavel, a.s. v. Rye Development, LLC · filed 2022-09-06(c)

And a “district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.” Uphoff Figueroa v. Alejandro, 597 F.3d 423, 431 n.10 (1st Cir. 2010); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Here, the only federal claim is the DTSA claim, which is subject to arbitration. What remains are five state-law claims. Apart from the complaint and motions to dismiss, no substantial litigation has occurred. For that reason, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with the early stage of litigation and comity bearing on that choice.

Blackmon v. Lenawee County Health Department · filed 2022-09-06(c)(3)

In § 1367, Congress granted district courts the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if inter alia all claims over which there is original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims because no scheduling order has been issued, discovery has not begun, and the Court has yet to invest significant time or resources in the litigation besides addressing the subject Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) motion.

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

Ridley v. Gaffney · filed 2022-09-06(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff raises any state law claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses the federal claims at the outset and the remaining claims involve different substantive standards.

Iodice v. Archcare At Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center · filed 2022-09-08(c)(3)

The Court finds that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims would be inappropriate in this case. The Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims at the threshold of this case, and his city and state claims implicate different substantive standards.

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

Santana v. McDonough County · filed 2022-09-09(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Santana’s remaining state law claims.

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

Harris v. State of Maryland · filed 2022-09-09(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff’s Complaint raises state law claims of medical malpractice and negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and thus will dismiss such claims without prejudice.

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

Morrison v. Wetzel · filed 2022-09-09(c)(3)

Nonetheless, 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.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after it grants judgment on the federal claims.

FONTANA v. Lincoln Park Police Department, a Michigan Municipal Corporation · filed 2022-09-12(c)(3)

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

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

Beyer v. Napleton Motor Corp. · filed 2022-09-13(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against Napleton and Northwest Bank and dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

Bey v. Gabay · filed 2022-09-14(c)(3)

Without any 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 court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal claim remains.

Holland v. Milone · filed 2022-09-15(c)(3)

Because the court has determined that the plaintiff has no federal claim, the court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Lavite v. Dunstan, 932 F.3d 1020, 1034-35 (7th Cir. 2019).

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

Pickering v. Noonan · filed 2022-09-16(c)(3)

Because no federal-law claim remains in the amended complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and finds that the remaining state-law claims are due to be remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

ECKERT V. POTTSTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2022-09-16(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed his federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims for negligence ... and failure to protect.

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

Bovo v. Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office · filed 2022-09-19(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

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

Fuller v. Louisville Metro Government · filed 2022-09-20(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on the balance of judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state law issues.

Hardrick 606507 v. Bush · filed 2022-09-20(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it has resolved all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Bao v. Sunwoo Trade Inc. · filed 2022-09-20(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYLL and breach of contract claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Jean-Baptiste v. Hamilton · filed 2022-09-21(c)(3)

But the Court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [claims outside of its original jurisdiction] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court will therefore decline to exercise jurisdiction over Jean-Baptiste’s defamation, slander, and negligence claims.

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

Morgan-Tyra v. City of St. Louis · filed 2022-09-22(c)(3)

Finding no factor that distinguishes this case from the usual case in which all federal law claims are eliminated before trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case under § 1367(c)(3) and will dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice.

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

Katzel v. American International Group, Inc. · filed 2022-09-23(c)(3)

Having granted Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s federal claims for whistleblower retaliation and retaliatory termination, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Lasnoski v. Michel · filed 2022-09-26(c)(3)

Because I have concluded that the plaintiff has no federal claim, I will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims.