28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, in light of the relevant factors.

Stark v. Hacker · filed 2022-09-26(c)(3)

Having considered the relevant factors, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stark’s negligence claim, which arises solely under state law.

After federal claims are dismissed before trial, a court generally declines supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims unless an exception warrants retaining them.

ARMOGIDA v. CENTRAL INDIANA JOBS WITH JUSTICE, INC. · filed 2022-09-26(c)

Because none of the three exceptions apply in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Cooper v. City of New York · filed 2022-09-26(c)

Finally, because Mr. Cooper’s federal claims have failed, I decline to retain jurisdiction over Mr. Cooper’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Four factors bear on whether it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction: “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with a presumption favoring relinquishment when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

LEWIS v. HENDERSON · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)

Because none of the adverse consequences of a remand are threatened here, we elect to, in our discretion, relinquish federal jurisdiction over the supplemental state-law claims and remand the case to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; dismissal of the federal claims early in the case strongly favors declining jurisdiction.

Farmer v. Gonzalez · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)

Given the nascency of this action, the “strong” presumption against exercising supplemental jurisdiction persuades the Court that doing so would be imprudent under these circumstances. The Court will therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss Farmer’s state law claims without prejudice.

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

Thompson v. Elev8 Foundation Inc. · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)

Given his recommendation that Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims be dismissed, Judge Cott recommends that this Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, including their (1) NYLL claims relating to Defendants’ failure to provide adequate wage notices and statements (id. at 14 n.8); and (2) the remaining state and city law claims for retaliation and discrimination (id. at 18-19). ... Accordingly, Judge Cott’s R&R will be adopted in its entirety as to the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims.

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

Church v. WBRC LLC · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

Because Church’s only federal claim fails on the merits, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the claim for breach of contract; that claim will be 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.

Vasquez v. City of San Jose · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” inter alia where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court, in its discretion, 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 dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

White v. City of Winnfield · filed 2022-10-06(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all other claims over which it has original jurisdiction are dismissed. The court has wide discretion to do so. Guzzino v. Felterman, 191 F.3d 588, 594-95 (Sth Cir.1999); Hicks v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist. 564 F.App’x 747, 748 (Sth Cir.2014). As no independent basis exists for jurisdiction, we dismiss these state law claims without prejudice.

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

Jaramillo v. Taos County · filed 2022-10-11(c)(3)

Having considered these factors, the Court determines that the factors weigh in favor of adjudication by a state court. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims and dismisses these claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction are resolved before trial, ordinarily dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice.

Novak, Janessa v. McIlvain, Michael · filed 2022-10-13(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.” ... Plaintiffs don’t object to that request or identify any reason why it would be appropriate to retain jurisdiction. So the court will dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice to plaintiffs refiling them in state court.

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

Patmon v. Tinree LLC · filed 2022-10-13(c)(3)

Also, as previously discussed, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, Further, the remaining state law claim concerning the Mississippi Constitution raises an issue best addressed by a state court, as this Court is of the opinion that state courts have a substantial interest in addressing and interpreting their constitutions, Thus, this Court concludes that both the § 1367 factors and the Cohil/ factors support declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Woods v. Sturim · filed 2022-10-13(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court finds the factors of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not support exercising supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. Accordingly, such claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

BELCHER v. VIVINT INC · filed 2022-10-17(c)

The Court accordingly concludes that no issues of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness are implicated. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim.

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

Baday v. County of Kings · filed 2022-10-18(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the section 1983 claims against Adventist Health, however, it will decline, at this time, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to Adventist Health only, 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

WALKER v. ACCESS CORP. · filed 2022-10-18(c)(3)

Because the Court has found that Walker cannot litigate her Title VI claims, it will abstain from examining her state law causes of action under the PHRA. ... The statute provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367 permits a court to decline continued supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it dismisses the federal claims at an early stage of litigation.

Stephanie Martel, as Administrator v. Hillsborough County, et al. · filed 2022-10-19(c)(3)

Finally, because the court is dismissing the plaintiff’s federal claims at an early stage of the litigation, it declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law negligence claim and dismisses that claim without prejudice.

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

Connelly v. Komm · filed 2022-10-21(c)(3)

Here, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction. While a significant amount of time has elapsed since this case was first filed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as trial is not imminent.

