28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction and to dismiss the state claim without prejudice.

SZERENSCI v. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COURT 14-3-02 · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

In this instance, if Plaintiffs do not elect to amend their federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state negligence claim and will dismiss it without prejudice to their ability to bring that claim in state court.

When all federal claims are dismissed well before trial, Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Figueroa-Collazo v. Ferrovial Construccion PR, LLC · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

In the case at bar, all federal claims are being properly dismissed well before the commencement of trial. See Rodríguez v. Doral Mortgage Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1175 (1st Cir. 1995). Therefore, the Court will exercise its discretion and reject exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims asserted over, to wit, the Puerto Rico Unjust Dismissal Act, Law 80 of 1976, as amended, PR Laws Ann. Tit. 29 § 185, et seq., and for retaliatory termination under the Puerto Rico Anti-Reprisal Act, Law 115 of 1991, as amended, PR Laws Ann. Tit. 29 § 194, et seq. Accordingly, all state law claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Purpura v. Does Members of the Inmate Classification Committee · filed 2021-10-18(c)(3)

Therefore, in the absence of any viable federal claim upon which § 1983 relief may be granted, the Court exercises its discretion and DISMISSES all Plaintiff's supplemental state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a federal court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed; the court may continue to consider the state law claims when the dismissal is without prejudice.

Meyer v. County of San Diego · filed 2021-10-21(c)(3)

Before discussing this and Plaintiff’s other state law claims against the remaining Defendants, the Court notes that where no federal claim remains against a Defendant, a federal court has discretion to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over pendant state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001). However, since the Court does not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice at this stage, the Court will proceed to analysis of the sufficiency of the allegations supporting Plaintiff’s state law claims even where the Court has dismissed the federal law claims, above.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed before trial, ordinarily dismissing those state claims without prejudice.

Greenwald Family Limited Partnership v. Village of Mukwonago · filed 2021-11-03(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. And when the federal claims in a case have been disposed of, the usual practice in this circuit “is to dismiss without prejudice state supplemental claims whenever all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.” Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999). Nothing in this case suggests that I should depart from the usual practice.

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

3BTech Inc v. Garelick · filed 2021-11-09(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the RICO claims over which it has original jurisdiction for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”). The Court dismisses the state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss a supplemental state law claim without prejudice after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Coleman v. Marion · filed 2021-11-18(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, such as Count 1 above, the district court has discretion to either retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claim or dismiss it. ... The Court will follow the general rule here and dismiss Count 2 without prejudice to Plaintiff re-pleading this claim in this or another action in federal or state court.

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

Brandon v. St. Louis City Police Officers · filed 2021-12-06(c)

Having carefully reviewed and liberally construed the plaintiff’s complaint, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s official capacity claims against all defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To the extent plaintiff has any state law claims, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over such claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after disposing of the only federal claim.

Farris v. Labette County Medical Center · filed 2021-12-21(c)(3)

One of those exceptions is when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court finds that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the only federal claim. All that remains are Plaintiff’s two state-law retaliation claims and Defendant’s state-law counterclaim. These claims are better resolved by the state court. Based on this consideration and the other considerations outlined above, the Court declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Branch-Noto v. Sisolak · filed 2021-12-22(c)(3)

And because I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Vargasan v. MG Freesites, LTD · filed 2022-05-04(c)(3)

Further, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Thus, Plaintiffs state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Jordan v. City of Toledo · filed 2022-05-12(c)(3)

As the Court has found Plaintiff Williams’ federal claims must be dismissed, it exercises its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim and dismiss it without prejudice.

Olson v. PowerBlock, Inc. · filed 2022-05-23(c)(3)

Thus, Olson’s remaining state-law claim for tortious interference with prospective business advantage lacks an independent basis for federal jurisdiction and will be dismissed without prejudice to Olson’s right to re-file it in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of state law claims after the only federal claim is dismissed.

Altieri v. Valdavinos · filed 2022-06-03(c)(3)

In any event, to the extent that the complaint pleads any state law claims, they are dismissed without prejudice to being filed in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Doe v. Plymouth-Canton Community Schools · filed 2022-06-03(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed a plaintiff’s federal law claims, it should not ordinarily reach the plaintiff’s state law claims. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); Rouster v. Cty. of Saginaw, 749 F.3d 437, 454 (6th Cir. 2014); Jones v. Univ. of Detroit Mercy, 527 F. Supp. 3d 945, 951 (E.D. Mich. 2021). Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Doe’s state law claim and dismisses it without prejudice.

