28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from a common nucleus of operative facts with federal claims.

Kim v. City of Sunnyside · filed 2023-04-03(a)

Additionally, because Plaintiff alleges state law claims arising from “a common nucleus of operative facts,” the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires state-law and federal claims to share a common nucleus of operative facts; an overlapping background alone is insufficient.

WILLSEY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2023-04-10(a)

Here, these state-law claims do not derive from a "common nucleus of operative facts." Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725. While Mr. Willsey's state-law claims have a background that overlaps with the rest of his complaint—i.e., the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines—they do not have a common set of facts.

Section 1367(a) requires state law counterclaims to share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims supporting original jurisdiction.

BGC, Inc. v. Bryant · filed 2023-06-21(a)

Accordingly, because there is no common nucleus of operative facts between BGC’s claims and any of Ms. Bryant’s counterclaims, there is no basis for supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

(PC) Crane v. Lopez · filed 2023-06-29(a)

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring any state law claims, the state law claims derive from a common nucleus of operative facts as the federal claims and this Court, thus, has supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same nucleus of facts as a federal claim.

(PS) Lewis v. Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corp. · filed 2023-08-09(a)

The court also has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims because they arise from the same nucleus of facts.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that does not arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as a surviving federal claim.

CARLETON v. PISCATAQUIS COUNTY JAIL · filed 2023-08-16(a)

An exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the malpractice claim, therefore, is not appropriate because the treatment of the hand injury did not arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as any surviving federal claim.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as claims within federal question jurisdiction.

Green v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC · filed 2023-08-21(a)

Green’s Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) claims in the Second Amended Complaint were properly before the Court per its federal question jurisdiction, and the state law claims in the Second Amended Complaint,21 which arose from the same nucleus of operative facts,22 were properly accorded supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) requires a state law claim to share a common nucleus of operative facts with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction; claims involving distinct events, time periods, and people do not satisfy that requirement.

Brown v. County of Solano · filed 2023-11-02(a)

Thus, because plaintiff’s federal claim brought against defendants County of Solano and Collins and her state law claim brought against defendant SDI involve distinct sets of facts arising from events that happened during different time periods and involved different people, the court concludes that they fail to satisfy the common nucleus of operative facts test.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same common nucleus of operative facts as a surviving federal claim when the claims would ordinarily be tried together.

Thru Tubing Solutions, Inc. v. Robbins · filed 2023-12-11(a)

Because the Court declined to dismiss Plaintiff’s DTSA claim, federal question jurisdiction is present under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as the state law claims arise from the same “common nucleus of operative facts” as the DTSA claim and “would ordinarily be expected to” be tried “in one judicial proceeding.”

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

OSN Labs LLC v. Phoenix Energy LLC · filed 2024-01-05(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a federal court shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all state-law claims that are within the same common nucleus of operative facts as the claim with original jurisdiction. ... Because the state-law claims arise from the same common nucleus of operative fact that gave rise to the trademark infringement claims under the Lanham Act, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to decide state law claims arising from the same interrelated events and common nucleus of operative facts as the federal claims.

United States of America v. Walgreen Co. · filed 2024-01-14(a)

I will decide the state law claims because they “arise out of the same interrelated series of events or transactions and derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims and crossclaims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Sheung Wan Gallery Limited v. Kagan · filed 2024-01-18(a)

In any case, the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 would have supplemental jurisdiction over all of Kagan’s Counterclaims and crossclaims, as they share a common nucleus of operative facts with SWG’s claims against Kagan.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same common nucleus of operative facts as a claim within original jurisdiction.

Wavve Americas Incorporated v. Unknown Party · filed 2024-02-06(a)

Additionally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a federal court shall have supplemental 3 jurisdiction over all state-law claims that are within the same common nucleus of operative 4 facts as the claim with original jurisdiction. Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 5 (2004). Because the state-law claim arises from the same common nucleus of operative 6 facts that gave rise to the trademark infringement claims under the Lanham Act, the Court 7 will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Arizona common law tortious interference 8 with business expectancy claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that shares a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim.

TAYLOR v. EMPLOYBRIDGE, INC. · filed 2024-05-10(a)

In doing so, it finds that because Taylor's wage theft claim involves the same defendants, involves overlapping timeframes, and failure to remit payment was potentially motivated by Taylor reporting the alleged discrimination, the wage theft allegation shares a common nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that does not arise from the same common nucleus of operative facts as the federal claim.

Owens v. Fitzgerald · filed 2024-05-22(a)

Under the particular facts of this case, the defamation claim did not stem from the same common nucleus of operative facts as the Fourth Amendment claim and, therefore, the district court correctly held that supplemental jurisdiction was lacking.

Section 1367(a) requires facts connecting additional claims to a federal claim to be operative in resolving the federal claim; a shared provider and insurer alone are insufficient.

Mercy Hospital of Folsom v. Health Care Service Corporation · filed 2024-07-02(a)

While “[a] loose factual connection between the claims is generally sufficient,” id., the facts connecting them must nonetheless be operative in determining the outcome of the federal claim. ... The Court does not see how Mercy’s claims related to the seven remaining patients are in any way “relevant to the resolution of” Patient No. 5’s ERISA claim.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction when the state and federal claims have distinct nuclei of operative facts and their evidence does not overlap.