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

Macro Concept, LLC v. DeCaro & Howell, P.C. · filed 2022-11-09(c)(3)

A court “may,” however, “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The remaining claims raise only questions of state law, which turn on an interpretation of the Maryland discovery rule and statute of limitations. Principles of comity thus support dismissal.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; comity can support dismissal when only state-law issues remain.

Darmaola v. DeCaro & Howell, P.C. · filed 2022-11-09(c)(3)

A court “may,” however, “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court sees no reason to depart from that approach here. The remaining claims raise only questions of state law, which turn on an interpretation of the Maryland discovery rule and statute of limitations. Principles of comity thus support dismissal.

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.

Katz v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC · filed 2022-11-15(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once they have dismissed all claims over which they had original jurisdiction.

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

Willard v. Bentley · filed 2022-11-18(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that to the extent that Willard has alleged a state law claim for medical malpractice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Bethune v. City of Washougal · filed 2022-11-22(c)(3)

Given that there are no other federal claims remaining, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims.

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

Anderson v. Vital Care Health Strategies · filed 2022-11-23(c)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Stacy, Jackie and Jenkins will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, including at an early screening stage.

MUHAMMAD v. NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON · filed 2022-11-28(c)(3)

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 Plaintiff's federal claims have been dismissed at this carly screening stage for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, this Court will exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any related state law claims.

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

Blackshear v. Morales · filed 2022-12-02(c)

The Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims that might be implicated by the allegations in Blackshear’s Amended Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 3167(c).

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

McMenamon II v. New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Lori Shibinette, et al. · filed 2022-12-05(c)(3)

Because all of McMenamon’s federal claims have been dismissed, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. Accordingly, Counts III and IV are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Bobby W. Bryant, Jr. v. Norfolk Southern Railroad · filed 2022-12-06(c)(3)

... summary judgment appropriate for Norfolk on Bryant’s federal law claims, the only remaining claims were his state-law claims against McWilliams, which the district court has discretion to de- cline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over.

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

Granados v. DOCCS · filed 2022-12-06(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to state a claim under federal law in her amended complaint, any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pursuing those claims in an appropriate state court forum.

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.

Cordell v. Hammock · filed 2022-12-14(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Presnell v. Sharp Electronics Corporation · filed 2022-12-14(c)(3)

Accordingly, having determined to dismiss all of the causes of action that support this Court’s federal jurisdiction,® the Court lacks continuing subject matter jurisdiction over this action and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant's state law claims in the absence of federal jurisdiction.

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

Dunn v. Daviess Co. · filed 2022-12-16(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff alleges a separate claim of medical negligence, having determined that the federal claims, which provide the jurisdictional basis of this suit, should be dismissed, this 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Stone v. City of New York · filed 2022-12-19(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to state a claim under federal law in the amended complaint, any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pursuing those claims in an appropriate state-court forum.

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

Cadeaux v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dept · filed 2022-12-20(c)

Because I grant summary judgment in favor of Byington and Metro on Cadeaux’s federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cadeaux’s state-law negligence claims and dismiss them without prejudice to Cadeaux’s ability 7|| to refile them in state court.

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

Gonzalez v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada · filed 2022-06-30(c)

But once a plaintiff’s federal claims are gone, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. ... Because the United States has been dismissed from this action and only state-law negligence claims remain against private entities who may be sued in state court, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those remaining claims, and I remand this case back to state court where those claims originated.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to remand remaining state-law claims after it dismisses the federal claims, with comity weighing against retaining jurisdiction.

Noble v. The Young Men's Christian Association of Central Ohio · filed 2022-08-16(c)(3)

And given this circuit’s “strong presumption against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction” in such instances, the Court is of the mind that Noble’s remaining state-law claims—which largely hinge upon application of Ohio’s respondeat superior doctrine—are better off dealt with by an Ohio court. ... Thus, they will be remanded pursuant to §§ 1367(c) and 1441(c).

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

Healthcare Ally Management of California, LLC v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. · filed 2022-10-25(c)(3)

Although the original claims would allow the Court to retain jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion to remand the case.

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

Martinez v. Texas Department Of Criminal Justice DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED. · filed 2022-11-15(c)(3)

All federal claims against the defendants are dismissed. Because the court lacks original jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining 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 dismissing all federal claims.

