28 U.S.C. § 1367

When original jurisdiction rests solely on diversity, Section 1367(b) requires a party intervening as a plaintiff under Rule 24 to satisfy the amount-in-controversy and citizenship requirements of diversity jurisdiction.

BRYAN v. GREENWOOD MOTOR LINES INC · filed 2023-08-28(b)

Here, GDAS intervened as a plaintiff under Rule 24(a). Thus, under supplemental jurisdiction, this means that GDAS must satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction, which are the amount in controversy and diversity of citizenship.

Section 1367(b) permits supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims by a dispensable, nondiverse defendant intervenor, even when the counterclaims seek affirmative relief.

RINALDI ENTERPRISES OF FLORIDA, LLC v. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2023-11-13(b)

For these reasons, the Court is persuaded that Perez’s offensive posture is no bar to the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, as Perez is squarely on Defendant’s side of the dispute. Consistent with Hart and Blue Heron, the Court concludes that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Perez’s Counterclaims is proper, as Perez’s “joinder does not divest the Court of jurisdiction.” 2022 WL 18465613, at *5.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law cross-claims when their evidentiary issues overlap with federal claims at the time of filing, even if that overlap later disappears.

Mendez v. K & Y Peace Corp. · filed 2019-05-22(a)

Under that hornbook law, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction because the evidentiary issues did overlap at the time of filing.

Section 1367 confers supplemental jurisdiction on district courts but does not empower the Court of Federal Claims.

Kimbrell v. United States · filed 2019-06-24

Plaintiff is also mistaken in believing that the statutes conferring federa l question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, on district courts can also empower our court. They cannot.

Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims does not depend on the federal court being located in the state whose law supplies the claims.

Moland v. Explosive Countermeasures International, Inc. · filed 2019-05-21

Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims does not hinge on whether the federal court is located in the state that provides the law for those claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when removal leaves a potentially dispositive state law motion unresolved and exercising jurisdiction would prejudice the plaintiffs.

M.S. v. Rye Neck Union Free School District · filed 2019-05-10(c)(4)

The Court declines to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). The state court’s failure to resolve a motion on what was exclusively a state issue, not to mention a potentially dispositive one, before this case was removed is an exceptional circumstance.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over claims concerning administration of an insolvent estate when those claims lack a common nucleus of operative fact with an FDCPA claim.

Wallace v. Newrez, LLC · filed 2019-07-19(a)

In sum, the Estate’s request for the court-ordered payment of its debts does not form part of the same case or controversy as the alleged violation of the FDCPA.

Section 1367(a) requires a common nucleus of operative fact between federal and state claims; a shared business relationship without meaningful evidentiary overlap does not suffice.

MNM Investments, LLC v. HDM, Inc. · filed 2019-07-30(a)

The existence of a business relationship alone does not satisfy the common nucleus of operative fact test. ... The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over HDM’s counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Lee v. Red Wing Brands of America, Inc. · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Whitaker v. Chakmakjian · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives a court discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, informed by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Rafael Arroyo, Jr. v. Marina Del Rey Oil Corporation · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Whitaker v. Palace Investment Co., Inc. · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Shonna Counter v. Craig Realty Group Citadel, LLC · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for courts to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Le v. Ramallo · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Rafael Arroyo, Jr. v. Kim · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a federal court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Haggar v. Allen Edmonds, LLC · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) lets a district court decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims by weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Shonna Counter v. Lance Camper MFG. Corp. · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 allows a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Yiun v. Parisca · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” ... The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) requires a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of the litigation.

Kim v. Starbucks Corporation · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims to consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Langer v. Tashkaplyan · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for courts deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Whitaker v. Beverly Laurel Motor Hotel, LLC · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Whitaker v. Blue Bee, Inc · filed 2019-09-24(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Rafael Arroyo, Jr. v. Bipin Gala · filed 2019-09-24(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Kwon v. Fateh · filed 2020-06-05(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’1 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Sung Choi v. Union Bank of California Leasing, Inc. · filed 2020-06-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity and to require the plaintiff to explain why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Whitaker v. Encino Oaks, LLC · filed 2020-07-31(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Gonzalez v. JJ and S Imperial Liquor, Inc. · filed 2020-08-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a federal court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Davidson v. Sanchez · filed 2020-08-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Ostrander Jr. v. Ashley Real Estate, LLC · filed 2020-09-21(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’1 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a federal court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Marquez v. Y & C Long Beach, LLC · filed 2020-10-28(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Lammey v. Bae · filed 2020-11-10(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Perri v. CIM 11600 Wilshire Los Angeles, LP · filed 2020-11-19(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). ... In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a federal court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Garcia v. VIP Plaza Investment, Inc. · filed 2020-12-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’1 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to weigh fairness and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim and to require the plaintiff to show cause before making that decision.

