28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

White v. Doe · filed 2021-11-03(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants summary judgment on the federal claims against them and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs’ 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, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guiding the decision.

VASQUEZ v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC. · filed 2021-11-05(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dr. Vasquez's state law claims and DISMISSES those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Meredith Lodging LLC v. Vacasa LLC · filed 2021-11-15(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim is DISMISSED, with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and those claims are DISMISSED, without prejudice.

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

Porter v. Family Service League · filed 2021-11-16(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Greenup v. Morris · filed 2021-11-18(c)(3)

After granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ federal claim against Morris (and, as will be explained below, because it will be granting summary judgment on all of the State Defendants’ claims as well), this Court no longer has federal question jurisdiction. In turn, its supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims dissolves. ... Here, in its discretion, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. The best forum for Plaintiffs’ wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims—including the important questions of breach, causation, and damages—is in Idaho State Court. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; at an early stage, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity may favor dismissal without prejudice.

Liggins v. Zion Baptist Church · filed 2021-11-24(c)(3)

As the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over Liggins’s defamation claim. ... Accordingly, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Liggins’s defamation claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice when the federal claim has been disposed of and the relevant factors favor state-court resolution.

Sholar v. BHI Energy Power Services LLC · filed 2021-12-08(c)

Applying these to the case at hand, the factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissing this action without prejudice.

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Ordoukhanian v. Sinclair · filed 2021-12-13(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)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after granting summary judgment on the only federal claim, even when discovery is complete but trial preparation has not begun.

Abubakari v. Hamden Public School District · filed 2021-12-27(c)(3)

Therefore, under § 1367(c)(3), I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Abubakaris’ state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and dismiss it without prejudice to their refiling that claim in state court.

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

Zeng v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2022-01-03(c)(3)

Because I grant the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims under federal law, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her City-law claims, which comprise counts IV, V, and VI of the complaint.

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

Delgado v. Fuentes · filed 2022-01-05(c)

Under § 1367(c), the district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Martin v. DeWine · filed 2022-01-05(c)(3)

Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs’ federal claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and this Court also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over any state-law claims against Defendants. ... Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s June 29, 2020 Order and Report and Recommendation.

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

Knight v. Watts · filed 2022-01-06(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to remand a removed case after the federal claims are gone when the remaining state claim and the early stage of proceedings favor remand.

Tolliver v. Tandium, Corp. · filed 2022-01-07(c)(3)

These factors plainly favor remand to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of supplemental state-law claims to the district court’s discretion, guided by judicial economy and the need to avoid unnecessary decisions of state law.

Williams 394751 v. Ionia Correctional Facility · filed 2022-01-07(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 state law claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claims.

Patton v. City of Crittenden · filed 2022-01-10(c)(3)

Because this Court is granting summary judgment against Patton on her federal claims, it will decline to exercise jurisdiction over her state law claims to avoid unnecessarily addressing issues of state law.

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.

Martinez v. Ransom · filed 2022-01-19(c)(3)

Because we must grant summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the Section 1983 claims over which we have original jurisdiction, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Martinez’s remaining state-law claims of medical negligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) requires a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining territorial claims when the federal claim is dismissed before trial, unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness affirmatively justifies retaining jurisdiction.

Garcia v. Law Office of W. Mark Wilczynski, P.C. · filed 2022-01-20(c)(3)

Considering the facts that the First Amended Complaint was only recently filed, that no dispositive motions have been filed to date, that any discovery conducted under this Court’s jurisdiction will be applicable to the remanded proceeding, and that the parties appear to consent to remand, the Court finds that no such affirmative justification exists for retaining jurisdiction. The District Court is not markedly more convenient to either party than the Superior Court, and the parties will not incur substantial additional time or costs impacting either consideration of judicial economy or fairness. Therefore, the Court is required to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

WILSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2022-01-20(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.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after all federal claims are dismissed; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guide that choice.

Smith v. Davenport Financial, LLC · filed 2022-01-20(c)(3)

If all federal claims are subsequently dismissed, the Court’s continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims is discretionary. ... Accordingly, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all favor remand.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claim is dropped, after weighing statutory factors, common-law factors, and possible forum manipulation.