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

Martinez v. Nurse Laura · filed 2022-06-06(c)(3)

The Court dismisses with prejudice all federal claims asserted by Plaintiff Martinez, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, and dismisses the state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after the federal claim has been dismissed without prejudice.

Beckham v. Loyola Marymount University · filed 2022-06-24(c)(3)

The federal claim having been dismissed without prejudice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when judicial economy favors retention.

Wilkinson v. Pinnacle Lodging, LLC · filed 2022-08-03(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Because the analysis of the state-law claims follows that of the federal claims, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction in the interest of judicial economy.

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

Fagan v. Conmy · filed 2022-08-03(c)(3)

However, as the Court found that Fagan’s federal claims in Count I must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. 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.

Carter v. Bentley · filed 2022-08-04(c)(3)

In light of the court’s disposition of the federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Carter’s state law claims at this time and will dismiss those claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (authorizing a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

SALAS v. GEORGIA · filed 2022-08-05(c)(3)

Now that the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Salas’s state law claims, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Montgomery v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation · filed 2022-08-05(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has withdrawn all her federal claims, this Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3). Therefore, to determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, the Court turns to the four factors set forth in Carnegie-Mellon, supra: judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... In sum, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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.

Gifford v. The City of Scranton · filed 2022-08-05(c)(3)

As the Court finds that Gifford’s federal claims should be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear Gifford’s state law claim. Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guiding that choice.

Rogers v. Pocono Mountain East High School · filed 2022-08-05(c)(3)

However, as the Court found that Rogers’s federal claims must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Christian v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. · filed 2022-08-08(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where all of the claims over which the court maintained original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Katz v. New York City Housing Preservation & Development · filed 2022-08-08(c)(3)

Considering these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Katzes’ state and city law claims.

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

Lavallee v. Chronister · filed 2022-08-09(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has discretion to remand cases involving pendent state-law claims when the “district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims.

Slone 358764 v. Fair · filed 2022-08-03(c)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the state tort claims are DISMISSED under to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) because the Court declines to exercise supplemental consideration over them.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state claim raises a novel or complex issue, substantially predominates, all original-jurisdiction claims have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide other compelling reasons.

Lee v. Jiang · filed 2022-08-04(c)

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).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim paired with an ADA claim when the litigation is at an early stage and comity interests outweigh the inefficiency of refiling in state court.

Whitaker v. Aguilar · filed 2022-08-04(c)(4)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim because the litigation is at an early stage and comity interests outweigh any inefficiencies.

Section 1367(c) permits the court to retain state-law claims when the federal claims survive dismissal and no other ground for dismissing the state-law claims is offered.

Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. v. 203 Jay St. Associates, LLC · filed 2022-08-04(c)

Since the court has de- clined to dismiss PlaintifPs FHA claims, and Defendants have not proffered any other basis for the dismissal of the New York claims, the court declines to dismiss the New York claims at this time.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims for the reasons listed in that subsection.

Williams v. Lopez · filed 2022-08-05(c)

The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over FLSA counterclaims barred by Fifth Circuit precedent, whether the counterclaims are compulsory or permissive.

Naranjo v. Nick's Management Inc · filed 2022-08-05(c)(4)

Having reviewed the relevant authorities, the Court concludes that, even assuming it could properly assert supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ counterclaims, it should decline to exercise such jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(4) because the Fifth Circuit has held that Defendants’ counterclaims are inappropriate in an FLSA action.

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

Mohamed v. Bank of America N.A. · filed 2022-08-11(c)(3)

To the extent Mohamed alleges BANA has violated state law in counts II-VI, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

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

Fuller v. Dixon · filed 2022-08-11(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims, the court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE those claims.

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

Helm v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County · filed 2022-08-11(c)(3)

This case is by no means unusual, and the Court sees no reason to exercise its discretionary supplemental jurisdiction over Helm’s remaining claim in the face of the strong presumption against doing so.

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

Bage v. Galveston County DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED. · filed 2022-08-12(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over state-law claims when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Following this general practice, I recommend the Court decline to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over any state-law claims raised by Plaintiff and remand those claims to state court.

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

Burton v. Ouellette · filed 2022-08-12(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Burton’s remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that if a federal court dismisses all federal claims, it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims); Giordano v. City of New York, 274 F.3d 740, 754 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing cases).