Stevenson-Cotton v. Galveston County DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED. · filed 2022-11-29(c)(3)

For the above reasons, the court grants the defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to all federal claims and dismisses those claims with prejudice. Dkts. 45, 46. Because the court lacks original jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining 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 the federal claims are resolved, with comity informing that choice.

Reaves v. Dickens · filed 2023-02-21(c)(3)

Accordingly, in the interest of comity, this Court will accept the magistrate judge’s recommendation and decline to further exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Advanced Physical Medicine of Yorkville, Ltd. v. SEIU Healthcare Illinois and Indiana · filed 2023-02-22(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the federal claims brought against all defendants, and because no independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction exists, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Advanced Physical's state law claims.

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

Jimerson v. Fort Wayne, City of · filed 2023-02-23(c)(3)

Because that disposition leads to the dismissal of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court must address whether to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims and rule on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment related to those claims. ... In sum, the Court finds that none of the exceptions to the “usual practice” applies in this case. As a result, the Court denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice on Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses those claims with leave to refile in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claims, particularly at an early stage of the case.

Baptiste v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · filed 2023-02-23(c)(3)

However, in light of the dismissal of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims, and given the early stage of the case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claim at this juncture.

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

Singh v. Phoenix, City of · filed 2023-02-24(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s above ruling, the Court no longer retains federal question jurisdiction. The Court therefore has discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law laws. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on a discretionary balance of judicial economy, avoiding multiple suits, and avoiding unnecessary state-law decisions.

Lanoue 725348 v. Simons · filed 2023-02-27(c)(3)

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 state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Yang v. Zhou's Yummy Restaurant, Inc. · filed 2023-03-03(c)(3)

Finally, I adopt the portion of the R&R recommending that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ NYLL claims against the corporate defendant at this time. A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over NYLL claims where there can be no relief under the FLSA. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts 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.”).

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

Lien v. City of San Diego · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

Here, considering the nature of Plaintiff’s state law claims and that no federal claims remain in this case against any Defendant, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against the City and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Hernandez v. Pasco County Sheriff's Department · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

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

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

Rodriguez-Bonilla v. Ivey · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exerciss 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.

Hayes v. Clariant Plastics & Coating USA, Inc. · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

However, the Court may, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3), decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims if the claims over which it has original jurisdiction are dismissed. ... Here, the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Therefore, in exercising its discretion, the Court declines to grant supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

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

Phillips v. Sullivan · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

Given that only Plaintiff’s state law claims remain, the Court in its discretion ... declines to exercise jurisdiction over them.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction at the pleading stage, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after considering fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity.

Montrond v. City of Brockton · filed 2023-03-07(c)(3)

Given the early juncture in this case, at the motion to dismiss stage, and the dismissal of all of the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction and having make the appropriate considerations, particularly as to comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims even as Defendants raise defenses (namely, res judicata) as to those claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims, based on a discretionary balance of judicial economy, duplicate litigation, and avoiding needless state law decisions.

Wartley Jr 462928 v. Chapman · filed 2023-03-07(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 possible state law claims after resolving the federal claims.

Aytch, Jr v. Corizon Health, Inc. · filed 2023-03-09(c)(3)

To the extent Aytch’s Complaint could be construed as raising state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; absent extraordinary circumstances, it should do so when the federal claims are no longer viable.

MARTIN v. WETZEL · filed 2023-03-10(c)(3)

Where, as is the case here, all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims. ... In this case, Martin’s federal claims are no longer viable, and no extraordinary circumstances warrant the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Gilot v. UR Medicine Strong Memorial Hospital · filed 2023-03-13(c)(3)

But where, as here, a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the state-law claims. Id. § 1367(c)(3). “Once a district court’s discretion is triggered under § 1367(c)(3),” it must “balance[] the traditional values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Given that Plaintiff’s federal-law claims have been dismissed early in the case, “the balance of factors [] point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Id. (internal ellipsis omitted).

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

Quesenberry v. Green · filed 2023-01-06(c)(3)

To the extent the Complaint can be construed as raising state law claims, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715, 726 (1966).

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when judicial economy does not outweigh the need to avoid unnecessary state-law decisions.

Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox · filed 2023-01-06(c)(3)

As explained above, resolving the state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed would be an inappropriate use of pendent jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims. They are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the case has not advanced beyond the motion to dismiss stage.