Jet Stream Trucking, Inc. d/b/a HBL Towing & Recovery v. CTR Incident Management Specialist, LLC · filed 2022-01-24(c)

To determine whether to exercise jurisdiction or to remand, the Court must balance “the statutory factors set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c),” common law factors, and the threat of “improper forum manipulation.” ... Because the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction, only state-law claims remain, and the federal claim has dropped out early in the case, the Court exercises its discretion to remand the case to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guide that choice.

Knudsen v. Cantrell · filed 2022-01-25(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” ... The court concludes that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not favor the court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. This case is in its early stages. Plaintiffs’ remaining claims require application of state law—presumably Kansas law. A court created by Kansas law should decide them. Exercising its discretion, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims in Counts III, IV, and V.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss remaining state law claims without reaching their merits after granting summary judgment on all federal claims.

Lemaster v. Lawrence County, Kentucky · filed 2022-01-26(c)(3)

As a state law cause of action, the tortious interference claim has remained in this lawsuit by supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Having granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on both federal claims, the Court sua sponte dismisses the remaining state law claim for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction without ruling on the merits.

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

Amarite v. Greene County, Tennessee · filed 2022-01-26(c)(3)

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

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

Meyers 431514 v. Stranaly · filed 2022-01-27(c)(3)

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 all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy and comity favor dismissal when discovery has not begun.

Franklin v. Cona Elder Law, PLLC · filed 2022-01-28(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). ... There is no reason in this case to depart from the ordinary practice of dismissing the remaining state law claims. The sole federal claim has been resolved and discovery has yet to begin in this action. Judicial economy and comity weigh in favor of the dismissal. Accordingly, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

Dunievitz v. Work World America, Inc. · filed 2022-01-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s only federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state FEHA claims. A district court may sua sponte decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Ocampo v. Noel · filed 2022-01-31(c)(3)

Although Plaintiff is attempting to raise state law medical negligence claim against Defendant, Dr. Wheeler, there are no remaining federal claims against him. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law medical negligence claim asserted against Dr. Wheeler.

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

Causey v. Newcomb · filed 2022-02-01(c)(3)

Having already determined that Causey’s federal claims must be dismissed, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over his 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.

Hodgson v. Roper · filed 2022-02-01(c)(3)

A federal court may decline to 19 exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original 20 jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This case fits that mold.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss a supplemental state-law claim without prejudice when it has resolved the federal claims.

LEWIS v. HOKE COUNTY · filed 2022-02-01(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent alleged, Plaintiff’s state-law negligence claim against Defendant Edge is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to the court’s exercise of its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c) (3).

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

Palmer v. United States of America · filed 2022-02-01(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.

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

Jackson v. Corizon Health, Inc. · filed 2022-02-02(c)(3)

Finally, because summary judgment was appropriate on Jackson’s federal § 1983 claims, the district court did not abuse its ... discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

McDaniel v. Campbell · filed 2022-02-03(c)(3)

To the extent that any of McDaniel’s factual allegations can be interpreted as attempting to assert any state-law claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any such claims, given the dismissal of his federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Harding v. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of New York Inc · filed 2022-02-04(c)(3)

Finally, the Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation that because the Court no longer has original jurisdiction over any federal claims, it should not exercise ... jurisdiction over Mr. Harding’s state-law claims and should dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Cabrera v. Experian · filed 2022-02-07(c)(3)

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims under the FCRA for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and declines to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Elbert Walker, Jr. v. Williams · filed 2022-02-08(c)(3)

After the dismissal of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, there remained no pending claim over which the district court had original jurisdiction. At that point, the court had discretion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state claims, and it followed this Court’s guidance in choosing to do so.

Section 1367 ordinarily calls for district courts to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are resolved before trial, absent unusual circumstances.

Barilani, Sherilyn v. Housing Authority of the City of Eau Claire · filed 2022-02-09(c)(3)

If the court had viable federal claims, the court would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), which permits a federal district court to hear state-law claims that are related to federal claims in the same action. But absent unusual circumstances, district courts will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if all federal claims have been resolved before trial. Coleman v. City of Peoria, Illinois, 925 F.3d 336, 352 (7th Cir. 2019). Here, neither party identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over Barilani’s state-late claims, so the court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(c) gives a court discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after the federal claims are resolved.