JOHNSON v. AULT · filed 2024-07-23(a)

Here, the state law claims do not meet the rule for conferring supplemental jurisdiction. Distilled, there are two distinct nuclei of operative facts between the federal and state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that lacks a common nucleus of operative facts with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

RMK Merrill Stevens, LLC v. M/Y LIFESTYLE · filed 2024-08-22(a)

Finally, the Plaintiff does not dispute that the claim against USAA does not arise from a common nucleus of operative facts as Counts I and II of the amended complaint, claims over which this Court does have subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Head v. the Kane Company · filed 2011-07-25(a)

Although Relator’s Complaint does not specify the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over these claims, it is clear that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides such jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal claims.

Starbucks Corporation v. Brandpat, LLC · filed 2024-10-10(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because these claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law wage claims that arise from the same common nucleus of operative facts as a federal FLSA claim.

Morris v. King Oak Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2024-10-11(a)

Given that Plaintiff’s state law claims—brought under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law— arise under the same common nucleus of operative facts as Plaintiff’s FLSA claims, this Court will properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract counterclaim that lacks a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claim.

Smith v. Esports One Inc · filed 2024-10-16(a)

Because the claims do not derive from a common nucleus of operative facts, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the breach-of-contract counterclaim through the plaintiff’s FLSA claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state FOIA claim seeking records about an allegedly unlawful arrest and prosecution when the claim shares a common nucleus of operative facts with related federal claims.

Mathus v. Village of University Park · filed 2024-10-21(a)

Here, there is “a common a nucleus of operative facts” because the FOIA claims arise from Mathus effort to investigate the circumstances of his allegedly unlawful arrest and prosecution.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when it shares a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim.

Donis v. COUNTY OF COOK a municipal corporation · filed 2024-11-15(a)

This Court agrees with Cook County and Dart that this Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Donis’ FOIA claim. ... Donis’s FOIA claim does not share a common nucleus of operative facts with Donis’ federal claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Estrada v. Aragon Advertising, LLC · filed 2024-12-10(a)

Here, Plaintiffs original claims and Python’s counterclaims share a “common nucleus of operative facts,” and thus, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as the plaintiff’s claims, even if they do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence.

Henry v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2025-01-14(a)

The counterclaims may not require proof of the same facts—or arise from the same “transaction or occurrence”—as Henry’s claims. But they clearly arise from the same nucleus of operative facts and thus are part of the same case or controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that shares a common nucleus of operative facts with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Ludlam v. Mistick Construction Company · filed 2025-01-21(a)

Here, the claim against Defendant Porvasnik involves the same common nucleus of facts alleged in the claims against Mistick. Plaintiff’s claims against both defendants stem from the same alleged conduct by Defendant Porvasnik and his crew.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over cross-claims between nondiverse parties when they share a common nucleus of operative facts with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

The Lincoln National Life Ins. Co. v. Valdovino · filed 2025-02-19(a)

Defendant Valdovino’s cross-claims are appropriately within the scope of the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. The original interpleader action and the cross-claims both concern the same life insurance policy. Thus, both the original action and cross-claims have a common nucleus of operative facts surrounding these events.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative facts with federal claims.

Moore v. I-55 Truckstop Restaurant, Inc. · filed 2025-02-24(a)

The state and federal claims arise from the same series of events, detailed previously, and therefore “share ‘a common nucleus of operative facts,’” making supplemental jurisdiction appropriate.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a counterclaim arising from the same common nucleus of operative facts as a federal claim.

Styleline Studios International Limited v. Litvack · filed 2025-07-25(a)

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Wicks’ recommendation and, finding no clear error on its face, adopts the R&R’s recommendation as to the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the Amended Counterclaim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that share a sufficient factual connection with a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Herbert Core Drill, LLC v. Brothers Mechanical, Inc. · filed 2025-07-28(a)

In addition, because there is federal question jurisdiction over the FLSA claim asserted by Mr. Hector (and there was diversity jurisdiction at least over the fraud claim and federal question jurisdiction over the prior FLSA claim asserted by HCD), the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over additional claims “that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” ... Thus, Mr. Hector’s FLSA claim and HCD’s claims at least share the “loose factual connection” required for claims to arise from a common nucleus of operative facts.

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

Lanier v. Wise County · filed 2025-08-21(a)

In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law causes of action. Lanier presented all his claims in a single pleading, giving the district court supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The federal and state claims arose out of a common nucleus of operative facts–i.e., Wallace’s alleged harassment of Lanier and Wise County’s and Akin’s refusal to address the situation.

Section 1367(a) requires state-law claims to share a common nucleus of operative facts with a federal claim for supplemental jurisdiction.

Christian · filed 2025-11-18(a)

Further, even if Plaintiff could state a federal claim against the other defendants in this action, his claims against Drs. Flanum and Janowski and Orthopedic Physicians Alaska do not arise from a common nucleus of operative facts.

Section 1367(a) requires claims to share a common nucleus of operative facts to form part of the same case or controversy.

American Association of University Professors, Bradley University Chapter v. Bradley University · filed 2026-01-29(a)

For those reasons, the Court determines Counts One and Two do not form part of the “same case or controversy”, and, therefore, supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a) should not be exercised.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts as a federal claim.

