28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when discovery has not begun.

Milman v. Fieger & Fieger, P.C. · filed 2021-06-04(c)

The Court will therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state law claims when an amended complaint eliminates the sole federal claim.

Garcia v. Resort Rental LLC · filed 2021-06-07(c)(3)

“Under § 1367(c)(3), therefore, the [C]ourt can properly exercise its discretion to remand the supplemental state law claims.” ... Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and sua sponte REMANDS the case to Orange County Superior Court.

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

Bey v. City of New York · filed 2021-06-09(c)(3)

Because there are no federal claims remaining, we decline the Firefighters’ request to reinstate their state-law claims.

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

Hayat v. Maine Heights, L.L.C · filed 2021-06-10(c)(3)

Pursuant to the supplemental jurisdiction statute, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), Hayat’s remand motion will be granted in light of his abandonment of the federal claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are resolved before trial, subject to exceptions to the usual presumption of relinquishment.

HARDIMAN v. CHIEF · filed 2021-06-11(c)(3)

None of those exceptions apply here. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.

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.

Li v. Waveland Ventures LLC · filed 2021-06-14(c)(3)

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if … (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”). The only claims remaining are for breach of contract and declaratory relief as to certain agreements. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining 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.

Burke v. Forbis · filed 2021-06-14(c)(3)

Having disposed of Burke’s federal claims—the only basis for subject-matter jurisdiction—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 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 before trial.

GREEN v. BROWN · filed 2021-06-22(c)

With Mr. Green's federal claims resolved, the Court has discretion whether to relinquish jurisdiction over his state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c). ... Accordingly, this Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Green's state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed, taking account of judicial economy, fairness, federal policy, and comity.

Wheeler v. Mecklenburg County · filed 2021-06-23(c)(3)

Under such circumstances, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) allows trial courts to exercise “wide latitude in determining whether or not to retain jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims have been extinguished.” Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995).

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

Sheahan, Philip v. Syed, Salam · filed 2021-06-28(c)(3)

In this instance, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim because I am granting summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff’s federal 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; the court may defer that decision while the viability of a federal claim remains uncertain.

Teichmann v. New York City Employees' Retirement System · filed 2021-06-28(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). ... Because it is not clear whether Plaintiff can state a federal claim, the Court will determine at a later stage whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Arroyo v. Ashford Newark LP · filed 2021-07-01(c)

Under subsection (c) of that statute, however, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if,” among other reasons, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Arroyo’s Unruh Act claim after dismissing his ADA claim.

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

Love v. Royal Pacific Motel · filed 2021-07-01(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Love’s Unruh Act claim after dismissing his ADA claim.

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

Bloom Master Fund I LLC v. Capna Intellectual Incorporated · filed 2021-07-02(c)(3)

The Court, then, completely lacks original jurisdiction over this case. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over this matter.

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

Foster v. Muir · filed 2021-07-02(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.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand a removed case, considering the stage of litigation and the state interests involved.

Amador v. City of New York · filed 2021-07-06(c)(3)

Although under Second Circuit precedent “it [would] not necessarily [be] an abuse of discretion for [the Court] to continue to exercise jurisdiction” over Plaintiff’s claim, Rounseville v. Zahl, 13 F.3d 625, 631 (2d Cir. 1994), the Court finds that a remand would still be the most appropriate course of action in light of the facts that no federal claims or defendants remain in the action, the case has barely progressed since being removed to federal court, and the remaining state law claim implicates the administration of state and municipal government.

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

Kelly v. Gersonde · filed 2021-07-08(c)(3)

Because the Court has concluded that Plaintiffs have no federal claims, which are the sole basis for its jurisdiction, the Court declines to rule on whether the School District Defendants have state law immunity to Plaintiffs’ claims, as well as any issues related to insurance coverage. The Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims.

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

ROTIMI v. FARABELLA · filed 2021-07-13(c)(3)

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

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

Smith v. Hutchinson · filed 2021-07-16(c)(3)

That leaves the many state law claims, over which the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Streambend Properties II, LLC v. Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC, 781 F.3d 1003, 1016-17 (8th Cir. 2015).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claim is removed; fairness and the case’s progress inform that choice.