JOHNSON v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC · filed 2022-02-09(c)

With Mr. Johnson's federal claims resolved, the Court has discretion whether to relinquish jurisdiction over his state tort claims. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c).

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

Lett v. City of Rio Rancho · filed 2022-02-09(a)

Because the Court has dismissed all of the federal claims in this lawsuit, it declines to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over these state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

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.

McDonald v. Hempstead Union Free School District · filed 2022-02-09(c)(3)

Although the Court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim, it declines to do so.

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

Lewis v. Roth · filed 2022-02-09(c)(3)

To the extent the Complaint can be construed to assert any state law claims, i.e., a claim for legal malpractice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such 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.

MADER v. UNION TOWNSHIP · filed 2022-02-09(c)(3)

Because no viable federal claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over the Maders’ state law claims and therefore dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

RANSOM v. KNIGHT · filed 2022-02-10(c)(3)

The Court therefore applies the presumption and relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Ransom's state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state and local claims after resolving all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor doing so.

Lulo v. OTG Management, Inc. · filed 2022-02-10(c)(3)

Here, notwithstanding the entry of summary judgment in OTG’s favor on Lulo’s federal claims, the “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350, clearly support the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Lulo’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims so as to permit resolution of OTG’s pending motion for summary judgment on these claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, taking account of the statutory and common law factors.

Jenkins v. Tarrant County Sheriff's Office · filed 2022-02-11(c)

In sum, the balance of statutory and common law factors weighs heavily in favor of dismissing the remaining state law claims. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and instead will dismiss these claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after disposing of all claims within its original jurisdiction; when a federal claim is reinstated on appeal, the supplemental-jurisdiction disposition must be reconsidered.

Hall v. Nisbit · filed 2022-02-11(c)(3)

Because our decision to remand this matter as to Hall’s Fourth Amendment claims means that not all claims over which the District Court has original jurisdiction have been denied, we will also vacate and remand the District Court’s order as to supplemental jurisdiction.

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

BEACH v. BENEDICT · filed 2022-02-11(c)(3)

With the federal claim having been dismissed, the Court must determine whether it should accept supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. ... The Court determines the pendent state-law claim should be decided in state court. Accordingly, the claim for malicious prosecution is dismissed without prejudice, so that Mr. Beach may refile it in 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.

Dudley v. Strough · filed 2022-02-16(c)(3)

Finally, having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law assault-and-battery claims.

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

Cole 232716 v. Smith · filed 2022-02-16(c)

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

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

LaBreche v. Chambers · filed 2022-02-16(c)(3)

For the reasons discussed above, the Court is dismissing all of Plaintiff’s federal claims against all Defendants. As to the remaining state law claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Reed v. Detroit, City of · filed 2022-02-17(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. First, the Court lacks original jurisdiction over the claims. And second, judicial economy and fairness to the litigants do not require the Court to hold onto a case that is less than two years old. The Court will therefore dismiss the state law claims 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; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guide that choice.

Wilson v. Ly Investments, L.L.C. · filed 2022-02-17(c)(3)

In sum, the Court has dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction and finds that, on balance, the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Licari v. Toulon Jr. · filed 2022-02-17(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of a viably pled federal law claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any state law claims that may be reasonably construed from the complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims contained in Plaintiff’s complaint and dismisses any such claims without prejudice.

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

Ball v. Book · filed 2022-02-18(c)

The Court finds declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims is proper under the above-mentioned factors, especially considering all federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Stalley v. Cumbie · filed 2022-02-19(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs only federal claims, § 1367 authorizes the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly early in the case.

Montoya v. City of Chicago · filed 2022-02-22(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed without prejudice and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court relinquishes its 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Pattanayak v. Mastercard, Inc. · filed 2022-02-24(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. ... Accordingly, judicial economy, fairness, convenience and comity will be served best by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Willis v. Portland Police Bureau · filed 2022-02-24(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent plaintiff alleges claims for relief under state law, although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As discussed above, plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a plausible federal claim for relief. If plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint which cures the deficiencies noted, plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed as well.