DISANTIS · filed 2026-03-12(a)

Because these allegations arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as Plaintiff’s federal claim, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when comity concerns provide exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons.

Dorsey v. F H Associates, LLC · filed 2022-01-06(c)(4)

In light of the comity concerns described in the Court’s prior orders in similar cases,2 the Court determines that there are exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons under section 1367(c)(4) to refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when comity concerns supply exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons.

Dorsey v. Vurgec Route 66, LLC · filed 2022-01-06(c)(4)

In light of the comity concerns described in the Court’s prior orders in similar cases,2 the Court determines that there are exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons under section 1367(c)(4) to refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when comity concerns provide exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons.

Holland v. Bhattarai · filed 2022-01-06(c)(4)

In light of the comity concerns described in the Court’s prior orders in similar cases,2 the Court determines that there are exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons under section 1367(c)(4) to refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an ADA-based Unruh Act claim when exceptional threats to federal-state comity favor dismissal, especially at an early stage of litigation.

Whitaker v. Pita Hub Inc. · filed 2022-04-19(c)(4)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) authorizes a district court to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” ... Supplemental jurisdiction is also not appropriate in this case. Plaintiff concedes that his ADA claim for injunctive relief is moot. The fairness and comity considerations in light of California’s “carefully crafted reforms in this area” are present here.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain a state-law claim predicated on a surviving federal claim when no novel or complex state-law issue is identified and hearing both claims together is more efficient.

Whitaker v. Uma & Tej Inc. · filed 2022-01-07(c)

However, defendant does not identify any such issues. Moreover, ... because the ADA cause of action survives and because the Unruh Act claim is predicated on the purported ADA violation, it is more efficient for a single court to hear both claims.

Under § 1367(c)(2), whether state-law claims substantially predominate is a qualitative inquiry that considers their complexity, judicial demands, and importance relative to the federal claims.

Clark v. Milam · filed 1993-02-12(c)(2)

The question comes down to “whether the state law claims are more complex or require more judicial resources to adjudicate or are more salient in the case as a whole than the federal law claims.” ... This is a qualitative rather than quantitative inquiry.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims substantially predominate, a qualitative inquiry that considers overlapping facts and issues rather than the number of claims alone.

Hendon v. California State Senate · filed 2022-02-04(c)(2)

Overall, the Court finds Hendon’s state law claims do not substantially predominate, and there are not reasons for the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Hendon’s state law claims and denies Hendon’s Motion to Sever and Remand.

Section 1367 does not authorize a bankruptcy court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims outside its referred bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Leo v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2021-01-13(a)

Accordingly, this court will not attempt to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under §1367 over the 2016 Lawsuit or, to the extent they apply only to Dortha, the Bank’s counterclaims and crossclaims in the Trustee AP.

Section 1367 does not authorize bankruptcy courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims outside the jurisdiction that district courts may refer to them under § 157.

Enron Corp. v. Citigroup, Inc. (In Re Enron Corp.) · filed 2006-10-11(a)

As such, there is no statutory basis for bankruptcy courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not confer supplemental jurisdiction on a bankruptcy court over claims outside its referred bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Torres v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. (In Re Torres) · filed 2007-05-03

Nor does this Court, whose jurisdiction is prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the District Court’s general order of reference, have supplementary jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ defamation and FCRA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not expand a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction beyond the bankruptcy jurisdiction that may be referred to it under §§ 1334 and 157.

Boyajian v. DeLuca (In Re Remington Development Group, Inc.) · filed 1995-04-11

Having determined that DeLuca’s third-party action cannot clear § 1334’s jurisdictional hurdles, I conclude that § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction does not provide a way around them.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize bankruptcy courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims outside the matters referred under § 157(a).

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee U v. Karr · filed 2021-01-13(a)

Simply stated, Article III of the U.S. Constitution should limit a bankruptcy court from utilizing § 1367 in the same manner it limits the reach of § 157(b). Accordingly, this court will not attempt to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under §1367 over the 2016 Lawsuit or, to the extent they apply only to Dortha, the Bank’s counterclaims and crossclaims in the Trustee AP.

Section 1367 does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to bankruptcy jurisdiction under § 1334, so a bankruptcy court cannot exercise it over claims outside its referral.

Healthcare Real Estate Partners, LLC. v. Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. · filed 2022-02-04

The fact that section 157(a), however, permits the district court to refer to the bankruptcy judges for the district only “any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11” – language that is exactly coextensive with the grant of the subject-matter jurisdiction under section 1334 and does not mention any supplemental jurisdiction – strongly suggests that section 1367’s supplemental jurisdiction does not apply to section 1334’s bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not authorize a bankruptcy court to hear claims that cannot be referred to it under § 157.

Premium of America, LLC v. Sanchez (In Re Premium Escrow Services, Inc.) · filed 2006-05-23(a)

The court’s ruling today necessarily concerns only such jurisdiction as can be transferred by a district court to this court pursuant to § 157. Plainly, claims that can be heard only pursuant to § 1367 do not fall into this category. POA cannot invoke § 1367 before this court.