HERBERT v. COUNTY OF ESSEX · filed 2021-07-20(c)(3)

Thus, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Hylton v. Reeder Management Inc · filed 2021-07-22(c)(3)

That provision states, “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if, among other circumstances, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). That is the situation here. ... While this is true, the Court concludes that exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims in this case would not serve the interests of “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are eliminated early in litigation and no prejudicial forum manipulation justifies retaining them.

Panno v. Metroparks · filed 2021-07-28(c)(3)

Accordingly, because this court doesn’t have subject matter jurisdiction over any claims as they (might) exist in the amended complaint, and because the case is still in a nascent state, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and concludes that the case must be REMANDED to the state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are resolved when the relevant factors favor remand.

Mathews v. City of Booneville, Mississippi · filed 2021-07-30(c)

In sum, all relevant factors weigh in favor of remand. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will remand the state law enumerations of error to the Circuit Court of Prentiss County.

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

LAGAMBA v. COMMUNITY HAVEN SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING LTD. · filed 2021-07-30

Here, because the Court has decided to dismiss Relator’s federal FCA claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her 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.

Favors v. Ensz · filed 2021-08-02(c)(3)

Because only state law claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and therefore dismisses the Amended Complaint in its entirety.

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

(PC) Collins v. Brotherson · filed 2021-08-04(c)(3)

Thus, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim is not appropriate.

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

Nelson v. Croymans · filed 2021-08-04(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) states a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over Nelson’s other claims, there is no claim before the Court upon which relief can be granted.

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

Reed v. Smith · filed 2021-08-05(c)(3)

To the extent that the Complaint presents any state-law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Vasquez v. City of Reading · filed 2021-08-10(c)(3)

Further, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Vasquez’s state tort claims after his federal claim was dismissed.

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

Ingram v. Sellers · filed 2021-08-11(c)(3)

In light of this conclusion, the undersigned declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Ingram’s state law claim in Count Ill. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and this case is DISMISSED in its entirety.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claims have been removed and the remaining state law claims predominate.

Gonzalez v. CHP · filed 2021-08-12(c)

Here, Mr. Gonzalez’s state law claims may raise no novel or complex issue of state law, but they predominate, because the federal claims have all been removed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remand when the petitioner voluntarily abandons the federal claims supplying original jurisdiction.

Solomon v. Village of Monticello Police Department · filed 2021-08-12(c)(3)

However, when a petitioner voluntarily abandons claims giving rise to original jurisdiction, district courts may, in their discretion, refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remand a case to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to dismiss state law claims after it grants summary judgment on the federal claim.

Jones v. North Little Rock School District · filed 2021-08-13(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), having granted summary judgment in favor of the District on Mr. Jones’ federal claim, this Court has the discretion to dismiss the state law claims.

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

Noon v. City of Platte Woods, Missouri · filed 2021-08-18(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims and will exercise its discretion to remand the case to the state court.

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

WILLIAMS v. DFH REALTY LLC · filed 2021-08-18(c)

Finally, to the extent that Williams alleges claims for extortion or fraud 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-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Taylor v. LeBlanc · filed 2021-08-19(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Jaquez v. Aqua Carpatica USA, Inc. · filed 2021-08-20(c)(3)

Since the Court has determined that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring his ADA claim, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claim under NYCHRL as well. 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 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court finds that nothing distinguishes this matter from “the usual case.” First, Plaintiff’s federal claim against the Defendant is dismissed prior to trial.

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

Stinson, Deyontae v. Schueler, Renee · filed 2021-08-23(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); Jauquet v. Green Bay Area Cath. Educ., Inc., 996 F.3d 802, 812 (7th Cir. 2021) Because I am granting summary judgment to defendants on all of the federal claims, I will decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Stinson’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial, after balancing judicial economy, avoiding multiple lawsuits, and the need to decide state-law issues.

Lucas 596167 v. Michigan, State of · filed 2021-08-24(c)

Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. Id. 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.