Probiv v. Pay Cargo LLC · filed 2023-01-11(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Since this case has progressed only to the motion to dismiss stage without the parties conducting any discovery, applying the normal presumption against supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate.

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

Makhnevich v. Novick Edelstein Pomerantz PC · filed 2023-01-15(c)(3)

Having granted Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff’s federal FDCPA and ADA claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her NYHRL and NYCHRL claims.

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

Lu v. University of Dayton · filed 2023-01-18(c)(3)

Given that the Court has granted judgment for UD on all claims in the Complaint over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lu’s last remaining claim.

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

Howard v. Ferrand · filed 2023-01-20(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Howard’s federal claims, has the discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Burns-Toole v. Byrne, 11 F.3d 1270, 1276 (5th Cir. 1994) (“When all federal claims are dismissed . . . the district court enjoys wide discretion in determining whether to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.”). The Court exercises that discretion here and dismisses plaintiffs remaining claims 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.

ELLISON v. NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON MEDICAL DEPARTMENT · filed 2023-01-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims for relief, the Court exercises its discretion and declines supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims at this time.

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

Washington v. Sunflower County, Mississippi · filed 2023-01-24(c)(3)

Because the County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings has been granted on Washington’s federal claim, no federal question remains. ... This Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

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

Giddings v. Corizon · filed 2023-01-25(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.

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 the early stage of the case and comity supporting that choice.

Lee v. Yang · filed 2023-01-26(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as this case is in relatively early stages and allowing state courts to hear state law claims promotes comity between the federal and state courts.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after disposing of the sole claim within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and comity do not favor retaining them.

Porter v. Two Guys and a Calculator LLC · filed 2023-01-26(c)

See also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (enumerating circumstances in which “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim”). The Court finds that, after disposing of Ms. Porter’s sex discrimination claims (including Count I, ... the only claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction), exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III and IV would not serve judicial economy, convenience, or comity, and therefore declines to do so.

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

Weakley v. Bailey · filed 2023-01-27(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss all of Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim against Defendants.

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

Zimmerman v. Bravo · filed 2023-02-02(c)(3)

As Zimmerman has stated no federal cause of action, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ponce v. Lane County · filed 2023-02-02(c)

I agree that the Oregon Circuit Court is the appropriate forum for resolution of plaintiff’s negligence claims, and I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (providing that district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claims remain).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, absent an affirmative justification to retain them.

RITTER v. PASSAVANT MEMORIAL HOMES · filed 2023-02-07(c)(3)

When federal question jurisdiction ceases to exist, a district court may, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. ... No such affirmative justification compels supplemental jurisdiction here. As such, the Court declines to decide the pendent state claims, and Passavant’s remaining Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint at Count V, Pennsylvania negligence claim, will be dismissed.

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

Carter v. City of Satsuma · filed 2023-02-08(c)(3)

The statute authorizes, however, that district courts may decline to exercise this supplemental jurisdiction if the district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Given these circumstances, dismissal of the federal question claims prior to trial and a judicial policy favoring remand of state claims that are the sole claims remaining, the state-law claims are to be remanded.

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.

SMITH v. ONSITE NEONATAL PARTNERS, INC. · filed 2023-02-09(c)(3)

The Court does not reach the merits of the Smiths’ state law claims asserted against Defendants because the Court, in its discretion provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over these claims.

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

MILLER v. BAEHR · filed 2023-02-10(c)

Having ... dismissed the federal 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims will not proceed.

Murphy v. Bishop · filed 2023-02-17(c)(3)

As the case is not proceeding with regard to Murphy’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his claims brought pursuant to the Maryland Declaration of Rights. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Riley v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation · filed 2023-02-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the plaintiff’s federal claims, the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law and city-law claims is appropriate at this early stage of the litigation.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over potential state law claims after the federal claim falls away.

Swift v. Sayulita Fine Foods · filed 2021-01-05(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and the complaint does not allege the prerequisite diversity of citizenship of the parties or a reasonably probable recovery of the jurisdictional amount needed for diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

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

PISKANIN v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2021-01-05(c)

Finally, to the extent that Piskanin alleges a separate claim for fraudulent conversion under Pennsylvania law, having dismissed his federal law claims 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims when it dismisses all federal claims before trial.

Holman v. Franklin · filed 2021-01-06(c)(3)

As for Plaintiffs’ state claim, where all federal claims are dismissed before trial, district courts ordinarily may dismiss any remaining state claims.33 The Court sees no reason to depart from that rule in this case.