Section 1367(a) does not give bankruptcy courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims beyond the jurisdiction that may be referred to them under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Goldstein v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A. (In Re Goldstein) · filed 1996-09-26(a)

Thus, I may not entertain Goldstein’s F.D.C.P.A. and tort claims under supplementary jurisdiction’s mantle.

Section 1367(c)(2) does not require a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction merely because state law claims outnumber the federal claims.

Chambers · filed 2026-01-14(c)(2)

Here, although Plaintiff’s federal claim is irrefutably outnumbered, Plaintiff’s state claims do not substantially predominate over his FMLA claim.

Section 1367(c)(2) does not treat a simple difference in the number of state and federal plaintiffs as substantial predominance of the state claims.

Ervin v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc. · filed 2011-01-18(c)(2)

A simple disparity in numbers should not lead a court to the conclusion that a state claim “substantially predominates” over the FLSA action, as section 1367(c) uses that phrase.

A larger number of state law claims does not by itself establish that they substantially predominate when the federal claim relies on virtually the same facts.

ALLEN EX REL. ALLEN v. Devine · filed 2009-11-19(c)(2)

However, Section 1367 provides that the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary when state law claims “substantially predominate[ ] over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” Here, the state law claims are more numerous than the plaintiffs federal claim. Nevertheless, it is not obvious that they predominate over the plaintiffs federal claim, as the federal claim relies on virtually all of the same factual predicates as the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to remand supplemental state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, but does not require remand when the state-law claims fail to state a claim.

Collins v. Boston Public Health Commission · filed 2022-02-11(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent the complaint raises state-law tort claims against BPHC, the Court could remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... However, as discussed below, the complaint fails to state any state-law claims against BPHC. Remand is therefore unnecessary, and BPHC’s motion to dismiss will be granted.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law class despite a lack of diversity when federal claims survive.

Snow v. Align Technology, Inc. · filed 2022-02-16(a), (b)

But because the plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims have survived, the lack of diversity between the Arizona class and Align is no barrier to the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (b).

Section 1367(d) tolls the limitations period for a claim within supplemental jurisdiction while it is pending in federal court and for thirty days after dismissal, unless state law provides a longer period.

Borke v. Warren · filed 2022-02-22(d)

Thus, a dismissal without prejudice will not harm Borke because the applicable state limitations periods have been tolled while his state-law claims have been pending here and will be tolled for thirty days following dismissal of the state- law claims.

A dismissal of supplemental state-law claims under § 1367(c)(3) is without prejudice.

Saylor v. Jeffreys · filed 2022-06-27(c)(3)

By contrast, Judge Bataillon’s dismissal of Saylor’s state-law negligence claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) was necessarily “without prejudice.”

When a district court declines supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3), it should dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Booth v. Drissel · filed 2024-08-14(c)(3)

When a district court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as here under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), or otherwise, dismissal of the state law claims should be without prejudice.

When a court declines supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), it dismisses the state-law claim without prejudice.

Giles v. San Joaquin Valley Rehabilitation Hospital · filed 2024-09-12(c)

Likewise, because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim, dismissal of the claim must be without prejudice to filing in the state court. See Funkhouser v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 289 F.3d 1127, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002) (indicating that where a court declines supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), dismissal should be without prejudice).

When a court declines supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, it must dismiss the remaining state-law claims without prejudice.

Pearson v. Shriners Hospitals · filed 2025-04-02(c)(3)

We still note that “[a] district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” McCreary v. Richardson, 738 F.3d 651, 660-61 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). “When [it] exercises its discretion to dismiss state law claims,” however, “it must do so without prejudice so that the plaintiff may refile in the appropriate state court.” Id. (citing Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 246 (5th Cir. 1999)). Here, the district court dismissed the Former Employees’ state-law claims with prejudice but should have done so without prejudice. See id. For that reason, we modify its judgment of dismissal as to those claims to be without prejudice and affirm as modified.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over tort claims that are part of the same controversy as a federal Bivens claim.

Johnson v. Smith · filed 2022-02-22(a)

Since a Bivens claim asserts a federal question, Butz, 438 U.S. at 486, and the tort claims are part of the same controversy, this Court has jurisdiction over all of Johnson’s claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a fraudulent conveyance claim brought before judgment to protect recovery on related federal claims.

Zhang v. Family Wu 1, LLC · filed 2022-03-24(a)

DCL claims to avoid the transfer in advance of a judgment of this case fit squarely within the supplemental jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Section 1367 does not provide a basis for voluntarily dismissing defendants from an action.

Foley v. Pacchiega · filed 2022-03-29

Foley erroneously relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction for this motion; the court instead liberally construes Foley’s motion to be a voluntarily dismissal of defendants Patricia Foley and Juan Carlos Valdes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim paired with an ADA claim when the filing presents extraordinary circumstances tied to California’s accessibility-claim procedures.

Whitaker v. Starbucks Corporation · filed 2022-05-02(c)(4)

As the Ninth Circuit recognized, this situation presents “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of § 1367(c)(4). ... This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous similar cases in other California federal courts. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in the complaint in this case.

Section 1367(c)(4) can treat an ADA suit joined with an Unruh Act claim that circumvents California accessibility-claim requirements as an exceptional circumstance warranting consideration of declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Whitaker v. Alvarez · filed 2022-04-27(c)(4)

As the Ninth Circuit recognized, this situation presents “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of § 1367(c)(4). ... This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous similar cases in other California federal courts. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in the complaint in this case.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim accompanying an ADA claim when exceptional circumstances may supply compelling reasons.