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

Willis v. Beaverton Police Department · filed 2022-02-24(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent plaintiff alleges claims for relief under state law, although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, the Court may also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Williams, Travis v. Syed, Salam · filed 2022-02-25(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 state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Cherner v. Westchester Jewish Community Services, Inc. · filed 2022-02-28(c)(3)

Having determined that the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law causes of action.

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

Arceo v. City of Roseville · filed 2022-03-01(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff's federal claims against Defendant Maccoun and County Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Kiefer v. Isanti County, Minnesota · filed 2022-03-01(c)(3)

A district 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(c)(3). ... For this reason, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kiefer’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Stoudemire, Jr. v. Thomas · filed 2022-03-01(c)(3)

Here, the Court agrees with the Report and declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims given the above decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims.

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

Smith v. Menge · filed 2022-03-02(c)(3)

Finally, in the absence of a federal question, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Smith’s state law harassment claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Crescent Mine, LLC v. Bunker Hill Mining Corporation · filed 2022-03-02(c)(3)

However, if Crescent does not amend its CERCLA claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Crescent’s remaining state law claims against Placer (Counts 3–6).

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.

GRIFFITH v. GEO GROUP, INC. · filed 2022-03-04(c)(3)

The Court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state-law claims. Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) ("The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .").

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

Jimenez v. Service Employees International Union Local 775 · filed 2022-03-04(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal law claims in this matter, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Richards v. Gregory Funding LLC · filed 2022-03-04(c)(3)

“A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Brand v. New Rochelle City School District · filed 2022-03-07(c)(3)

Having determined that the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law causes of action. 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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Veal v. Commissioner of Boston Centers for Youth & Families · filed 2022-03-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under [the supplemental jurisdiction statute] if— . . . (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses the remaining state law claims without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing the claims in state court.

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

Hugan v. Detroit, City of · filed 2022-03-11(c)(3)

Because Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Musson Theatrical v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1255 (6th Cir. 1996).

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

Cervantes v. Byrne · filed 2022-03-11(c)(3)

And, because Plaintiff has failed to allege a viable § 1983 claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3) (providing that when a district court has disposed of all federal claims that conferred original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claims, dismissing the state claims without prejudice.

Soldan v. Robinson · filed 2022-03-14(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court accepts the R&R (Dkt. 55), grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 49), and exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

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

Rech v. Monroe County · filed 2022-03-15(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims where, as here, it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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.

Rife v. Houser · filed 2022-03-15(c)(3)

Nonetheless, the Court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction when the original jurisdiction claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, with summary judgment granted as to all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, all remaining claims, sounding in state law, are dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Bell v. City of New York · filed 2022-03-16(c)(3)

As there are no remaining federal claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Bell’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and remand a removed case after the only federal claim is dropped.

Modory v. Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education · filed 2022-03-17(c)(3)

In such situations, federal courts have discretion to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Moreover, because Modory has relinquished the one federal law claim in a complaint otherwise reliant on state law, the Court determines that the Kenosha County Circuit Court is the more proper forum for the proceeding.

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

S.W. v. ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2022-03-17(c)(3)

As discussed, summary judgment is granted to the District for Plaintiffs’ IDEA and Section 504 claims. These claims formed the basis of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims under the NJLAD. 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 over state-law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Atkins v. CoreCivic, Inc. · filed 2022-03-17(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... As the federal claims in this matter have been resolved, the Plaintiffs’ state law claims are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to their ability to bring those claims in the state courts.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims fail initial review.

Howie v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety · filed 2022-03-18(c)(3)

No federal claim has passed initial review and, accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of the Plaintiffs claims under North Carolina law at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal claim remains, taking account of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Motogolf.com, LLC v. Top Shelf Golf, LLC · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)

If Motogolf cannot plausibly state a CFAA claim, then there will no longer be a federal question supporting original jurisdiction in this court. The remaining claims raise only Nevada state law issues that should be resolved by the state court. The case has not progressed so far in federal court that concerns about economy or convenience are implicated. Consequently, if Motogolf cannot plausibly state a CFAA claim, I intend to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Krow v. Pinebridge Investments Holdings U.S. LLC · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment for PineBridge on all of Krow’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his surviving state and city law claims for failure to accommodate brought under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.