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

Howell v. Zipperer · filed 2021-08-30(c)(3)

Further, if Plaintiffs are attempting to bring a state law negligence claim against the Senns, because the Court will be dismissing Plaintiffs’ case on jurisdictional grounds, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Plaintiffs’ claims based in state law.

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

IN RE iANTHUS CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION · filed 2021-08-30(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all of Hi-Med’s federal-law claims, and the discretionary factors all point toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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.

GUTTERMAN v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BLOOMINGTON · filed 2021-09-01(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs' federal claims, it must determine whether it will exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. ... The Court finds that the balance of factors weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Elliott v. County of Tehama · filed 2021-09-03(c)(3)

When a federal court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may, at its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Because this Court’s jurisdiction depends on Plaintiffs stating a viable equal protection claim — and the Court has indicated its doubt as to whether Plaintiffs can do so — the Court declines to rule on Defendants’ challenges to Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims at this time.

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

Coke v. Samalot · filed 2021-09-03(c)(3)

In the absence of any viable federal law claims in the Complaint, the writ of quo warranto, or other potential amended pleadings in this matter, the Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims, including allegations of violation of the due process and equal protection provisions of the state constitution in the writ of quo warranto.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the court may defer that choice while allowing an amended complaint.

Allen v. Board of Trustees Rock Valley College · filed 2021-09-03(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state-law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... If Plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint by that date, the dismissal will convert to a dismissal with prejudice and the Court will exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs IWA claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are resolved when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Laizure v. Washington County · filed 2021-09-07(c)(3)

However, this case has been pending for over four years and the Court has already adjudged the merits of Laizure’s state claims, and therefore the interests of judicial economy, convenience to the parties, and fairness weigh in favor of continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

Harrison v. Wellpath Corporation · filed 2021-09-08(c)(3)

Like the courts in Gamel and Sanchez, upon consideration of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and the Carnegie-Mellon factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims in this action.

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

Wixom, Theresa v. Luster, Katherine · filed 2021-09-09(c)(3)

The court will grant summary judgment in favor of defendants on Wixom’s federal claims, decline supplemental jurisdiction over Wixom’s state-law claims, and remand those claims to state court.

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

Khandelwal v. King County · filed 2021-09-13(c)(3)

All federal claims have been eliminated from this case, and thus the Court has full discretion to remand this case under § 1367.

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

(PS) Hedrington v. County of Solano · filed 2021-09-13(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, consideration of judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity all point toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

BUCHANAN v. INGRAM CONTENT GROUP · filed 2021-09-14(c)(3)

Further, while the Court conceivably could have supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of fiduciary duty claim by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because the CFAA claim is dismissed, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a breach of fiduciary duty claim pursuant to 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.

Gipson v. Anniston, Alabama, City of · filed 2021-09-20(c)(3)

Because the court is dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gipson’s state law claims.

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

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Olson · filed 2021-09-20(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted summary judgment as to both the Section 553 and Section 605 claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining 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.

Rodriguez v. Ralphs Grocery Company · filed 2021-09-21(c)(3)

Since Plaintiff’s Unruh 22 Act claim is entirely predicated on his ADA claims, the Court finds sufficient grounds exist 23 to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) because the 24 Court has dismissed the ADA claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Durham v. Union County · filed 2021-09-21(c)(3)

As to Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims for gross negligence and violation of the South Carolina constitution, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and they are hereby REMANDED to the Union County Court of Common Pleas.

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

Ayers v. Gabis · filed 2021-09-23(c)(3)

However, a breach of contract claim is based solely on state law, and the magistrate judge recommended only that the Court not retain jurisdiction over the state law claims if all the federal claims are dismissed. That recommendation is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Objection number 3 will be overruled.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after the federal claim is eliminated, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Donavan v. Allen · filed 2021-09-28(c)(3)

Based on the balancing of the relevant factors, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state law claim and will remand the case to the appropriate state court.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claim is eliminated when the case is at an early stage and turns on state law.

M. P. v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2021-09-28(a)

While the Court could, in its discretion, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, it declines to do so here. There are no considerations that weigh in favor of supplemental jurisdiction. This case is in a relatively early stage, has not been litigated on the merits, and concerns exclusively issues of California law that would be much more appropriate for a state court to decide.