Johnson v. Cohn · filed 2022-04-26(c)(4)

This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous similar cases in other California federal courts. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in the complaint in this case.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should retain supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim paired with an ADA claim when the filing presents extraordinary circumstances tied to evasion of California’s procedural requirements.

Johnson v. Vegetarian Golden Bamboo, Inc. · filed 2022-04-26(c)(4)

As the Ninth Circuit recognized, this situation presents “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of § 1367(c)(4). ... This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous similar cases in other California federal courts. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in the complaint in this case.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim paired with an ADA claim when the circumstances raise concerns about circumventing California’s accessibility-claim procedures.

Whitaker v. Akuranvyka USA Inc. · filed 2022-04-27(c)(4)

As the Ninth Circuit recognized, this situation presents “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of § 1367(c)(4). ... This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous similar cases in other California federal courts. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in the complaint in this case.

Section 1367(c)(4) allows a court to consider whether the shift of Unruh Act claims to federal court to avoid California’s procedural requirements presents exceptional circumstances for declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Garcia v. Seller · filed 2022-04-27(c)(4)

As the Ninth Circuit recognized, this situation presents “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of § 1367(c)(4). ... This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous similar cases in other California federal courts. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in the complaint in this case.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim accompanying an ADA claim when the circumstances may justify an exception, subject to the plaintiff’s response.

Johnson v. High Noon Pizza, Inc. · filed 2022-04-26(c)(4)

This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous similar cases in other California federal courts. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in the complaint in this case.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim paired with an ADA claim when the pairing presents extraordinary circumstances.

Whitaker v. T Rock Inc. · filed 2022-04-29(c)(4)

As the Ninth Circuit recognized, this situation presents “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of § 1367(c)(4). ... This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous similar cases in other California federal courts. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in the complaint in this case.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to consider whether exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons justify declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim paired with an ADA claim.

Johnson v. Gin · filed 2022-04-26(c)(4)

This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous similar cases in other California federal courts. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in the complaint in this case.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when exceptional circumstances supply compelling reasons, and to order the plaintiff to show cause before deciding.

Gomez v. ICANN, LLC · filed 2022-04-26(c)(4)

District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous similar cases in other California federal courts. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in the complaint in this case.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim at an early stage of an ADA case when retaining it would undermine California’s litigation reforms and federal-state comity.

Garcia v. Misafiris · filed 2023-01-03(c)(4)

Unlike Arroyo, this case is still at a very early stage, and this Court has not yet addressed or adjudicated the merits of any of Plaintiff’s claims. 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. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff within 14 days after entry of this Order to show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss without prejudice his Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) allows a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an ADA-based Unruh Act claim when exceptional circumstances raise federal-state comity concerns.

Gastelum v. TJX Companies · filed 2023-01-25(c)(4)

Following Arroyo’s guidance, the Court orders Mr. Gastelum to show cause why this Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Ventura v. Medali Group, Inc. · filed 2023-11-29(c)

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 to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over accompanying state law claims.

Magallanes v. Frangos · filed 2023-11-30(c)

The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c). ... Therefore, to assist this Court in its duty, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction ... over the Unruh Act claim and the other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff.

A state law requiring a claim to be filed in state circuit court does not divest a federal court of supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Tillman Infrastructure LLC v. The Board of Supervisors of Culpeper County, Virginia · filed 2022-05-11

Although this issue was not raised by the parties, the Court notes for the sake of completeness the fact that § 15.2-2285(F) provides that an action shall be filed “with the circuit court having jurisdiction of the land affected by the decision”—i.e., the fact that the statute contemplates filing an action in a Virginia state circuit court—does not divest this federal forum of subject matter jurisdiction over the state law causes of action. ... More recent cases applying the principle from Whitton’s Administrator have made clear that it applies to cases where the federal court exercises supplemental, in addition to diversity, jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state accessibility claims paired with an ADA claim when California’s filing restrictions create exceptional circumstances and fairness and comity provide compelling reasons to decline.

Sanchez v. Coast Auto Care and U-Haul Neighborhood Dealeret al · filed 2024-05-28(c)(4)

Here, the Court finds “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” support declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and any other state law construction-related accessibility claims asserted in the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state accessibility claims when avoiding California’s requirements for high frequency litigators creates exceptional circumstances and fairness and comity favor declining jurisdiction.

Gilbert v. Doctor's Choice Modesto LLC · filed 2023-04-21(c)(4)

Because the relevant consideration are all satisfied, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gilbert’s state law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(4) and Vo.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law accessibility claims when California’s restrictions on those claims and the volume of federal filings provide exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons.

Hernandez v. Oakmont Estate Investments LLC · filed 2023-04-26(c)(4)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that California’s enactment of laws restricting construction-related accessibility claims, combined with the burden the ever-increasing number of such cases poses to the federal courts, presents “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” that justify the Court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim paired with an ADA claim when a frequent filer’s use of federal court creates exceptional comity concerns and the Gibbs factors provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.