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

Lyons v. New York Life Insurance Company · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, which are based on a body of law with which this Court does not have experience. ... Here, considerations of judicial economy and convenience favor letting Washington state courts address Lyons’s WLAD claims, should Lyons elect to continue to pursue these claims. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lyons’s state law claims.

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

Coquina Crossing Homeowners Association, Inc. v. MHC Operating Limited Partnership · filed 2022-03-22(c)(3)

Upon due consideration, and persuaded by the reasoning in Swiss Village, the Court finds that considerations of judicial economy, comity, convenience and fairness weigh against retaining jurisdiction over the Association’s Florida law antitrust claim.

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, particularly when dismissal occurs early in the litigation.

Long v. Griffin · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)

With the dismissal of Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim against all Defendants, there remains no independent jurisdictional basis for his remaining state law claims, if any. ... Accordingly, at this time, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, if any, against Defendants.

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

Morrow v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)

The Court having found that summary judgment is appropriate on all of the federal claims declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim against the Subordinate Officers for trespass.

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

Pena v. Clark · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

We interpret the District Court to have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and discern no abuse of discretion in this decision.

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

AAA Staffing, LTD. v. Bomer · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

Specifically, if a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

White v. Karimou · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when an amended pleading eliminates the claims supporting original jurisdiction.

Sywula v. DaCosta · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This provision applies where an amended pleading voluntarily eliminates the federal question.

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

Makhnevich v. Bougopoulos · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)

Having granted Defendants’ motion as to all of Plaintiff’s FDCPA claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her section 349 claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Company v. Prochnow · filed 2022-03-30(c)

Although the parties have undertaken some limited discovery and Farmers Union has moved for summary judgment, no claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction remain and therefore the Court may choose whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Grinell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Moon, 845 F. Supp. 2d 989 (2012).

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

Fitzgerald v. The We Company · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

A district court has discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where, as here, “it 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 Fitzgerald’s remaining NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims once the claims within its original jurisdiction are gone, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Shah v. Aerotek, Inc. · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

Because the Amended Complaint eliminates Shah’s discrimination claim under federal law, the Court now must determine whether to remand the remaining claims to state court or continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... The Court finds that the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Shah’s state law claims and remanding this case.

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

Shaw v. Strange · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

Still, in situations like this where all claims over which a district court had original jurisdiction are no longer pending, federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Rosello v. Keathel Chauncey Esq. · filed 2022-03-31(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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the case is still in its early stages and no discovery has occurred.

Collins v. Federal Express Corporation · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” ... Here, the case is still in the early stages of litigation and there has been no discovery. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state- law claims against FedEx and the 14 Individual Defendants.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims when all pending federal claims have been dismissed.

Nelson v. Emergent BioSolutions Inc. · filed 2022-03-31(c)

Even if the state and local law claims were adequately pled, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them because all pending federal claims are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, these claims are dismissed.

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

Lynem v. Worthy · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim for relief, the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

North v. CoreCivic, Inc. · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

But a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because I have dismissed all of North’s federal claims, leaving only state- law claims, and because this court lacks diversity jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over North’s state-law claims.

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims based on economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Coppedge v. Elis · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, but does not require dismissal of the remaining claims.

Tojek v. Harris · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

Indeed, dismissal is not mandatory simply because section 1367(c)(3) applies.

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

Matias-Rossello v. Epoch LLC · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear state-law claims when, and if, the federal court has original jurisdiction in the action and the claims “form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. at § 1367(c)(3); see also Redondo Const. Corp. v. Izquierdo, 662 F.3d 42, 49 (1st Cir. 2011). Having dismissed all of Plaintiff Matías-Rosselló’s claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, in its discretion, the Court will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state-law claim.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction before trial, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, even after discovery closes.

WHITE v. WILLINGBORO TOWNSHIP · filed 2022-04-05(c)(3)

Having granted the Willingboro Defendants summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, the only claims that remain arise under New Jersey state law, over which the Court would need to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. For the reasons that follow, however, the Court declines to do so and therefore dismisses the remainder of Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.