Fernandez v. Sollux Associates, LP · filed 2021-02-08(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). ... In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Frazier v. Wilshire Mobile Inc. · filed 2021-05-11(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” ... The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to consider fairness and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Cuevas v. Anguiano · filed 2021-06-10(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). ... In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, California’s Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 allows a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Kim v. Zada · filed 2021-06-16(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”” City of Chicago v. Int’1 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)).

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Vera v. Kaloustian · filed 2021-09-28(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for courts to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Bryant v. Loza · filed 2021-10-28(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Cleveland v. Young Mi Cha · filed 2022-05-09(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’”

Section 1367(c) calls for courts to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Raglin v. Kordones · filed 2022-05-23(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

Section 1367(c) calls for weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Mister Bailey v. Gazarian · filed 2022-05-27(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Raglin v. Ramirez · filed 2022-06-10(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Raglin v. Henry · filed 2022-06-14(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” ... In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Business and Professions Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Raglin v. Hyen Ho Kim · filed 2022-06-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Gastelum v. 4045 University, LLC · filed 2022-06-29(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Cauley v. N and B El Segundo Properties LLC · filed 2022-07-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity and may require the plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Marquise Bailey v. De Feldman · filed 2022-07-25(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). ... In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367, a federal court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Elliott v. La Michoacana Bakery, Inc. · filed 2022-07-25(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Delapaz v. Soltani · filed 2022-08-05(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of the litigation.

Gougi v. Shu Jen Yang Lee · filed 2022-12-01(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” City of Chicago v. Int’1 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of litigation.

Herrera v. 5.11, Inc. · filed 2022-12-22(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 calls for courts deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Gonzalez v. Monteleone · filed 2023-01-10(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

Section 1367 calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Cooper v. Tuozzo · filed 2023-01-10

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’”

Section 1367(c) calls for weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Delapaz v. Gomez · filed 2023-01-18(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Frazier v. Keligian · filed 2023-02-17(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Elliott v. Abrams · filed 2023-02-28(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Rhambo v. Myung Soon Byun · filed 2023-11-09(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Orosco v. Otani · filed 2023-11-30(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 calls for courts deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Uriarte-Limon v. Leininger and Short · filed 2024-06-27(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Le v. MCD-RC CA-AMERIGE, LLC · filed 2024-06-27(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’] Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Le v. Chu Chu Yen · filed 2024-06-27(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellion Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Luna v. Rivas · filed 2024-06-27(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellion Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Lee v. Stadium Tavern, Inc. · filed 2024-07-08

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’”

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Cooper v. Gulbanu Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2024-08-07(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’] Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Harris v. Mission Tires LLC · filed 2024-08-15(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Plaintiff is, therefore, ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for the court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Marquise Bailey v. Go2Banners · filed 2024-08-16(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

Section 1367(c) directs courts deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and whether all claims within their original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Stem v. Gomez · filed 2016-02-08(c)

Courts are to consider “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” and specifically whether it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a counterclaim when the parties’ former employment relationship is its only factual connection to the original claims.

Turban v. Bar Giacosa Corp. · filed 2019-08-01(a)

Nor is there a basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ tortious interference claim pursuant to Section 1367(a). The only fact common to Turban’s FLSA and NYLL claims and Defendants’ allegations regarding his conduct after termination is that Turban once worked for Defendants. This is insufficient to make it part of the “same case or controversy” as required by Section 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state assault and battery claim that shares operative facts with a surviving federal excessive force claim.

Edrei v. City of New York · filed 2017-05-31(a)

Having denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs excessive force claim, it is proper for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim, as both turn on the similar questions of the necessity in using the X100, the strength of the XIOO’s force, and the intentionality of the Defendant officers when using the X100.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law assault claim arising from the same facts as a federal excessive force claim.

El-Massri v. New Haven Correctional Center · filed 2019-07-31(a)

Because the assault claim arises from the same set of facts as El-Massri's excessive force claim, the Court will GRANT in part the motion for leave to amend and permit the civil assault claim to proceed against Lewis, Cacioli, Williams, and Hebert in their individual capacities for damages.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims arising under federal law.