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, in light of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Cunningham v. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. · filed 2021-01-11(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having considered the relevant factors, I find that this court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when no exception to the presumption of relinquishment applies.

CHILDERS v. ST. VINCENT HEART CENTER OF INDIANA, LLC · filed 2021-01-14(c)(3)

Because none of the three exceptions apply in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Lett v. Dean Transportation, Inc. · filed 2021-01-15(c)(3)

Because Dean’s motion resolves all of Lett’s federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over her remaining claim, which arises under Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA).

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

HOTEP-EL v. CARTER · filed 2021-01-19(c)(3)

Further, he has not alleged a federal claim, thus, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state law breach of contract claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and possible forum manipulation.

Thomas v. Baptist Health Medical Group, Inc. · filed 2021-01-22(c)(3)

But the Court is not required to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. It “may decline” if, for example, “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” have been dismissed. 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 the federal claims, with the case’s early stage and limited judicial resources favoring that choice.

Hoffman v. Anderson · filed 2021-01-29(c)(3)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims. This case is in its infancy, and few judicial resources have been devoted to it to date.

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

Mack v. Resolute Energy Corporation · filed 2021-02-01(c)(3)

The federal securities claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the state law claim is dismissed because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state-law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Sawyer v. County of Jefferson · filed 2021-02-02(c)(3)

While the Court doubts that Plaintiff could make out any claim under those statutes, having dismissed any federal claims that Plaintiff attempts to raise, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 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, taking account of comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Tapia v. Sacramento Steps Forward · filed 2021-02-03(c)(3)

Here, comity weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims because the state court is competent to hear those claims and may have a better understanding of the relevant state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Hutchinson v. City of Fairfield Police Department · filed 2021-02-04(c)(3)

Additionally, because plaintiff’s federal claims should be dismissed, the Court no longer has original jurisdiction and should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendant state-law 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 and remand them when the federal claims are dropped early in the case.

Joseph Jablonski, Jr. v. Claremont Graduate University · filed 2021-02-08(c)(3)

Generally, when all federal claims are dismissed in a lawsuit’s early stages and only state law claims remain, the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

French, John v. Richardson, Reese · filed 2021-02-09(c)(3)

Further, I will relinquish jurisdiction over French’s related negligence claims against Kurkowski, Bentley, Barker, and Dr. Hannula related to the same events. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015) (“The general rule, when the federal claims fall out before trial, is that the [district court] should relinquish jurisdiction over any supplemental (what used to be called “pendent”) state law claims in order to minimize federal judicial intrusion into matters of purely state law.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

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.

Strong v. State of Washington · filed 2021-02-11(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’ s remaining state law causes of action and finds remand appropriate.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and remand them after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with the early stage of the case supporting that choice.

Knox v. City of Gautier · filed 2021-02-11(c)(3)

Based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case, and because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Knox’s pendent state-law claims, and it will remand this matter to state court for further proceedings.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims when the federal claims have been dismissed before trial, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favoring that decision.

Francois v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2021-02-16(c)(3)

With her ADEA claims dismissed, Francois’s remaining claims are based only in state and city law. Where, as here, the only federal law claims have been eliminated before trial, the “traditional ‘values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity’” weigh in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims. See Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)); see also Milord-Francois, 2020 WL 5659438, at *24. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Francois’s New York state and city law claims.

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

Golub v. Berdon LLP · filed 2021-02-17(c)(3)

In the absence of diversity jurisdiction, because the Court has dismissed the federal claims brought in this action, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Furthermore, the pre-discovery stage of the litigation means that the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing the federal claims, with the decision informed by timeliness, judicial resources, the clarity of the state law issue, and comity.

Astalus v. Village of Morton Grove · filed 2021-02-24(c)(3)

Finding no cause for exception, we follow the general rule and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the parties’ remaining state law claims under § 1367(c).

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, fairness, convenience and comity informing that choice.

Harris v. Brown · filed 2021-02-25(c)(3)

When the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, as it has here, “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Given the early stage of these proceedings (pre-trial and before commencement of discovery) and the fact that state law claims are best resolved by state courts, this Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. This Court finds that judicial economy, fairness, convenience and comity dictate having these state law claims decided by the state courts.