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

Abbott v. Comme Des Garcons, Ltd. · filed 2022-08-12(c)

Nevertheless, the Court exercises its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Cheruvu v. HealthNow New York Inc. · filed 2022-08-12(c)(3)

The balance of those factors here weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Harvey v. Great Circle · filed 2022-08-15(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, after consideration of the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I and II, which involve questions of state law that would be better determined by the Missouri state courts.

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

Knight v. City of Omaha · filed 2022-08-15(c)(3)

However, a district court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In most cases, when federal and state claims are joined and the federal claims are dismissed, the pendent state claims are dismissed without prejudice “to avoid ‘[n]eedless decisions of state law . . . as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties.’” Ivy v. Kimbrough, 115 F.3d 550, 552-53 (8th Cir. 1997) (alteration in original) (citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)). Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state-law claim.

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

Thomas 254903 v. Stevens · filed 2022-08-16(c)

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

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

Armellino v. Alvarez · filed 2022-08-16(c)(3)

Lastly, I decline to retain jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Cole v. Gonce · filed 2022-08-19(c)(3)

However, because the court grants Defendants’ MSJ on Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law assault and battery claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

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

Brown 712722 v. Unknown Party 1 · filed 2022-08-19(c)(3)

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

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

FORREST HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICES ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY · filed 2022-08-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims raised in the Amended Complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under state law.

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

Jones 403344 v. Haverdink · filed 2022-08-22(c)(3)

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction. ... Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

CHAGARES v. MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2022-08-22(c)(3)

Consequently, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses the rest of the state law claims.

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

Alpine 4 Holdings Incorporated v. Finn Management GP LLC · filed 2022-08-23(c)(3)

Because that claim will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Rosati v. Long Island Railroad · filed 2022-08-23(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the FAC’S various state law claims. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Ramirez v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2022-08-23(c)(3)

Plaintiffs federal claims having been dismissed, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After the only federal claim is dismissed before trial, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim unless circumstances warrant retaining it.

LeSure v. Walmart Inc · filed 2022-08-24(c)(3)

This is not an “unusual case,” which means that under the above-stated general rule, if the court has no other source of jurisdiction, the court could decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the defamation claim without determining whether the plaintiff has stated sufficient facts to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to that claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after all federal claims are dismissed before trial, considering judicial resources, overlap between claims, the clarity of the state-law outcome, and state policy.

Pitts v. Barsch · filed 2022-08-24(c)(3)

In the end, the Court concludes that relinquishing jurisdiction over the state-law claim is appropriate. Because of this Circuit’s presumption for relinquishing jurisdiction, see Al’s Serv. Ctr., 599 F.3d at 727, and the fact that whether the Court should grant Pitts’s false arrest claim as a matter of law is not “absolutely clear,” see Donald, 982 F.3d at 461, together with the important policy conflicts his claim may raise, see Hagan, 867 F.3d at 830, the Court dismisses Pitts’s false imprisonment claim without prejudice.

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

Chisholm v. Stryker · filed 2022-08-24(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 other state law claims that may be reasonably construed from the amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any other potential state-law claims contained in Plaintiff’s amended complaint, apart from the NYSHRL claim which the Court has already dismissed, and thus dismisses any such claims without prejudice.

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

Williams v. City of New York · filed 2022-08-24(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all of the plaintiff’s federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

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

Hughes v. Oklahoma State of · filed 2022-08-31(c)(3)

Given the early stages of the case and the dismissal by plaintiffs of previously filed lawsuits against defendants, the court will exercise its discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and remand the action to state court.

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

Whitaker v. Mani Pedi Nails Spa Inc. · filed 2022-09-01(c)(3)

Consequently, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Whitaker's state law claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (providing court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); ... and said claim is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Harrison v. DPSCS - Secretary · filed 2022-09-01(c)(3)

However, because all federal claims will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims and will dismiss them under 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, especially early in the case when little judicial work has been done on those claims.

Dos Santos v. Assurant, Inc. · filed 2022-09-01(c)(3)

Such is the case here. With the Court’s having found Dos Santos’s federal claim time- barred, and diversity jurisdiction lacking, the only conceivable basis for jurisdiction over Dos Santos’s state-law claims would be the discretionary one of supplemental jurisdiction. Declining to exercise such jurisdiction at this early stage is warranted because “[t]he Court has not invested the judicial resources necessary to resolve [the] non-federal claims” or determined whether the Complaint even adequately pleads them.

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.

Franks v. City of Jasper · filed 2022-09-07(c)(3)

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... In the interests of comity and fairness, this court therefore declines to consider the merits of Franks’ state law claim for assault and battery.