Hope v. Lunarlandowner.com, Inc. · filed 2022-02-28(a)

In other words, Plaintiffs’ remaining state and common law claims arise out of the common nucleus of operative facts which are the basis for Plaintiffs’ federal law claims. The Court therefore has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(2) does not permit remand of properly removed federal claims merely because state-law claims substantially predominate.

Palmer v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2019-08-14(c)(2)

Moreover, binding precedent teaches that Palmer’s “substantially predominates” argument under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) could not provide any viable basis for remanding the properly removed federal claims (i.e., Palmer’s RESPA and FCRA claims).

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, and removing the federal claim by amendment does not automatically require remand.

LAWLESS v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-06-03(a)

Stated simply, Plaintiff is not automatically entitled to the remand of this case simply because the amended complaint no longer includes the federal claim asserted in the original complaint.

Section 1367(c) does not support remanding an entire case, including its federal claims, while those claims remain pending.

Blue Bay Ventures LLC v. John Buys Bay Homes LLC · filed 2024-12-16(c)

However, Plaintiff cites no cases establishing it is proper to remand a case under § 1367 where federal claims remain pending. ... The Court is unaware of any authority that allows for such a result.

Section 1367(d) does not supply its 30-day tolling period when state law provides a longer tolling period.

Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Blavatnik · filed 2013-04-25(d)

*66028 USC § 1367, which gives the federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims related to the claims in a federal action (28 USC § 1367 [a]) and, for any of those claims that are dismissed, tolls the limitations period for 30 days after they are dismissed, “unless State law provides for a longer tolling period” (28 USC § 1367 [d]), is not applicable to this action, because New York law provides for a tolling period of six months (see CPLR 205 [a]).

Section 1367(d) tolls state limitations periods for supplemental state law claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after dismissal, unless state law provides a longer tolling period.

Garcia v. Escamilla · filed 2021-07-28(d)

We reject as meritless Escamilla’s contentions that the district court lacked original jurisdiction, or that plaintiff’s state law claims against Escamilla should not have been tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c), (d) (providing circumstances under which district courts may assert or decline supplemental jurisdiction, and tolling state statutes of limitations for “any claim” asserted under this statute “while the claim is pending [in federal court] and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period”).

Section 1367(d) tolls an unexpired state limitations period while a supplemental claim is pending in federal court, but does not revive a period that expired before federal filing.

Armatas v. Aultman Hosp. · filed 2022-12-15(d)

We find the trial court did not commit error in finding appellants could not rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) as a basis to file the claims in this case on April 30, 2020, because the statutes of limitations for those claims expired prior to appellants’ filing their complaint in federal court and thus there was no “period of limitations” for 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) to toll during the pendency of the action.

Section 1367(d) tolls a state claim only if it was expressly asserted in a federal complaint filed within the state limitations period; a later amendment adding a new claim does not relate back.

Cecil v. Am. Fed. of St., Cty. & Mun. Emp. · filed 2024-03-28(d)

Under Rounds, to take advantage of § 1367(d) tolling, a plaintiff must expressly assert their state-law claim in their original federal complaint, filed within the state statute of limitations.

Section 1367(d) pauses the limitations period for a state claim while it is pending in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction.

Devonwood-Loch Lomond Lake Ass'n · filed 2024-10-01(d)

In light of this clarification, we apply 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) as a pausing provision, notwithstanding our prior holding in Huang.

Section 1367(d) tolls the limitations period for supplemental state-law claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after dismissal.

Snelson, Jeremy v. Wilson, Derek · filed 2024-11-07(d)

Those limitations periods have been tolled while this case has been pending, but they will begin again 30 days from now.

Section 1367(d) tolls the limitations period for a supplemental state-law claim while it is pending in federal court and for 30 days after dismissal.

Cooper, Demetrius v. Dombeck, Charles · filed 2025-03-21(d)

Those limitations periods have been tolled while this case has been pending, but they will begin again 30 days from now.

Section 1367(d) permits a longer state-law tolling period to govern refiling after a federal court dismisses supplemental claims; under Louisiana law, prescription runs anew from dismissal.

Louis Henry Versus Southwest Airlines · filed 2024-07-31(d)

The issue in this case concerns whether plaintiff timely refiled his state law claims in the 24th JDC under 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) after the federal court dismissed without prejudice plaintiff’s state law claims. ... Under La. C.C. art. 3466, prescription began to run anew on September 21, 2022, when the federal court dismissed without prejudice plaintiff’s state law claims. Therefore, plaintiff had until September 21, 2023, to refile his state law claims in the 24th JDC.