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

Echavarria v. ABM Industry Groups LLC · filed 2021-02-26(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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Edwards v. Hillman · filed 2021-03-01(c)(3)

The District Court also did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Edwards’ remaining state law claims after his federal claims were dismissed. “A court may [dismiss state law claims] under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Dixon v. City of Seattle · filed 2021-03-03(c)

In determining whether to exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over state law claims after federal claims have been eliminated, the Court is guided by the familiar “values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” ... Accordingly, the Court finds that remand is appropriate in this case.

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

Dahmer v. Western Kentucky University · filed 2021-03-03(c)(3)

Having disposed of Dahmer’s federal claims—the only basis for subject- matter jurisdiction—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dahmer’s remaining state-law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

EQMD, Inc. v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan · filed 2021-03-05(c)(3)

Where, as here, the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly advised that the district courts should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. See, e.g., Brown v. Cassens Transport Co., 546 F.3d 347, 363 (6th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the court declines EQMD’s invitation to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Madison v. Lincoln Hospital Emergency Unit · filed 2021-03-05(c)(3)

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

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

Rodriguez v. Page Mechanical Group Inc · filed 2021-03-10(c)(3)

After review of the docket and applicable law, the Court employs its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Mendoza v. Cornell University · filed 2021-03-10(c)(3)

As a result, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claim in this case.

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

Osborn v. Horry County Police Department · filed 2021-03-16(c)(3)

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

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

Love v. KSSF Enterprises LTD · filed 2021-03-18(c)(3)

Because the court dismisses the federal claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law Unruh claim.

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

GAVIN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, SOUTH ORANGE-MAPLEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2021-03-18(c)(3)

No such extraordinary circumstances or considerations of efficiency and fairness are present here. The case is in its earliest stages, at the motion to dismiss stage. ... I therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Athenaeum v. American University of Beirut · filed 2021-03-19(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” once it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... This is such a case. This case is in the early stages, and no discovery has been taken. Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claim under Title VI, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s New York State and New York City law claims.

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

Schmid v. County of Sonoma · filed 2021-03-24(c)

This resolves all the Schmids’ federal claims in Sonoma’s favor. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Salako v. New York City Department Of Corrections · filed 2021-03-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state- law claims, including any state whistleblower action.

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

Hardeman v. Smash · filed 2021-03-24(c)(3)

The preceding analysis disposed of all of Plaintiff’s claims arising under federal law, and, consequently, the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. “Under these circumstances, the district court may decline to exercise continuing ‘pendent’ or supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state claims.” Lancaster Independent Sch. Dist. No. 5, 149 F.3d 1228, 1236 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725-26 (1966)). The Court thus DECLINES JURISDICTION over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

AMES v. HUTCHINSON · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

The Court need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims when the basis for original jurisdiction is gone.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all federal-law claims before trial.

Coleman v. Devos · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed Coleman’s federal-law claims, the court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, based on a discretionary balance that includes comity.

McFadden v. Hobby · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

The balance of factors here weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Principles of comity suggest Connecticut courts are more suited to determine the viability of CFEPA and wrongful discharge claims.

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

Dibble v. Schrodel · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

As Plaintiffs’ federal claims have been dismissed, and considering the factors set forth in Cohill, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal claims are gone and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor remand.

Barlow v. Skroupa · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

WHEREAS, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity do not support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in this instance.

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

Daughtry v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

Based on an analysis of these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law medical malpractice claim against Sentara.

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

Kennedy v. Basil · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff's Trademark Claims, and there being no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court elects to not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Pompey Coal Company v. Borough Of Jessup · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

But 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. ... Therefore, if a second amended complaint is not timely filed by the plaintiff, the remaining state-law claims will be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, for further proceedings.

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.

Heckstall v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2021-04-01(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the case is still at an early stage.

Torres v. Becton · filed 2021-04-02(c)(3)

Where, as here, a court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise ... instance, given the early stage of the proceedings, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's 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.

Holmes v. Department of Homeless Services · filed 2021-04-09(c)(3)

Subsection (c) of § 1367 says that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” thus confirming that such jurisdiction is discretionary. ... Accordingly, although Plaintiff does not allege violations of state law explicitly, the Court will not exercise its discretionary supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims which might be construed from the Amended Complaint.

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

Sanford v. Sargent · filed 2021-04-15(c)(3)

Because Mr. Sanford has failed to state a federal claim for relief, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims he attempts to advance.