Whitaker v. Mission Edge Caf, Inc. · filed 2022-10-12(c)(4)

As in Vo and Arroyo, the comity concerns in this case present an exceptional circumstance under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

A high-frequency litigant’s Unruh Act claim filed alongside an ADA claim typically presents exceptional circumstances justifying a federal court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(4).

Johnson v. William S. Jarvis LLC · filed 2022-07-22(c)(4)

When a “high-frequency” litigant asserts a California Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an ADA claim, this will typically constitute an exceptional circumstance that justifies dismissal of the Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c)(4) does not permit dismissal of a supplemental Unruh Act claim based on the exceptional circumstances applicable to construction-related accessibility claims when the claim concerns an inaccessible website.

Gomez v. Muscardini Cellars LLC · filed 2022-07-06(c)(4)

The plaintiff’s claim in this case—alleging that a website is inaccessible—is not a construction-related accessibility claim. There are therefore no exceptional circumstances that would justify dismissal of the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) typically permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that a high-frequency litigant brings alongside an ADA claim as an exceptional circumstance.

Whitaker v. Harshraj Investments, Inc. · filed 2022-07-06(c)(4)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim “in exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). When a “high-frequency” litigant asserts a California Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an ADA claim, this will typically constitute an exceptional circumstance that justifies dismissal of the Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim in exceptional circumstances, which typically include a high-frequency litigant bringing a California Unruh Act claim alongside an ADA claim.

Garcia v. Romo · filed 2022-07-08(c)(4)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim “in exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). When a “high-frequency” litigant asserts a California Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an ADA claim, this will typically constitute an exceptional circumstance that justifies dismissal of the Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c)(4) generally permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim paired with an ADA claim by a high-frequency litigant because that combination presents exceptional circumstances.

Whitaker v. Neighborhood Market and Cafe Inc · filed 2022-07-08(c)(4)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim “in exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). When a “high-frequency” litigant asserts a California Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an ADA claim, this will typically constitute an exceptional circumstance that justifies dismissal of the Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim at an early stage to protect federal-state comity interests.

Davidson v. Hancock Park Group, LLC · filed 2022-07-11(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.

Section 1367(c)(4) typically permits dismissal of an Unruh Act claim paired with an ADA claim when a high-frequency litigant brings them together in federal court.

Villegas v. Hesperian Boulevard, LLC · filed 2022-07-11(c)(4)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim “in exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). When a “high-frequency” litigant asserts a California Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an ADA claim, this will typically constitute an exceptional circumstance that justifies dismissal of the Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim paired with an ADA claim when evasion of California’s restrictions on frequent filers creates exceptional comity concerns and the Gibbs values favor declining jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Kuma Kuma LLC · filed 2022-12-05(c)(4)

As in Vo and Arroyo, the comity concerns in this case present an exceptional circumstance under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act and other state law claims when exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons arise from a high-frequency ADA litigant’s evasion of California’s requirements.

Gilbert v. Sacramento/Dunnigan Holding. Co Inc · filed 2023-01-23(c)(4)

Accordingly, the Court finds that there are exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons in this action to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Unruh Act and other state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law accessibility claims when exceptional circumstances and the balance of comity, fairness, judicial economy, and convenience justify doing so.

Hernandez v. Syncrasy · filed 2023-01-26(c)(4)

After balancing the Gibbs values in this case, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances exist that justify declining supplemental jurisdiction over Hernandez’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Brooke v. Patel · filed 2022-07-25(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).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to order a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Raglin v. Shalabi Enterprises, LLC · filed 2022-07-26(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 and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and to require the plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Neal v. Lee · filed 2022-07-05(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 and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Barba v. The Kind Sage, LLC · filed 2022-07-01(c)

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 to consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, and to require the plaintiff to show cause why it should do so.

Cauley v. Valencia · filed 2022-07-01(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’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 district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims before deciding whether to decline jurisdiction.

Marquise Bailey v. Quigley · filed 2022-07-05(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 and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when fairness and comity may counsel against it.

Weilch v. Riddell · filed 2022-07-05(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, Disabled Persons Act, Unfair Competition Act, and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Rhambo v. Chen · filed 2022-07-07(c)

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 require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Weilch v. Diaz · filed 2022-07-07(c)

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 require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Davidson v. Tong · filed 2022-07-07(c)

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 may order the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise that jurisdiction.

Williamson v. CA 1000 North La Brea, LLC · filed 2022-07-07(c)

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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims if the plaintiff fails to respond timely or adequately to an order to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Marquise Bailey v. Casner · filed 2022-07-08(c)

Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims and dismissing such claim or claims without further notice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Davidson v. Ahir · filed 2022-07-08(c)

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

EARLEY v. DOUGHERTY · filed 2022-07-12(c)(3)

In this case, the Court is dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Doe v. MORRIS COUNTY · filed 2022-07-13(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim is dismissed, the Court no longer has subject-matter Jurisdiction. As a result, the Court does not reach any issues concerning counts over which it exercises supplemental jurisdiction and will remand the remaining claims to state court.