Section 1367(d) does not toll a supplemental state claim refiled in federal court.

Mitchell v. Taylor · filed 2021-03-04(d)

Following Jinks, several courts have recognized tolling under §1367(d) does not apply to claims in federal court. ... As a result, Plaintiff does not benefit from tolling in the instant case refiled in federal court.

Section 1367(d) allows time to refile dismissed supplemental state-law claims in state court, but does not toll a claim refiled in federal court.

United States of America v. St. Mark's Hospital · filed 2019-09-25(d)

The tolling contemplated in § 1367(d), therefore, does not apply where, as here, a party’s state law claims are dismissed from federal court and he then attempts to refile in federal court.

Section 1367(d) gives a plaintiff 30 days to refile a dismissed supplemental state law claim in state court; it does not toll the limitations period for refiling the claim in federal court.

Vincent v. Money Store · filed 2013-01-04(d)

Under § 1367(d), the plaintiffs had 30 days to refile the claims in state court. Section 1367(d) is not a mechanism to frustrate the dismissal of claims in federal court by simply refiling them. It provides an opportunity to pursue those claims in state court.

Section 1367(d) permits plaintiffs whose supplemental state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to refile those claims in state court within 30 days.

OCEAN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS v. GREWAL · filed 2020-07-29(d)

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ state law claims are dismissed without prejudice, and they may re-file in state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) within 30 days from the date of the accompanying Order.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367(c) and dismiss an Unruh Act claim if the plaintiff fails to timely or adequately respond to an order to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised.

Whitaker v. Birds Bar and Cafe, LLC · filed 2019-11-06(c)

Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and the dismissal of any such claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim and to decline jurisdiction if the plaintiff fails to respond timely or adequately.

Langer v. Mobeeus, Inc. · filed 2019-11-13(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of any such claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice when the plaintiff fails to respond to an order to show cause.

Lee v. Duong · filed 2019-08-08(c)

Failure to respond as ordered will result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissing those without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim and dismiss it without prejudice if the plaintiff fails to respond to an order to show cause.

Whitaker v. 101 S. Golden Mall Associates, LLC · filed 2019-08-08(c)

Failure to respond as ordered will result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismissing that claim without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Under § 1367(c), a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim if the plaintiff fails to respond timely or adequately to an order to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Garcia v. Berendo Property Partners LLC · filed 2020-03-02(c)

Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by March 12, 2020. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of any such claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).

Section 1367(a) requires a common nucleus of operative fact; seeking the same documents in a state records proceeding and a federal civil rights action is insufficient when the claims concern different events and legal obligations.

Jeanty v. Utica Police Department · filed 2021-03-19(a)

Thus, the Court concludes that the sole connection between these cases—that Jeanty’s FOIL requests seek the same documents Jeanty sought in discovery in the Jeanty case— is insufficient to create a “common nucleus of operative fact.”

Section 1367 allows a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state public records claim.

Saade v. State of Washington Department of Health · filed 2019-09-18

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Saade’s Public Records State law claim against Defendant DOH. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when local zoning concerns and state claims outweigh a narrow federal claim, although its discretionary exceptions are construed narrowly.

Baskin v. Bath Township Board of Zoning Appeals · filed 1996-11-21(c)(4)

The historical notes to section 1367 indicate that the discretionary exceptions to the mandatory conferral of jurisdiction should be interpreted quite narrowly. ... The federal courts are ill-suited to reviewing the decisions of local zoning boards and their particularly local concerns, especially in a case such as this one where the state claims far outweigh the federal claim. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a local zoning interpretation claim after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Mountain States Media v. Adams County, Colorado · filed 2010-07-30(c)

Under these circumstances, the district court should have first granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims and then dismissed plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claim for want of supplemental jurisdiction. It was an abuse of discretion for the district court to have done otherwise.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over complex state land use claims after it dismisses the related federal claims.

Petroplex International v. St. James Parish · filed 2016-01-25(c)

The factors weigh in favor of the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. First and foremost, the remaining claims challenging the propriety of. the Land Use Ordinance involve .complex issues of state land use law. and interpretation of the Louisiana Constitution on which there .is not clear guidance from the Louisiana Supreme Court. ... Secondly, the Court has dismissed the related federal claims challenging the validity of the Land Use Ordinance. ... Therefore, even if supplemental jurisdiction may apply to Plaintiffs’ state law claims challenging the validity of the land use ordinance, the Court would, in its discretion, decline to exercise jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law zoning appeal substantially predominates over federal claims in proof, scope of issues, and available remedies.