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

Dedewo v. CBS Corporation · filed 2022-04-05(c)(3)

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs retaliatory discharge claim, as well as her claim of discrimination. I also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her State- and City-law claims.

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

Long v. Matz · filed 2022-04-07(c)(3)

Finally, Long purports to assert state law claims, but because the Court has concluded that he has no federal claims, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Lavite v. Dunstan, 932 F.3d 1020, 1034 (7th Cir. 2019).

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

Franks v. City of St. Louis, Missouri · filed 2022-04-08(c)(3)

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

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

Helmbrecht v. Henderson Police Department · filed 2022-04-11(c)(4)

Because I have granted summary judgment on Helmbrecht’s federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining claims, and I remand those claims back to state court where they originated.

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

Chapman v. Mountain Drive Thu · filed 2022-04-11(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege any cognizable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim Plaintiff may also be attempting to assert.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when only state law claims remain, with the statutory factors and judicial economy and comity informing that choice.

Betts v. Brennan · filed 2022-04-12(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-diverse state law claims where the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... These statutory factors weigh in favor of dismissing Plaintiff’s state law claims. While the first and fourth factors are inapplicable here, the second and third are relevant because only state law claims remain pending before this Court.

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.

McIntosh v. Goings · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

These factors weigh in favor of dismissing McIntosh’s state law claims without prejudice so that he may assert those claims in state court. The Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Benjamin v. Town of Islip · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to refile in a state court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness require retaining them.

MOET v. PARLIMENT · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

...the Court must decide whether to exercise its discretion to extend supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... The Court must decline to do so unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise. ... They do not.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, unless judicial economy, convenience and fairness require retaining them.

SESAY v. ROC NATION/MUSIC · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

The Court must decline to do so unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise. Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995). They do not. Sesay’s state law claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to her right to bring them in an appropriate state court.

After dismissal of the federal claims, a court must decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness require otherwise.

MOET v. SEPTA TRANSPORTATION · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

The Court must decline to do so unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness warrants retaining them.

SESCEY v. SESCEY · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

Absent diversity jurisdiction, and with the dismissal of Sesay’s federal claims, ... the Court must decide whether to exercise its discretion to extend supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. See Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009). The Court must decline to do so unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise. Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995). They do not.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness require retaining them.

MOET v. ROC NATION/KAMARA TURNEY FAMILY · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

The Court must decline to do so unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise.

After dismissal of the federal claims, § 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness require otherwise.

SESAY v. CYS/DELCO · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

The Court must decline to do so unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise.

After federal claims are dismissed, Section 1367 calls for declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness require otherwise.

SESAY v. BIDEN ADMINISTRATION · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

Absent diversity jurisdiction, and with the dismissal of Sesay’s federal claims, ... the Court must decide whether to exercise its discretion to extend supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. See Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009). The Court must decline to do so unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise. ... They do not.

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

Sheppard v. Roberts · filed 2022-04-15(c)(3)

As summary judgment has been granted on all of Mr. Sheppard’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Sheppard’s state law claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

Tillman v. Bartley · filed 2022-05-02(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, the court will summarily dismiss Tillman’s complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To the extent the complaint can be construed as asserting any state-law claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over those claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and they will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Ostipow v. Federspiel · filed 2022-05-02(c)(3)

The absence of federal claims and the Sixth Circuit’s instruction that it is the “state court’s duty” to oversee Ostipow’s judgment, Ostipow, 824 F. App’x at 344, make it appropriate for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ostipow’s state law claims. They will be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Bounds v. Country Club Hills School District 160 · filed 2022-05-11(c)(3)

The Court does not see any reason to continue exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Turner v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2022-05-23(c)(2)

The Court also notes that all of the claims arising under federal law have been dismissed, and the Court would decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over any remaining state claims that are contained in plaintiff’s complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(3) generally favors declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, and potential future removal under the Class Action Fairness Act does not require retaining jurisdiction.