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

CLARK v. KREMUS · filed 2021-09-28(c)

The Court could only hear Mr. Clark’s state law claims by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over them. Supplemental jurisdiction is “a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over those claims, given the absence of any surviving federal claims.

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

Silver v. Safelite Fulfillment Inc · filed 2021-09-29(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Crider v. Williams · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

The undersigned declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which permits a federal district court to decline the exercise of 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.

Reyna v. Palm Beach County Mayor · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

But “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” for a variety of reasons, including when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” § 1367(c)(3). As previously mentioned, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief, and Defendants presumably all reside in the same State. The Court, therefore, declines to exercise 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

WEST v. DOUGHERTY COUNTY · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claim has been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claim.

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

Murguia v. Langdon · filed 2021-10-01(c)(3)

The court finds that the 25 exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not warranted in this case.

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

(PC) Murphy v. Rudas · filed 2021-10-07(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim because it has resolved all federal claims over which this court has original jurisdiction.

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

Strauss v. Magana · filed 2021-10-08(c)(3)

Accordingly, because the Court has found none of Strauss’s claims adequately state a plausible federal claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his supplemental state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When all federal claims are eliminated, Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and remand after weighing judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

MANN v. RUTGERS UNIVERSITY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE · filed 2021-10-12(c)(3)

Rather, the Court, in its discretion, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Here, in weighing all relevant considerations, this Court finds there is no significant basis to retain jurisdiction, and thus remand is proper.

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

WELCH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2021-10-13(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, including any claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state-law claims when no federal claims remain, based on convenience, fairness, and judicial economy.

MODERN PORTABLE REFRIGERATION, LLC v. TEMPERATSURE LLC d/b/a NORDIC COLD CHAIN SOLUTIONS · filed 2021-10-14(c)(3)

Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint does not include any federal claims, in the interest of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and remand it back to state court.

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

Ramu v. Johnson · filed 2021-10-14(c)

Given the recommendation above and to the extent Plaintiff brings any claims based on state law [ , ECF No. 1 at 4 (Plaintiff alleging Defendant violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights and was negligent)], the undersigned recommends the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Salzman v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2021-10-18(c)(3)

Even assuming that the original Complaint alleged a federal claim, because the Ist AC alleges no federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims. “[T]he district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

WALTON v. CLAYBRIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. · filed 2021-10-20(c)

In sum, having dismissed Ms. Walton's federal claims and finding that it does not have diversity jurisdiction over her state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when it dismisses all federal claims early in the case.

Carruth v. Magee · filed 2021-10-21(c)

Here, Carruth’s state-law claims predominate, as all his federal claims have been dismissed. Judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not dictate that the Court retain jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, in that this case is still in its infancy.

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

Smith v. Forrest City Arkansas, City of · filed 2021-10-25(c)(3)

Having resolved all of Smith’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the wrongful- termination claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Nagel v. City of Jamestown, 952 F.3d 923, 935 (8th Cir. 2020).

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

Reyes v. The City of Jacksonville Beach · filed 2021-10-26(c)(3)

Upon consideration of the § 1367 factors and the “traditional rationales for pendent jurisdiction, including judicial economy and convenience,” see Palmer, 22 F.3d at 1569, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Reyes’ remaining state law claim.

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

Boyd v. Miller · filed 2021-10-29(c)(3)

Finally, Boyd asserts a common-law negligence claim; however, because the Court has concluded that he has no federal claim, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when little has occurred in the case and the claim is local in character.

Lull v. County of Sacramento · filed 2021-11-01(c)(3)

The parties are not diverse, so the court could adjudicate this claim only by exercising supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... That is true here. The federal claims have been dismissed, little else has occurred in this action, and the plaintiffs’ allegations are better litigated in state court given their local character.

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

Walker v. School Administrative Unit 16 · filed 2021-11-01(c)(3)

Given that the federal claim in Walker's complaint is resolved, and taking into account the factors identified in Camelio, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Walker'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.