Detroit Memorial Park Ass'n v. City of Detroit Board of Zoning Appeals · filed 2015-05-14(c)(2)

Count I of Plaintiffs’ complaint, the zoning appeal claim, is the heart of this matter and this Court concludes that it substantially predominates over the federal claims in this action. That zoning appeal claim predominates over the federal claims in this action in terms of proof, scope of issues raised, and comprehensiveness of remedies.

Section 1367(d) tolls an individual claim rather than the entire action.

Bray v. ID Dept of Juvenile Corrections · filed 2025-02-14(d)

Section 1367(d)’s repeated use of “claim” indicates that it does not toll the entire action, but exclusively the claim at issue.

Section 1367(d) tolls the limitations period for a supplemental state claim for thirty days after dismissal so it may be refiled in state court.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC. · filed 2021-05-12(d)

The NJFCA’s statute of limitations is tolled for thirty (30) days from the date of this Opinion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), to give Freedman time to refile in state court should he wish to do so.

Section 1367(d) applies when a federal court declines supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the federal claims.

T.M. Bolick & E.B. Bolick v. NE Ind. Srvcs. Corp. · filed 2023-01-25(d)

Although this form of abstention is discretionary, nothing in either federal or state law supports the Bolicks’ proposition that when a federal court declines to exercise jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing federal claims, the transfer requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and Section 5103(b) do not apply.

Section 1367(d) does not toll claims when a supplemental claim is voluntarily dismissed or dismissed for improper joinder.

Holt v. County of Orange · filed 2024-01-26(d)

But tolling is not available when the supplemental claim is voluntarily dismissed, as happened in Holt I. Nor is tolling available when the supplemental claim is dismissed for improper joinder, as happened in Moon.

Section 1367(d) tolls the limitations period for a state claim while it is pending under federal supplemental jurisdiction and for 30 days after dismissal, unless state law allows longer; it does not apply to a case based on diversity jurisdiction.

Landon, J. v. Soluciones Cosmetics · filed 2025-03-28(d)

Section 1367(d), which applies specifically to the federal court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, rather than the diversity jurisdiction at issue in the case at bar, provides that a statute of limitations “shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

Section 1367(d) tolls the limitation period for a state-law claim under supplemental jurisdiction when the suit is removed to federal court.

Rahman v. The Boeing Company · filed 2013-03-11(d)

However, if a lawsuit is removed to federal court, any state law claims over which the federal court assumes supplemental jurisdiction are tolled until the federal claims are resolved.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over fees for pre-litigation condemnation negotiations that form part of the same case or controversy, and the court’s familiarity with the litigation and efficiency support exercising that jurisdiction.

Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC v. 10.61 Acres, more or less, in Lovingston District, Nelson County, Virginia · filed 2019-10-11(a), (c)

Thus, Lollar’s claim for pre-litigation attorney’s fees is part of the same case or controversy as the condemnation action. Accordingly, I find that this Court may exercise jurisdiction over the attorney’s fees dispute. ... Accordingly, I find that Lollar’s claim to collect fees for their work is sufficiently related to the underlying action to fall within this Court’s jurisdiction, and that there is no reason to decline jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Jefferson Airplane v. Berkeley Systems, Inc. · filed 1994-10-04(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ copyright claim is DISMISSED. The Court declines to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims; they are also DISMISSED.

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

Dielsi v. Falk · filed 1996-01-23(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs federal copyright claim without prejudice, ... (all of which are governed by state law) are hereby REMANDED to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if original federal claim is dismissed).

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissal of the federal copyright claims.

Gasery v. Kalakuta Sunrise, LLC · filed 2019-11-26

Accordingly, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the remainder of Plaintiff's claims.

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

United States ex rel. Brown v. BankUnited Trust 2005-1 · filed 2017-01-30(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the federal False Claims Act claims, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Relators’ state law and local law claims, pursuant to Section 1367(c)(3).

A court considering whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) may require an Unruh Act plaintiff to justify exercising that jurisdiction and provide sworn facts bearing on high-frequency-litigant status.

Whitaker v. Say s Investment, LLC · filed 2019-11-08(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to justify supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim by identifying the damages sought and providing facts bearing on high-frequency-litigant status.