Iverson v. Pfizer, Inc. · filed 2006-11-30(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the balance of interests usually “will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.” Carnegie- Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); see also Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 647 (8th Cir. 2006); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The district court’s decision to dismiss the state law claims was in accord with these principles. The advent of the Class Action Fairness Act, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), and the potential for the future removal of the state claims to federal court, are not sufficient grounds to require the district court to retain federal jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) does not provide a basis to decline jurisdiction over state-law class claims when CAFA independently confers jurisdiction.

Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp. · filed 2012-03-27(c)

Nor does this case present an instance of supplemental jurisdiction, where there is statutory authority to decline jurisdiction in the factual circumstances of De Asencio. ... Here, independent jurisdiction exists over plaintiffs’ claims under CAFA, which provides no statutory basis for declining jurisdiction in this instance.

Section 1367 has a role in a CAFA case only for claims that were never within CAFA’s original jurisdiction.

Wright Transportation, Inc. v. Pilot Corporation · filed 2016-11-22

Supplemental jurisdiction does have a role in CAFA cases, but only in those that also have “state-law claims that were never subject to CAFA jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related MMWA claim whose independent jurisdictional amount has not been established when the court has original diversity jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

YAGUDAYEV v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC · filed 2020-11-13(a)

Even so, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the MMWA claim ... pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not justify declining jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissal of federal claims when an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction exists.

Koulkina v. City of New York · filed 2008-02-19(c)(3)

The City, Finkle, Kuznetsoff, Buzin, Babrovskaya, Dr. Pandya, and Charne initially argue that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims in the event that the federal claims are dismissed. ... This argument is without merit because there is an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction for plaintiffs state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not warrant dismissal of a remaining claim over which the court has independent original jurisdiction.

AAMCO TRANSMISSION INC. v. Johnson · filed 2009-07-23(c)(3)

Accordingly, we believe that it would be inappropriate to dismiss under § 1367(c)(3) and we instead consider the matter pursuant to § 1404(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the district court has original jurisdiction, but it does not independently create subject matter jurisdiction.

Poorsina v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-09-10(a)

Section 1367 does not supply an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not provide an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

United States Fire Insurance Company v. Icicle Seafoods Inc · filed 2021-11-19

... supplemental jurisdiction is not an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims only when the court has an independent basis of jurisdiction over another claim.

Rosenberger, Jr. v. Ma · filed 2022-03-08(a)

However,supplemental jurisdiction is not an independent basis of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). It only exists over state law claims which are closely related to other claims over which the court has an independent basis of jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims only if the court has an independent basis for federal jurisdiction; when diversity supplies that basis, § 1332 must be satisfied.

BCBSM, Inc. v. Walgreen Co. · filed 2022-11-22

While Plaintiffs also invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1367, (Complaint ¶ 29), which confers supplemental jurisdiction, the Court must first have “an independent basis for federal jurisdiction” before it can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims. Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 355 (1996). Jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367 therefore depends on satisfying the § 1332 requirements.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims only when the court has an independent basis for jurisdiction.

Comack v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-11-08(a)

As to § 1367, this section provides for supplemental juris- diction over additional claims in cases where there is already an in- dependent basis for jurisdiction, and here, there is no basis for ju- risdiction under either § 405(g) or (h).

Section 1367 does not independently establish federal question jurisdiction.

Reed v. CoxHealth · filed 2025-06-02(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 governs the supplemental jurisdiction of district courts. ... While Plaintiff attempts to invoke these federal statutes in order to provide this Court with jurisdiction, these statutes cannot provide for an independent basis of jurisdiction.

A district court with supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims from the outset may rule on those claims and award fees even if it later declines to retain them.

Molski v. Foster Freeze Paso Robles · filed 2008-02-20

Had the district court meant that it lacked jurisdiction to award fees, it would have been wrong. Because it had jurisdiction over those causes of action at the outset of the case, it had jurisdiction to rule on them and to award fees.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a separate insurer coverage action when its issues are closely intertwined with pending federal claims against the insured.

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance · filed 2008-03-19(a)

The insurance issues and the liability issues are closely intertwined, and judicial efficiency and practical resolutions clearly will be served by my exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(b) requires a Rule 24 intervenor in a diversity action to independently satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for its claim.