Eisenbach v. Village of Nelsonville · filed 2021-11-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, 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 state-law claims when no viable federal claim remains.

Hoeller v. Carroll University · filed 2021-11-02(c)(3)

Moreover, because the plaintiff has no viable federal claim, I would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

DANTZLER v. YOUNG · filed 2021-11-09(c)(3)

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

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after the federal claims have been removed from the case, considering comity and judicial economy.

Lyvers v. The University of Louisville · filed 2021-11-15(c)(3)

Here, the factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Comity and judicial economy favor remanding this case because all federal claims have been dismissed from this lawsuit.

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

Helbachs Cafe LLC v. City of Madison · filed 2021-11-16(c)(3)

Because the court’s rulings resolve all federal claims in this case, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining, largely unrelated state law claims.

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

Del Rio v. McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC · filed 2021-11-16(c)(3)

Where, as here, all federal law claims are dismissed before trial, the “traditional values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2021-11-17(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, including any claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

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

SESCEY v. BOOST MOBILE · filed 2021-11-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed Sescey’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

GOODIN v. SMITH · filed 2021-11-23(c)(3)

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

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

Johnson v. Young · filed 2021-11-29(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff's federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

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

Surpris v. White Plains Police Department · filed 2021-11-29(c)(3)

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

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

NABELSI v. HOLMDEL TOWNSHIP · filed 2021-11-30(c)(3)

Because I dismiss all federal law claims, and there is no diversity between the parties, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims in Counts VI, VIII, IX, and X (and XI and XII to the extent that they assert state causes of action).

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

Deeren, Kevin v. Anderson, Richard · filed 2021-12-01(c)(3)

The general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial.

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

Crutchfield v. Muchowski · filed 2021-12-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims against Farmers, all that remains are state law claims (assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and claims under the Illinois Gender Violence Act and the IHRA) against a non-diverse defendant, Muchowski. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1)(3), and declines to address the merits of Muchowski’s motion.

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

Pendleton v. Cohen · filed 2021-12-01(c)(3)

In the absence of a federal claim, this court relinquishes jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Laurie v. Walder · filed 2021-12-03(c)(3)

Because the Court grants judgment on Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, the Court declines 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 it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction.

KRAGE v. MACON-BIBB COUNTY GEORGIA · filed 2021-12-07(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction as to those claims over which it has supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Because the Court is dismissing the FLSA claims—the claims over which it has original jurisdiction—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Morrison v. Jones · filed 2021-12-09(c)

Finally, we find no error in the district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Morrison’s NYCHRL claims once it had dismissed his federal claims.

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

Standorf v. Christie's Cabaret · filed 2021-12-13(c)(3)

Because the above factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction in this case, this Court declines to do so.

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

Daniels v. Kauffman · filed 2021-12-15(c)(3)

To the extent that Daniels’ complaint adequately states a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that remaining state-law claim. 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, taking account of the development of state law and the balance of relevant factors.

Norman v. NYU Langone Health Sys. · filed 2021-12-17(c)(3)

It was certainly not an abuse of discretion here for the district court to conclude, given the numerous issues being litigated (including whether Norman had a disability under NYSHRL and NYCHRL), that “the law of New York in regard to relative state and federal disability claims analysis is still developing,” and that “the balance of factors counsels in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction.” Special App’x at 20 (internal quotation marks omitted).

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

Haggerty v. Siry Incorporated · filed 2021-12-20(c)(3)

Here, because the Court is dismissing all the federal claims in the earlier stages of 12 the litigation, it is more appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law 13 claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental state-law claims after resolving the federal claim when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor a merits decision.

Moorer v. City of Chicago, The · filed 2021-12-20(c)

Having resolved the only federal claim, a district court ought to relinquish jurisdiction over supplemental state-law claims. Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). But the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weighs in favor of a merits decision on state-law false imprisonment claim.

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

DiResta v. Biz2Credit Inc. · filed 2021-12-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed DiResta’s ADEA claim for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over DiResta’s state-law claim.