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

Laster v. CareConnect Health Inc. · filed 2021-04-20(c)(3)

But the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c). ... Here, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Laster’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.

Taylor v. Childrens Village · filed 2021-04-21(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). ... Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, see id. at 350 (“judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity”), 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 decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after granting summary judgment on the only remaining federal claim.

Conner, Adonnis v. Bouzek · filed 2021-04-22(c)(3)

In this case, I am granting summary judgment on Conner’s only remaining federal claim, so I decline to exercise jurisdiction over his state-law negligence claim under § 1367.

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, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association, County of Fresno · filed 2021-04-22(c)(3)

Considering the early procedural posture of this case, as well as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court will exercise its discretion and decline to entertain supplemental jurisdiction over the second cause of action.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the only claim within its original jurisdiction is dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Garcia v. Oxnard Inn, LLC · filed 2021-04-26(c)

In light of the fact that Plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act, the only claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction, has been dismissed, and after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and REMANDS this action to Ventura County Superior Court.

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

Nel v. Unknown · filed 2021-04-29(c)(3)

It will, therefore, dismiss Nel’s federal claims which serve as the basis for its original jurisdiction. It will also decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Nel’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, with comity and judicial economy informing that choice.

Little v. Presque Isle County · filed 2021-04-30(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed, this Court must decide whether to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining, state law claims. For the reasons set forth below, continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction would be inappropriate in this case.

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

Kreilein v. Horth · filed 2021-05-07(c)(3)

But the district court appropriately relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim once it disposed of all the federal claims.

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

Segal v. New York State Unified Court System · filed 2021-05-07(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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Isner-Monticello v. Nelnet, Inc. · filed 2021-05-10(c)(3)

If a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Robinson v. Butler County, Kentucky · filed 2021-05-11(c)(3)

Having dismissed Robinson’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (“[I]f the federal claims are dismissed before trial . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.”).

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

McConnaughy v. The Times Leader Newspapaer · filed 2021-05-12(c)(3)

Finally, pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 should not be exercised to consider any state-law claims that are alleged in the complaint because plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim for relief.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been disposed of, considering fairness, comity, and judicial economy.

Rando v. Bell-Carter Foods, Inc. · filed 2021-05-13(c)(3)

In sum, the Court finds that it is appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Aponte v. Taormina · filed 2021-05-17(c)(3)

With Plaintiffs’ Title VII claim dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ NYCHRL claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

PAPA v. VFD · filed 2021-05-18(c)(3)

If a federal district court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The balance of factors in this case weighs heavily in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

When federal claims are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Doxtator v. O'Brien · filed 2021-05-19(c)(3)

The Court follows this presumption and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed every claim within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and remand them after considering fairness, comity, federal policy, and judicial economy.

Ames v. Prisma Health · filed 2021-05-19(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state negligence/medical malpractice and survival claims and remand them to state court for adjudication there.

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

Klein, Franklin v. O'Donnell, Cindy · filed 2021-05-24(c)(3)

The general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015). In this instance, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims because I am granting summary judgment to defendants on all of the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to remand supplemental state law claims after the sole federal claim is eliminated, and early elimination weighs strongly in favor of remand.

Garcia v. BRE SSP Property Owner LLC · filed 2021-05-24(c)(3)

These factors weigh strongly in favor of remand when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against a defendant after dismissing the federal claims against that defendant, particularly when the case is still at an early stage.

Ogbeiwi v. CoreCivic America · filed 2021-05-26(c)(3)

In light of these factors, retaining jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims (to the extent that any are alleged) against CoreCivic is unwarranted.

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

(PC) Enrique Lemus Jr v. Sanchez · filed 2021-05-27(c)(3)

As Plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law causes of action and will not review 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 state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ogidi-Abegbaje v. Nassau Community College · filed 2021-06-01(c)(3)

Furthermore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims.

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

Outfront Media LLC v. The City of San Diego · filed 2021-06-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court DECLINES SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION as to the ...remaining state law claims against Defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) favors declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims are eliminated before trial.

Porter v. City of Dallas · filed 2021-06-03(c)(3)

Rather, the Court follows “[t]he general rule . . . that a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial[.]” Brookhaven Bros., 554 F.3d at 602.

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.

Whitaker v. LL South San Francisco, L.P. · filed 2021-06-04(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claim, the Court, in its discretion, declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.