Rutherford v. BLM Victorville a California Limited Partnership · filed 2019-10-25(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

Section 1367 permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that substantially predominates over an ADA claim, with comity and discouraging evasion of California’s pleading requirements providing exceptional circumstances for declining jurisdiction.

Langer v. Niche Investments, LLC · filed 2020-04-01(c)(2), (c)(4)

Thus, the state claim and the issues related thereto substantially predominate over the ADA claim, which appears to be a secondary claim included to justify filing the complaint in this Court, rather than a necessary (let alone predominant) claim in this lawsuit. ... In addition, the important interest of comity supports declining jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim at an early stage to protect comity interests arising from evasion of California’s high-frequency litigant requirements.

Villalobos v. American Eagle Int Group, LLC · filed 2023-11-03(c)(4)

This appears to be a case in which the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests identified in Arroyo. ... If Plaintiff fails to file a response within 14 days after entry of this Order, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim, and the Unruh Act claim will be automatically dismissed without prejudice without further order of the Court.

Section 1367(a) grants supplemental subject-matter jurisdiction but does not determine whether claims are properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.

Tatum v. Lucas · filed 2019-10-29(a)

But I did not dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction, and § 1367(a) has nothing to do with whether the plaintiff’s claims were properly joined under Rule 20.

Section 1367(b) governs supplemental jurisdiction over diversity-defeating claims, but does not determine whether a court may grant leave to amend a complaint to add a nondiverse defendant.

Macaulay v. St. Louis BOA Plaza, LLC · filed 2022-03-15(b)

Thus, section 1367(b) governs the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, but says nothing about whether the Court can—or should—grant leave to amend a complaint.

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.

Papst Licensing GmbH and Co. KG v. SUNONWEALTLH ELEC. MACH. IND. CO. LTD. · filed 2004-08-25(c)

In this case, the issues involving the patent license are complex and the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining non-federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and decide their merits after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

John Bean Technologies Corporation v. Morris & Associates, Inc. · filed 2019-09-06(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it would be within the Court’s discretion to dismiss JBT’s state law claims without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Keating v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 660 F.3d 1014, 1018–19 (8th Cir. 2011). However, each of those state law claims is premised on Morris’s representation that its COPE products are patented, which JBT alleges is a misrepresentation. Because no reasonable jury would find that Morris’s COPE products are unpatented, JBT cannot show a misrepresentation, and its state law claims necessarily must fail on their merits. The Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and will dismiss all remaining state law claims with prejudice.

Section 1367(a) requires a common nucleus of operative fact between state-law claims and federal claims; earlier medical treatment outside custody did not share that nucleus with claims about later custodial care.

Hehrer v. Clinton, County of · filed 2021-09-15(a)

Plaintiff does not allege any federal claims against the Sparrow Defendants; rather, in Counts I and IV under this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, Plaintiff alleges that the Sparrow Defendants committed medical malpractice under state law when treating the decedent on January 18, 2019. The Sparrow Defendants moved for dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) arguing that their actions on January 18, 2019, five days before the decedent was placed in government custody, do not form part of the “same case or controversy” as the federal claims that Plaintiff alleged against the Clinton County Defendants and the ACH Defendants (ECF No. 12). ... The Magistrate Judge thoroughly analyzed the facts supporting each claim and properly applied the relevant law. ... Accordingly, this Court denies the objections and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 38) as the Opinion of this Court.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law medical negligence claim that rests on the same facts as a federal deliberate indifference claim.

Gakuba v. Swells · filed 2021-03-01(a)

Plaintiff’s state law medical negligence/malpractice claim against Dr. Birch and George may proceed under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, as it rests on the same facts that support the deliberate indifference claim in Count 2.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state medical malpractice claim supported by the same allegations as a federal Eighth Amendment claim because the claims form part of the same case or controversy.

Weinert v. Larson · filed 2019-10-29(a)

Because Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and medical malpractice claims are so related “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the medical malpractice claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state medical negligence claim arising from the same facts as a federal constitutional claim.

Ruffin v. Trotter · filed 2019-11-18(a)

Plaintiff’s medical negligence claim derives from the same facts as his federal constitutional claim and will be allowed to proceed at this stage. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it dismisses the federal claims, but an assessment that those claims are unlikely to succeed on a preliminary injunction motion does not suffice.

Lark v. Lacy · filed 1999-04-15(c)(3)

Under § 1367, this Court has discretion whether to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims, but only after having dismissed the federal claims, over which the Court has original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, I do not now have discretion to decline jurisdiction over the concomitant state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after denial of interim relief in aid of arbitration eliminates the federal claims because no claim for permanent relief remains before the court.