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

Hogue v. Scott · filed 2021-12-21(c)(3)

As set forth above, Plaintiffs’ federal claims are dismissed on the basis of qualified and sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs’ lack of standing provides an additional basis for dismissal. To the extent Plaintiffs bring Vermont constitutional or statutory claims, those claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Abing v. Evers · filed 2021-12-21(c)(3)

Here, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. The Court dismissed the only claims over which it had original jurisdiction, and although the Court addressed Defendants’ dispositive motions, the case is still in its earliest stages. There are no other factors compelling the Court to deviate from the common practice of declining supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claims remain. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

O'Shea v. County of San Diego · filed 2021-12-30(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that this Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims after dismissing “all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Upon weighing the jurisdictional factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over O’Shea’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Best v. Baltimore County · filed 2021-01-14(c)(3)

To the extent that Best’s Amended 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

One World, LLC v. Onoufriadis · filed 2021-01-19(c)(3)

However, even when claims satisfy the “same case or controversy test,” Section1367(c) permits a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, among other things, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 18 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having considered the factors set forth in Gibbs, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I through XIII and dismisses them as against all defendants without prejudice.

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

Antonion Curtis Lee McCrary v. DeWine · filed 2021-02-01(c)(3)

Finally, having concluded that plaintiff has failed to state a federal constitutional claim against defendants, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over any state-law claim and dismiss any such claims without prejudice.

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

Lavallis v. Oakland County · filed 2021-02-03(c)(3)

... and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff’s 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guide that choice.

Mulla v. University of Minnesota, The · filed 2021-02-16(c)(3)

Here, in terms of judicial economy, the Court has dismissed Mulla’s federal claims well before trial, and none of the other factors weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Mulla’s state law claims, including his claim against Ms. Weston, without prejudice.

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

Irvin v. State of Alabama Department of Corrections · filed 2021-02-17(c)(3)

On January 25, 2021, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden issued a Report and Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) recommending (1) that the motions for summary judgment filed by Jerry E. Robbins, MD1 (Doc. 20) and Prem Gulati, MD; Taylor McElroy, RN; and Tamara Jones, RN (Doc. 21) be granted;2 (2) that all federal claims in this action be dismissed with prejudice; and (3) that the Court, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff George Eugene Irvin’s state-law claim for medical malpractice. (Doc. 23). ... Having reviewed the proposed findings and recommendations for clear error, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) should be ACCEPTED and hereby ADOPTS it as the findings of the Court. The defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Docs. 20 and 21) are therefore GRANTED; all federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and Irvin’s state-law medical malpractice claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Clavon v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2021-02-24(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court dismisses Plaintiffs ADA claims, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and dismisses the remaining state law claim in this case without prejudice.

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

Stephens v. Embassy Site Management, LLC · filed 2021-03-08(c)(3)

While courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if there is otherwise a jurisdictional basis for doing so, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) states that a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over such claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Finding no compelling reason here to retain jurisdiction, the court will dismiss Plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim 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.

Grages v. Geisinger Health · filed 2021-03-09(c)(3)

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a court ordinarily relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and may dismiss them without prejudice to filing in state court.

Douglas v. Village of Palatine · filed 2021-03-16(c)(3)

Thus, this court can only hear Douglas’s state law malicious prosecution claim if it does so under its supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Indeed, “[w]hen all federal claims in a suit in federal court are dismissed before trial, the presumption is that the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over any supplemental state-law claims, which the plaintiff can then prosecute in state court.” ... As the court does not anticipate further pleading, there is no longer a need for such prudence. The malicious prosecution claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Loughnane v. Zukowski Rogers Flood & McArdle · filed 2021-03-18(c)(3)

Accordingly, Count II is dismissed without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and city law claims after dismissing the federal claim.