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

Huggins v. School District of Manatee County · filed 2022-09-07(c)(3)

However, having dismissed with prejudice all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these non-diverse state law claims.

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

Bradford v. Jackson Service Station · filed 2022-09-07(c)(3)

Plaintiffs state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's asserting them in state court, as the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.' See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Tucker v. Michael Bonsby Heating and Air Conditioning LLC · filed 2022-09-07(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the only federal claim (Count II), the Court will exercise its discretion to remand Tucker’s remaining state-law negligence claim (Count III) to Maryland 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.

Nimham-El-Dey v. Childrens Aid Society · filed 2022-09-08(c)(3)

WHEREAS, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Complaint’s state law claims. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 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.

White v. Dupont Specialty Products USA, LLC · filed 2022-09-08(c)(3)

With the original jurisdiction claims dismissed, this Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action and will not consider whether she states a claim under the New York State Human Rights Law.

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

McElhaney v. Williams · filed 2022-09-08(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here because Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is the type of claim Tennessee courts routinely and skillfully consider and involves an agreement (or not) between locals.

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

NELLOM v. AMBROSE · filed 2022-09-09(c)(3)

To the extent Mr. Nellom intended to assert state law claims, there is no affirmative justification for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Project for Open Government v. County of San Diego · filed 2022-09-12(c)(3)

Lastly, as the Court has dismissed Plaintiff's sole federal claim at the outset of the litigation, the Court exercises its discretion to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction 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.

316 Courtland Avenue, LLC v. Frontier Communications Corporation · filed 2022-09-12(c)(3)

As the CERCLA claim is being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Mogan v. CITY OF CHICAGO · filed 2022-09-12(c)(3)

And because the Court has dismissed Mogan’s claims against the City, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his declaratory judgment claim against the Roscoe HOA.

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

Barber v. Frakes · filed 2022-09-12(c)(3)

If any Defendant is not required to be sued under the STCA for negligence or malpractice, then this court will decline to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state-law] claim … if … the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, ….”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; remaining state law claims ordinarily should be dismissed without prejudice when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Tiger v. Powell · filed 2022-09-13(c)(3)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if there is a jurisdictional basis for doing so, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s state-law claims without prejudice.

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

Advance Corporation v. Baltimore County, Maryland · filed 2022-09-13(c)(3)

A court “may,” however, “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Principles of comity thus militate toward remand. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 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.

Antolini v. Nieves · filed 2022-09-13(c)(3)

Because I am dismissing Plaintiff’ s federal claim, the balance of factors counsel in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction. ... Therefore, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to § 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.

Robinson v. Northumberland County Jail · filed 2022-09-13(c)(3)

But where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when it has not substantially reviewed or invested judicial resources in those claims.

Flores v. Smith · filed 2022-09-14(c)(3)

As the Court has not engaged in any meaningful review of the merits of the state law claims and has not otherwise committed substantial judicial resources to them, declining to exercise jurisdiction is proper.

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

JOHNSON v. KUHN · filed 2022-09-15(c)(3)

Because the Court dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims Plaintiff’s intended to raise.

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

Pearson v. Whatley · filed 2022-09-15(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if that court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because Ms. Pearson’s complaint does not allege any cognizable federal claim, and there is no basis in this action for original diversity jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any State law claim Ms. Pearson might also be attempting to assert.

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

Davis v. Kim · filed 2022-09-16(c)(3)

Federal courts “may decline” to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in certain circumstances including if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... After considering these factors, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Thomas v. Five Star Electric · filed 2022-09-16(c)(3)

Rather than conduct this separate analysis, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims against Five Star under the NYCHRL and shall dismiss them on that basis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988).

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

Balogun v. New York State Division of Human Rights · filed 2022-09-16(c)(3)

District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Brooks v. Memphis Police Department · filed 2022-09-16(c)(3)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brooks’s State Law Claims because the Court is dismissing all of the Federal Claims with prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when it has not devoted substantial judicial resources to the state claims.

Lynch v. DeMotte State Bank · filed 2022-09-19(c)(3)

As the Court has not engaged in any meaningful review of the state law claims against DeMotte and has not otherwise committed substantial judicial resources to them, declining to exercise jurisdiction over those claims is proper in this instance.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly early in the litigation.

HOLCOMB v. CARE ONE, LLC · filed 2022-09-19(c)(3)

Therefore, at this early stage in the litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses the federal claims at the pleadings stage.