Integro USA, Inc. v. Crain · filed 2019-11-14(c)(3)

Typically, the denial of a preliminary injunction or other interim relief does not occasion a dismissal that would trigger the Court’s discretion under the supplemental jurisdiction statute. But the present case is something of a procedural oddity. Integro seeks only an injunction to preserve the status quo during arbitration; upon the denial of the request for interim relief, there remains no underlying claim for permanent relief before the Court. The federal law claims have thus been “eliminated before trial,” triggering the Court’s discretion under the supplemental jurisdiction statute.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims against another defendant remain, even after the federal claims against one defendant have been dismissed.

Yates v. Washington Federation of State Employees, AFSCME Council 28, AFL-CIO · filed 2020-06-12(c)(3)

However, a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” § 1367(c)(3). ... Because federal law claims still remain in the case, the Court will not dismiss Yates’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after a plaintiff voluntarily withdraws the only federal claim, even though the court did not dismiss that claim.

Griego v. The Tehama Law Group, P.C. · filed 2020-08-21(c)(3)

Thus, it is immaterial that Plaintiff withdrew the only federal claim rather than having that claim dismissed by the Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when federal claims remain in the case.

Beyer v. Michels Corporation · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

Because the court has concluded that the plaintiff has stated pre-shift overtime and interrupted meal claims under FLSA, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

A request to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) is moot when the federal claim survives summary judgment.

Mace v. Ray · filed 2022-07-08(c)(3)

As Mace’s federal ADA claim has survived summary judgment, the Court retains original jurisdiction over all her claims. Thus, Ray’s request that the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction over her state law IIED claim is moot.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the federal claims survive dismissal.

Nelson v. St. Catherine University · filed 2024-05-21(c)(3)

For the reasons stated, the Court has ruled that the federal claims survive dismissal. Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 3, the state law claim of Intrusion Upon Seclusion.

Section 1367(c)(3)'s ground for declining supplemental jurisdiction does not arise when federal claims remain pending against another defendant.

Mateen v. City of Gulfport · filed 2024-08-08(c)(3)

Because there are federal claims still pending in this case, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims brought against the City of Gulfport.

When no viable federal cause of action remains, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

ERRINGTON v. City of Reading d/b/a Reading Police Department · filed 2025-01-15(c)(3)

Without a federal cause of action, this Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Act 57 violation claim and need not address it.

Section 1367 does not preserve supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the court dismisses the only federal claim.

McDonald v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. · filed 2025-03-06(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ FLSA claim, it no longer has supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed when a federal claim remains pending.

Williams v. COUNTY OF DELAWARE · filed 2025-04-17(c)(3)

But subsection (c)(3) is inapplicable because the Court still has original federal-question jurisdiction over the § 1983 claim against GEO.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that all claims within its original jurisdiction were dismissed when federal claims remain.

Nagle v. Pottsville Area School District · filed 2025-06-16(c)(3)

As such, the Court has not “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count IX is DENIED. (Doc. 10).

When all federal claims are unripe and diversity is absent, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon · filed 1993-07-12(c)(3)

All of the plaintiff's federal claims were dismissed as unripe, and there was no diversity of citizenship. This court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute and, therefore, could 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 dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Siva v. American Board of Radiology · filed 2019-11-19(c)(3)

As for the unjust enrichment claim, the parties appear to agree that it arises under Illinois law (Pl.’s Resp. Mem. at 19 n.13), and, having concluded that plaintiff fails to state a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state claim.

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

Finkelstein v. Mardkha · filed 2007-07-10(c)(3)

Because the parties have already completed discovery, and because the state law claim will not require resolution of any difficult questions of state law, the Court chooses in its discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law unjust enrichment claim.

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

Celestial Community Development Corp. v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2012-09-28(c)(3)

This court had supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Two and Three pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Two and Three was predicated on the original, federal question jurisdiction over Count One pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because Celestial’s sole federal claim has been dismissed and because the record does not otherwise establish an independent basis for this court’s jurisdiction over Celestial’s unjust enrichment claim, I decline to exercise pendant jurisdiction over Celestial’s state-law claim asserted in Count Three. Accordingly, I remand this matter to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

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

MacHal, Inc. v. Jena Band of Choctaw Indians · filed 2005-07-21(c)(3)

Under that statute, if the claims over which the court has original jurisdiction are dismissed, then the court has discretion to dismiss any claims over which it has supplemental jurisdiction. ... Plaintiffs claim for unjust enrichment is dismissed without prejudice because the causes of action upon which the court’s original jurisdiction were based have been dismissed before trial.