Grinblat v. Nulife of Brooklyn, LLC · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state and city law claims, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court that has resolved all federal claims to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Williams v. City of Stanford, Kentucky · filed 2021-04-09(c)

Because the Court has determined that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the Estate’s federal claims, it could decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). However, courts are “not obligated to do so.” Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., 196 F.3d 617, 620 (6th Cir. 1999). Instead, the decision is discretionary and “is based on a balancing of the interests involved: ‘judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Smith v. Franklin Cty., 227 F. Supp. 2d 667, 679 (E.D. Ky. 2002) (quoting id.). Here, those interests favor retaining jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims are resolved, considering the judicial resources already spent, and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Crouthamel v. Walla Walla Public Schools · filed 2021-04-22(c)(3)

The Court has not expended significant judicial resources on this matter beyond resolving the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, and all claims arising out of federal law have been decided in favor of Defendants. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses Claims 5 (breach of contract) and 6 (unjust enrichment) without prejudice.

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

Thompson v. Saukhla · filed 2021-04-28(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss plaintiff’s remaining state law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Cummings v. The City of New York · filed 2021-04-28(c)(3)

However, even when claims satisfy the “same case or controversy test,” Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, among other things, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 18 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having considered the factors set forth in Gibbs, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against Scott, Advise, Martinez, Capers, and CEJ, and dismisses them without prejudice to the claims being refiled in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after resolving all federal claims, especially when it has spent little effort on the state law merits.

Jaimes v. Cook County · filed 2021-05-03(c)(3)

Defendants also move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims against Sheriff Dart (Count VII for negligent hiring, training, and supervising; Count VIII-X for willful and wanton conduct; and Count XI for loss of consortium) or, in the alternative, move to dismiss the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the Court has resolved all federal claims before it and has not yet expended significant effort on the merits of the state law claims, the Court exercises its discretion and dismisses without prejudice Counts VII through XI.

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.

Roca-Moreno v. Jones · filed 2021-05-10(c)(3)

Upon review and in consideration of the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims and will dismiss those without prejudice subject to Plaintiff’s right to pursue them in state court if he so chooses.

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

McCloud v. Nassau County Sheriff's Department Division of Corrections · filed 2021-05-13(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims in the complaint and dismisses them 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, taking judicial economy and comity into account.

Hoang v. Best Buy Co Inc · filed 2021-05-14(c)(3)

However, § 1367(c)(3) permits a federal district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Therefore, in the interests of judicial economy and comity, this Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims of false misrepresentation, assault and battery, and false imprisonment, and such claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of a supplemental state-law claim to the district court’s discretion when the federal claims have been dismissed before trial.

Williams 775862 v. Heyrman · filed 2021-05-17(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 claim will be dismissed 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, and to dismiss those state law claims without prejudice.

Breaking Free LLC v. JCG Foods of Alabama LLC · filed 2021-05-26(c)(3)

Therefore, in its discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court WILL DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiffs’ fraud and breach of contract 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.

Miller v. Cocke County, Tennessee (TV2) · filed 2021-05-27(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss all of plaintiff’s claims arising under federal law, it will also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and DISMISS without prejudice plaintiff’s state law negligence claim against defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it resolves the federal claims, dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice.

Cardillo, Jr. v. Town of Stockbridge · filed 2021-06-09(c)(3)

Here, the court sees no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in this matter. The parties dispute Defendants’ liability on the state law claims, and those disputes are better left to the state courts to resolve. Accordingly, Counts II-V of Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed without prejudice to re-filing in state court if Plaintiff so chooses.

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

Mokrov v. Aeroflot · filed 2021-06-15(c)(3)

Here, all of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims have been dismissed. Accordingly, judicial economy, fairness, convenience and comity will be served best by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state and city law claims. Plaintiffs’ NYLL, NYHRL, and NYCHRL 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 federal claims.

BAILEY v. GEO GROUP, INC. · filed 2021-06-18(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. The Court determines that it is not, and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on these claims and dismisses them 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.

Newman v. SUNY Broome Community College · filed 2021-07-06(c)(3)

Here, all of the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed and this matter now involves only state law. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed early in the case.

Mitchell v. Crites · filed 2021-07-13(c)

Though a federal court has discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are related to dismissed federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), it generally should not continue to exercise this jurisdiction “when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). Thus, to the extent Mitchell intends to raise a state law claim for negligence, the claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Dominic v. P Stephen R. Goldman, et al. · filed 2021-07-14(c)(3)

At this early stage of these proceedings, it is therefore appropriate to dismiss plaintiff’s state-law claims without prejudice to his right to refile them in state court. Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims and dismisses them without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the related federal claims and to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

Gaines v. Moore City of · filed 2021-07-30

The Court, however, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Thus, the Court dismisses the state law claims without prejudice.