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

Grater v. Damascus Township Trustees · filed 2022-07-13(c)(3)

The federal constitutional claims are dismissed. This Court declines to exercise jurisdiction of the accompanying state-law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Shetty v. City of Folsom · filed 2022-07-14(c)(3)

A district court may sua sponte decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Having dismissed claims two, five, and seven, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

MCMILLAN v. CITY OF CAMDEN · filed 2022-07-14(c)(3)

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

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

Smith v. City of New York · filed 2022-07-15(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, meaning that Plaintiff may seek to refile them in state court. ... District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gerte v. Naugatuck · filed 2022-07-18(c)(3)

In light of a district court’s discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and after balancing the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses the remaining claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

The United States of America v. Trividia Health Inc · filed 2022-07-18(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the federal False Claims Act claims, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over Relator’s state law claims, pursuant to section 1367(c)(3).

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

Cooper v. Feeney · filed 2022-07-18(c)(3)

To the extent that plaintiff's complaint contains state law claims that are not specifically addressed here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

HERMAN RICE v. STRUBLE · filed 2022-07-18(c)

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

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

CATERBONE v. PNC BANK · filed 2022-07-12(c)

Because the Court has dismissed the RICO claim and there are no other non-frivolous federal law claims apparent in Caterbone’s pleading, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

LaPlante v. Camens · filed 2022-07-12(c)

Once a district court has dismissed the federal claims in an action, it maintains discretion to dismiss the supplemental state law claims over which it properly has supplemental jurisdiction, or remand in cases removed from state court.

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

Smyer v. Kroger Limited Partnership I · filed 2022-07-14(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) authorizes district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction “if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Comity and efficiency do not support retaining jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. Advancing these claims further would require the Court to “resolve exclusively” state law issues. Southard, 7 F.4th at 455. Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Counts 3-6 and 13 and dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when retaining them would not serve judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Adamides v. Warren · filed 2022-07-15(c)

Further, the Court finds that it would not serve the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims of assault and battery, and violation of New York Civil Rights Law § 79-P.

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

Nwoke v. Ramirez · filed 2022-07-13(c)(3)

To the extent that Nwoke’s complaint asserts any state law claims against Ramirez, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. Federal courts may decide claims arising from violations of federal law and accompanying state law claims over which the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Because the defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings on the federal claims, no federal question remains before this court. This remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Pianoforte v. Little Red School House · filed 2022-07-13(c)(3)

One such circumstance is where, as here, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. at § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, as Pianoforte’s federal claims have all been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Green v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. · filed 2022-07-14(c)(3)

Here, we have found that Green’s federal claims against Sanofi are subject to dismissal. Therefore, in the exercise of discretion in this district, we decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over potential ancillary state law claims in this case where the federal claim brought before us failed as a matter of law. Accordingly, the PHRC claim against Sanofi is dismissed without prejudice for the plaintiff to file in state court. While we acknowledge the gravity of the plaintiff’s allegations, we also recognize that Green’s failure to timely pursue these allegations has legal consequences. We are constrained by the stringent exhaustion standards laid out by the governing federal statute and conclude that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As to the federal claims, the Title VII claims are time-barred and are dismissed with prejudice. To the extent that the plaintiff brings state claims against Sanofi, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the matter and thus dismiss Green’s PHRC claims without prejudice to her filing in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after resolving all federal claims before trial, absent unusual circumstances warranting retention.

Northern, Lawrence v. Hentz, Anthony · filed 2022-07-18(c)(3)

Here, neither party identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over Northern’s state-law claims now that I have granted summary judgment to defendants on all of Northern’s Eighth Amendment claims. I will decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Northern’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) calls for consideration of an exception to the usual relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims are dismissed when the limitations period would bar refiling the state claims.

Jaimes v. Cook County, Illinois · filed 2022-07-18(c)

Although in most cases the district court should presumptively relinquish jurisdiction over the state law claims when the accompanying federal claims drop out before trial, exceptions exist. See, e.g., Williams Elecs. Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 2007) (exception applies “where the statute of limitations would bar the refiling of the supplemental claims in state court”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims, ordinarily doing so unless an exception warrants retaining the claim.

Moss v. Schimp · filed 2022-07-18(c)(3)

For these reasons, relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction is proper here and Defendant Ryan Ward’s counterclaim is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Williams v. Muran · filed 2022-07-18(c)(3)

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

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

Williams v. Colby · filed 2022-07-18(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing federal claims when judicial economy favors deciding the claims together.

Gayle v. Allee · filed 2021-01-13(c)

However, a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) if it determines that doing so is proper after “balanc[ing] the traditional ‘values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Carnegie—Mellon Univ. vy. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Here, jurisdiction is proper because “there are no material differences between the standards that apply to Lanham Act claims and the standards that apply to New York trademark and unfair competition claims.” Gayle, 2018 WL 2059657, at *4. Accordingly, since it would be inefficient to allow Gayle to bring these same claims in state court, the Court dismisses Gayle’s state claims for the same reasons it dismisses his Lanham Act claims.

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

24 Seven, LLC v. Martinez · filed 2021-01-26(c)(3)

Because I am dismissing Plaintiff’s only federal claim, the balance of factors counsel in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction. ... Therefore, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law causes of action pursuant to § 1367(c).

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

Oakes v. Collier County · filed 2021-01-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain a related state law claim after resolving the sole federal claim when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor doing so.