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

Reliance Standard Life Insurance v. Lyons · filed 2011-02-22(c)(3)

Subsection (c)(3) states that a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, now that all ... claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction have dropped out, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lake City Bank’s state-law unjust enrichment claim, and it will be dismissed.

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

Platzer v. Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research · filed 1992-03-04(c)(3)

With the federal claims dismissed, the only remaining claims are state law claims under contract and unjust enrichment theories. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining claims.

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

Spickler v. Lee · filed 2002-07-01(c)

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 upon which relief can be granted, the Court. declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over his state law claims for unjust enrichment, and injury to reputation. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Sheldon v. Vermonty · filed 1999-05-25(c)(3)

In the absence of any separate jurisdictional basis for his common law claims for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, the court, in its discretion, declines to reach the merits of defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to- these claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction when a risk that state courts will apply the two-dismissal rule would prevent resolution of state claims on the merits.

Thomas v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company of Arkansas · filed 2019-11-25(c)(3)

Notwithstanding the defendants’ careful and candid reading of the cases, the danger on this unsettled question is that the Arkansas courts might sua sponte strictly apply the two-dismissal rule and not decide the merits of Thomas’s state claims. The law should prefer decisions on the merits rather than procedural thickets. In these unique circumstances, the Court will exercise its discretion and retain supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state wage-payment and wage-statement claims covering different periods when they share operative facts and evidence with federal claims and no statutory ground warrants declining jurisdiction.

Landy v. Pettigrew Crewing, Inc. · filed 2019-11-22(a), (c)

Here, the Court finds that both the § 226 claims and the earlier § 204 claims will form the same case or controversy as the federal claims because they are all based on the manner in which Defendant paid its employees. ... In addition, all of the claims will likely rely on similar evidence; the same witnesses and wage statements could likely prove Plaintiff's entitlement to relief in each of them. ... The Court finds that none of the above factors compel it to decline supplemental jurisdiction in this case. As such, the Court, in its discretion, will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over both the earlier § 204 claims and the entirety of the § 226 claims.

Section 1367 permits retaining jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and the claim-preclusive barrier to a state-court remedy justify doing so.

Belezos v. Board of Selectmen of Hingham, Massachusetts · filed 2019-11-27(c)

Judicial economy and convenience provided a basis to adjudicate both sets of claims because they involved the same legal issue, i.e., claim preclusion, and the same procedural facts, i.e., plaintiff’s state-court proceedings. ... The resurgence of the issue of a state forum and remedy as barred by claim preclusion thus provided justification to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and decide that issue by adjudicating defendants’ reconsideration motion.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction and remanding state-law foreclosure claims after federal claims are withdrawn when federal proceedings are at an early stage and the state court is already familiar with the foreclosure proceeding.

Robertson v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2019-12-02(c)(4)

In this case, the Court finds supplemental jurisdiction should be declined. ... The record shows this is an exceptional case. ... Moreover, a C.R.C.P. 120 proceeding is uniquely a matter of state court procedural and substantive law over Colorado real property. ... Plaintiffs sought remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (which applies where the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction) but, as Lender Defendants contend, the jurisdictional issue here is more properly considered under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (which applies where the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction). Thus, the Court may either remand the claims to the state court or dismiss them.

Section 1367(a) permits jurisdiction over a Rule 69 garnishment action to satisfy a federal judgment from a nonparty allegedly obligated to indemnify the judgment debtor.

IFC Interconsult, AG v. Safeguard International Partners, LLC · filed 2006-02-13(a)

We do not see the relevant inquiries for ancillary and supplemental jurisdiction as separate; if the District Court had ancillary jurisdiction, it also had supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Thus, under Peacock itself, ancillary jurisdiction was proper over the Rule 69 garnishment action in this case.

Section 1367 provides no proper basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all purported federal claims fail at the screening stage.

Zied-Campbell v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2013-02-19(c)(3)

Because none of plaintiffs’ purported federal claims survive the screening stage, however, there would have been no proper basis for the District Court to have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that dismisses the federal claims at screening to dismiss the remaining state-law claims without prejudice instead of deciding their merits.

Arington v. Norton · filed 2019-02-11(c)(3)

Because the district court dismissed the federal claims at screening, it should not have reached a merits decision on Arington’s state-law claims.