Britton v. Bronx Parent Housing Network · filed 2022-09-19(c)(3)

In any event, because Britton’s federal law claims are being dismissed at the pleadings stage, the Court does not consider any remaining state law claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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. Colby · filed 2022-09-19(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)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Jones v. State of Tennessee · filed 2022-09-19(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim under federal law, this federal court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims.

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

Trevino v. Price · filed 2022-09-20(c)(3)

However, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. As, the summary judgment disposes of Trevino’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Trevino’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed early and judicial economy and comity favor declining jurisdiction.

Santana v. Exodus Transitional Community, Inc. · filed 2022-09-20(c)(3)

Such is the case here: with all federal law claims dismissed at this early stage of the action, principles of judicial economy and comity counsel heavily in favor of declining to retain jurisdiction over any purported state law claims.

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

KIM v. RIDGEFIELD · filed 2022-09-21(c)(3)

In this case, since this Court is dismissing every claim over which it had original subject matter jurisdiction, this Court declines at this juncture to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 10 as to Defendants Pellino and Ramirez and Counts 12-14 as to all Defendants, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Greene v. Dixon · filed 2022-09-22(c)(3)

With the dismissal of Greene’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Greene’s state-law claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, subject to discretionary reasons to retain the claim.

Surfrider Foundation The v. United States Steel Corporation · filed 2022-09-22(c)(3)

Nonetheless, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the City’s state law negligence claim. Federal district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when, among other things, the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, the Court concludes it is most appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the City’s state law claims.

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

Vasquez v. Doe(s) · filed 2022-09-22(c)(3)

Having determined that the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the assault and battery claims.

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

SNEED v. CONNELL · filed 2022-09-23(c)(3)

Section 1983 was Plaintiff’s only federal claim, which the Court has dismissed. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the rest of Plaintiff’s claims, which are state law claims, and dismisses said claims without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

SAUNDERS v. NJ DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-09-23(c)(3)

Here, the Court is dismissing Plaintiff's federal claims, which provide the Court with federal question jurisdiction, at the earliest possible stage of the proceeding. As a result, after considering the concerns of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts One through Five.

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

Mizrahi v. S.A.N.D Automotive Warehouse, LLC · filed 2022-09-23(c)(3)

Because I dismiss the FLSA claim — the sole basis for federal jurisdiction in this case — I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims.

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

Uzamere v. Uzamere · filed 2022-09-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

When all federal claims disappear early in litigation, a federal court generally should decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Goulsby v. Dowling · filed 2022-09-23(c)(3)

But, in most cases, a federal court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if all federal claims asserted in the same action “disappear early in the litigation.” Birdwell v. Glanz, 790 F. App’x 962, 964 (10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished).

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

I.H. v. County of Orange · filed 2022-09-27(c)(3)

In light of Plaintiffs’ unopposed request, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. “When federal claims are dismissed before trial . . . pendant state claims also should be dismissed.” Howard v. Am. Online Inc., 208 F.3d 741, 755 (9th Cir. 2000) (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (district courts “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if, among other grounds, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ First, Second, Third, and Seventh Claims based on California state law.

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

Hines v. Columbus, Mississippi · filed 2022-09-27(c)(3)

Since the parties’ lack of diversity precludes diversity jurisdiction, the Court must use its discretion to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... The defendants’ immunity under the Mississippi Torts Claim Act would be better addressed by the state courts. This Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the federal claims are dismissed early in the litigation and diversity jurisdiction is absent.

Killoran v. Westhampton Beach School District · filed 2022-09-27(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claim, which are DISMISSED without prejudice to being refiled in state court.

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

Shehee v. Kings Furniture · filed 2022-09-27(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff's state law claims arise from the same case or controversy that gave rise to the one federal claim that Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over them. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Under the circumstances presented here, however, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state law claims. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (holding that if federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well); 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3) (providing that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, even when it grants leave to amend.

Dalton v. The Pines Resorts of California, LLC · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the ADA claims, the Court will also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Malberg v. Cashen · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

Where, as here, all federal law bases cited in the Complaint have been dismissed, the Court may exercise—and will exercise—its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Marshall v. Island Lake, Vlg of · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when it dismisses all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Id. at (c)(3). ... Therefore, Plaintiff’s remaining three claims are remanded to the Cook County Circuit Court for further proceedings.

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

Bowie v. Oakland Community College · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

Because the Court grants the college’s motion as to the Title VII claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim by dismissing this claim without prejudice.