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

MCLEMORE v. COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT · filed 2021-08-11(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’ state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims.

Cargill v. Town · filed 2021-08-12(c)

The plaintiff's state law claims for legal malpractice against defendant Bloomston are due to be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Wilson v. Gregory · filed 2021-08-18(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c), district courts 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 by dismissing this case without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims after dismissing the federal claims when the court has not considered the counterclaims on the merits and trial is not near.

Bright Kids NYC Inc. v. Kelly · filed 2021-09-02(c)

Here, Adams’s conclusory assertion to the contrary, see ECF No. 138, at 2 n.1, there is no basis to depart from that general rule as the parties have not moved for summary judgment, the Court has not considered Adams’s claims on the merits, and the case is far from trial ready, see, e.g., HOV Servs., 2021 WL 355670, at *3. Accordingly, Adams’s state-law counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

After dismissing the federal claims before trial, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims based on judicial economy and the interest in avoiding needless decisions of state law.

Haag 667757 v. Corizon of Michigan · filed 2021-09-09(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 against Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with judicial economy and comity favoring dismissal without prejudice when the case is still in its infancy.

Underhill v. Yale University · filed 2021-09-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed Ms. Underhill's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Ms. Underhill's CFEPA claims without prejudice as a result.

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

Leonard v. Bedrock Management Services LLC · filed 2021-09-15(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff claims a civil rights violation under Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02(G), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if that court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims at this early stage of litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim Plaintiff may have asserted. Plaintiff’s state law claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

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

Loth v. City of New York · filed 2021-09-21(c)(3)

Subsection (c) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Plaintiffs’ NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, weighing judicial economy against needless decisions of state law.

Jean v. Johns · filed 2021-09-28(c)(3)

In determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues.” Landefeld, 994 F.2d at 1182; see also Moon, 465 F.3d at 728 (“Residual jurisdiction should be exercised only in cases where the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation outweigh our concern over needlessly deciding state law issues.”) (internal quotations omitted). 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.

After resolving the federal claims, a court may relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when little judicial work has gone into deciding them and their disposition is uncertain.

Eason v. City of Chicago · filed 2021-09-29(c)(3)

Having resolved the federal claims for Lanier and Taylor, the court relinquishes jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The limitations period has not expired, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d); Artis v. Dist. of Columbia, 138 S. Ct. 594, 598 (2018); significant judicial resources have not been expended on their resolution; and, because Eason has not devoted much briefing to them, their disposition is not absolutely clear. The state- law claims are therefore 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.

Heredia v. Pueblo School District 60 · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

Plaintiff does not argue that the Court should retain jurisdiction over his state law claims if his federal claim is dismissed, and the Court does not find any compelling reason to do so. Accordingly, plaintiff’s second claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Slider v. City of Clayton · filed 2021-10-04(c)(3)

The Court will therefore dismiss this action at this time without prejudice, and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law tort claims plaintiff may be understood to bring.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining jurisdiction.

Huntley v. Fuller · filed 2021-10-07(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss a supplemental state law claim without prejudice after granting summary judgment on the federal claims.

Adams v. Eccles · filed 2021-10-13(c)(3)

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and Plaintiff's state law claim is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McClelland v. Katy Independent School District · filed 2021-11-01(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims, no federal question remains before the district court. But this fact does not divest the court of jurisdiction; instead, the court must exercise its discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. McClelland’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection(a) if . . . (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). When a court dismisses all federal claims before trial, the general rule is to dismiss any pendent claims. Bass v. Parkwood Hosp. 180 F.3d 234, 246 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Wong v. Stripling, 881 F.2d 200, 204 (5th Cir. 1989)). However, the dismissal of the pendent claims should expressly be without prejudice so that the plaintiff may refile his claims in the appropriate state court. Bass, 180 F.3d at 246. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state claims here are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.