Cruz v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · filed 2021-01-28(c)(3)

Having weighed the competing factors, the Court finds that it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, in light of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Jordan, Jr. v. Stroughter · filed 2021-02-17(c)(3)

The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims against Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and accordingly dismisses these claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after dismissing all federal claims early in litigation when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor doing so.

Duff v. Pristine Services, Inc. · filed 2021-02-19(c)(3)

Here, the Court has granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss as to all of Duff’s federal claims. “Because the Court addressed and dismissed these claims early in the litigation, declining jurisdiction over the remaining state and municipal claims would not disserve the principles of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness.” ... For this reason, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related common law claims after dismissing the only federal claim when equitable factors, including judicial economy and convenience, favor retention.

Bushrod v. District of Columbia · filed 2021-02-22(c)(3)

Because the Court will grant summary judgment on the only federal claim, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common law claims. ... Judicial economy and convenience weigh against having the parties relitigate the issues elsewhere. The Court finds that the factors overall warrant retaining jurisdiction over the two common law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, including at summary judgment, when comity favors leaving state-law issues to state courts.

Mt. Pleasant Blacktopping Company Inc. v. Greene County, Ohio · filed 2021-02-24(c)(3)

In this Court’s opinion, after carefully weighing the Fox factors, comity concerns weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to avoid needlessly deciding state-law issues, particularly those of local concern in Greene County.

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

Wong v. New York City Administration Children's Services · filed 2021-02-26(c)

Having dismissed plaintiff’s federal-law claims, I decline to retain jurisdiction over her state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy and fairness support retaining them.

Hatfield v. Cottages on 78th Community Association, The · filed 2021-03-01(c)(3)

While acknowledging the judicial preference for declining supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims have been dismissed, the court finds the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction justified here. All Hatfield’s state-law claims have been fully briefed and, as discussed below, are meritless. Neither the state courts nor the defendants should be burdened with them. Electing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to grant the motions for judgment on the pleadings is the fairest and most economic resolution of the claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the case’s posture and judicial economy favor retention.

BOSTON v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES · filed 2021-03-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims on the merits, and there being no indication of diversity jurisdiction at least because the parties are not diverse, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the Court could choose not to exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, the facts and pos- ture of this case, along with notions of judicial economy counsel for the Court to exer- cise its jurisdiction here.

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

Haskell v. Cuomo · filed 2021-03-08(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of a viably pled federal law claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any state law claims, including Plaintiff’s purported speedy trial claim under CPL 30.30, that may be reasonably construed from the complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims contained in Plaintiff’s complaint and dismisses any such claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims before trial, based on judicial economy, avoiding multiple lawsuits, and the need to avoid needless decisions of state law.

Taylor 225263 v. Washington · filed 2021-03-15(c)

In determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues.” Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. Id. Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the lack of complex state-law questions favor retention.

ESI/Employee Solutions, LP v. City of Dallas · filed 2021-03-25(c)

Because the factors of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties, combined with the lack of a complex or novel question of state law, all favor retaining jurisdiction of the state claim, the Court concludes that these factors outweigh the fact that the federal claims have been dismissed. The Court will exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the state preemption claim.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Keren Kayemeth Leisrael-Jewish National Fund v. Education for a Just Peace in the Middle East · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

Finally, because I have found that plaintiffs have failed to allege a substantial federal cause of action, I will dismiss plaintiffs' D.C. law claims for lack of pendent jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). After all, in exercising this discretion, I must balance the traditional “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” and the plaintiffs here, like the plaintiffs in so many other cases, can’t survive that juggling exercise.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after disposing of all federal claims, in light of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Lerer v. The Spring Valley Fire Department, Inc. · filed 2021-04-14(c)(3)

Having determined that the Amended Complaint fails to state any federal claims on which relief can be granted, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s defamation claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, with comity among the factors considered.

Gonzalez v. Connecticut Department of Correction · filed 2021-05-13(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss Ms. Gonzalez’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim without prejudice as a result.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Dillard v. City of Springdale, Arkansas · filed 2021-05-14(c)

The Court finds no compelling reason to decline supplemental jurisdiction and, in fact, finds that retaining jurisdiction would best serve the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the only federal claim, in light of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Zabit v. Brandometry, LLC · filed 2021-05-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses the federal claims before trial; the decision is discretionary and weighs judicial economy against needless decisions of state law.

Brown 150582 v. Munising Memorial Hospital · filed 2021-05-20(c)(3)

Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. Id. Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Alford 244180 v. Carson City Health Care · filed 2021-05-25(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims, if any, will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing every federal claim; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity usually favor doing so.

Favors v. Nicollet County District Court · filed 2021-06-02(c)(3)

As Magistrate Judge Wright recognized, the Eighth Circuit has regularly observed that, “when a district court has dismissed every federal claim, . . . judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity will usually point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” McManemy v. Tierney, 970 F.3d 1034, 1041 (8th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367; R&R at 3. Because Favors’s federal claims will be dismissed, it is also appropriate to dismiss his state-law negligence claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retaining it.

BILLINGS v. RYZE CLAIM SOLUTIONS, LLC · filed 2021-06-07(c)(3)

In short, the Court finds that the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity — when viewed in light of the forum selection clause and its effect on where this case would ultimately end up if it were remanded — lead the Court to determine that, in its discretion, it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this litigation.