Gallodoro v. Walter Isaacson, LLC · filed 2020-12-07(b)

Even where the claims in the underlying lawsuit satisfy the amount in controversy requirement, the intervenor claims must independently satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.

In an action founded solely on diversity jurisdiction, § 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a Rule 24 plaintiff-intervenor’s claim that fails the amount-in-controversy requirement.

Patriot Insurance Company v. Ingham · filed 2019-10-22(b)

While Progressive’s intervention would not destroy complete diversity, its claim does not meet the amount in controversy requirement of § 1332. Progressive’s proposed complaint asserts that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, but at the status conference recently held, Progressive acknowledged that its indemnification exposure is limited to only $20,000. Its claim does not exceed the jurisdictional limit for diversity jurisdiction, as required by § 1367(b).

In a case founded solely on diversity, § 1367(b) excludes a Rule 24 plaintiff intervenor’s claim from supplemental jurisdiction when the claim fails § 1332’s citizenship or amount-in-controversy requirements.

Griffin v. Lee · filed 2010-09-23(b)

Under a plain reading of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), there was no supplemental jurisdiction over Lee’s claim in intervention, as it was a claim by a person seeking to intervene as a plaintiff under Rule 24.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s intervention claim in a diversity case when the claim does not meet § 1332’s jurisdictional requirements.

Vogt v. Wendy's Company · filed 2025-02-10(b)

Courts therefore do not have supplemental jurisdiction over claims by parties seeking to intervene in diversity cases if the intervention claims would not otherwise meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1367(b) requires an intervenor asserting a claim in a diversity action to independently satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of complete diversity and amount in controversy.

LeBlanc v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. · filed 2021-01-28(b)

Therefore, in a diversity action, as here, petitioners must independently meet the appropriate jurisdictional requirements in order to intervene.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a Rule 24 intervenor plaintiff’s crossclaim against a nondiverse co-plaintiff in an action based solely on diversity jurisdiction.

Barrett v. PDP Unlimited, Inc. · filed 2019-11-04(b)

Accordingly, § 1367(b) prevents an intervenor plaintiff from asserting a crossclaim against a non-diverse co-plaintiff.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a claim by an intervening plaintiff in a diversity action only if that party was indispensable when the action began.

Westra Construction, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · filed 2008-04-30(b)

Because it is premised upon long-standing judicial doctrines and the policies underlying § 1367(b), the court adopts the view that only intervention of an indispensable party falls within the exception to supplemental jurisdiction set forth in § 1367(b).

Section 1367(b) requires a plaintiff seeking to intervene under Rule 24 in a diversity action to satisfy § 1332’s jurisdictional requirements, including complete diversity.

Louisiana Oilfield Logistics, LLC v. Flotek Chemistry, LLC · filed 2019-08-05(b)

Section 1367(b) requires plaintiff-intervenors like Triumph to meet § 1332’s jurisdictional requirements, including complete diversity.

Section 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over a claim by a person seeking to intervene as a plaintiff in a diversity action when the claim would defeat complete diversity.

Schwartz v. Cincinnati Life Insurance · filed 2019-09-19(b)

As the Court previously held, federal courts have denied motions to intervene in diversity cases where the proposed intervenor is a citizen of the same state as a party against whom the intervenor would be aligned if intervention were allowed. ... 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) (holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court “shall not have supplemental jurisdiction” over “claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24” or “over claims by persons . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24,” if “exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332”). ... Absent an interpleader structure, Plaintiff's and Schmid’s shared Missouri citizenship destroys diversity.

In an action founded solely on diversity jurisdiction, § 1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over an intervening plaintiff’s claim when exercising jurisdiction would be inconsistent with § 1332’s requirements.

Nelsen v. SPLC Southern Poverty Law Center · filed 2020-03-05(b)

In a case founded solely on diversity jurisdiction, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over claims by a party intervening as a plaintiff “when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of [28 U.S.C. § 1332].” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court’s jurisdiction of this case is founded solely on diversity jurisdiction. Given that Davis’ claim sounds in defamation, the requirements for diversity jurisdiction must be met for the Court to have subject-matter jurisdiction. But notably absent from Davis’ motion and proposed pleading is an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court must deny Davis’ motion to intervene for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.