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

McMillian v. NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

Here, because all of Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines jurisdiction over any remaining claims by Plaintiff and need not address Defendants’ arguments concerning those 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.

Jiang v. Corpuz · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all the federal claims in this action, I decline to retain jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against Corpuz. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Iosilevich v. Hofstra University · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Plaintiff brought the action in state court originally, and Citibank removed it based on its view that the complaint asserted an untimely federal claim. While all factors counsel in favor of the declination of jurisdiction, fairness weighs heavily. Plaintiff’s choice of forum was New York state court, not federal court, and he should be able to prosecute his claims where he chose.

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

Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)

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

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

Aguilera-Valdez v. Davenport · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)

Having found that all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims should be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. When a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) expressly authorizes the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

Matias v. Chapdelaine · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)

Where all federal claims have been dismissed, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims. ... I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Matias’s state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly at an early stage.

VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., d/b/a VPX Sports v. Berlin Packaging LLC · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)

VPX’s Sherman Act claim is dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), and the court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over VPX’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Mays v. State Farm · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)

However, because the Court is dismissing the federal claim for failure to state a claim, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c)(3).

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

Brown v. Pouncy · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)

As a result, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Brown’s pendant state law claims.

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

Pearson v. City of New York City Department of Education · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)

Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims under state and city law.

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

Walker v. Watson · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

With no claims remaining over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim.

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

Johnson v. The Christeni Group LLC · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

The request is declined. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

King v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims prior to trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over King’s remaining state law claims.

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

DESPOSITO v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Bythewood v. The State of New York · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

Here, because all of Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines jurisdiction over any remaining claims by Plaintiff.

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

Conway v. Healthfirst Inc. · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

As the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s only federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the city law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Cox v. Renken · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

Because all of Cox’s federal law claims are being dismissed, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law.

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

Urmancheev v. United States · filed 2022-10-05(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims in the Complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims at this time.

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

Fuentes v. Humanity for Horses · filed 2022-10-06(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). The Court has original jurisdiction only over Plaintiff's Eighth Cause of Action under FFCRA and FLSA. Having dismissed this claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

PATTERSON v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY · filed 2022-10-06(c)(3)

This Court finds that no such extraordinary circumstances, or considerations of judicial economy and convenience, or fairness, are present here. This case is in its earliest stages, at the motion to dismiss stage, and discovery has not yet begun. Nor is there any particular unfairness or procedural disadvantage to having a state court hear Plaintiff’s state-law claims. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges, 204 F.3d at 123.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy, convenience, and fairness may justify retaining them.

BUNDY v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY · filed 2022-10-11(c)(3)

This Court finds that no such extraordinary circumstances, or considerations of judicial economy and convenience, or fairness, are present here. This case is in its earliest stages, at the motion to dismiss stage, and discovery has not yet begun. Nor is there any particular unfairness or procedural disadvantage to having a state court hear Plaintiff’s state-law claims. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges, 204 F.3d at 123.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, with a presumption favoring relinquishment.

Leggette v. Dr. Pepper/ Seven Up, Inc. · filed 2022-10-11(c)(3)

With the only federal claim dismissed, this court has discretionary jurisdiction over the supplemental state-law claims. ... I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed, with comity weighing in that choice.

Burgess v. Johnson · filed 2022-10-11(c)(3)

There are no unique circumstances warranting this Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction, particularly when the federal question basis for original subject matter jurisdiction has been terminated. Therefore, the Court finds the scales weigh heavily in favor of comity and against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Nolan v. Western Regional Off Track Betting Corporation · filed 2022-10-12(c)(3)

This Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims because the original jurisdiction claim no longer exists, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see 13D Federal Practice and Procedure, supra, § 3567, at 332, § 3567.3, at 428-31.

Section 1367 generally calls for federal courts to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Jackson v. Sheriff of Winnebago County · filed 2022-10-13(c)(3)

When all federal claims have been dismissed before trial, federal courts generally relinquish jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Wilson v. Price, 624 F.3d 389, 395 (7th Cir. 2010). Because no federal questions remain the court declines to exercise 28 U.S.C. § 1367 jurisdiction over the Illinois state law claims.

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

T.V.S. v. Akron City School District Board of Education · filed 2022-10-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to 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 all federal claims have been eliminated before trial.

Weiser v. Castille · filed 2022-10-14(c)(3)

All federal claims as to all defendants having been eliminated in this matter, to the extent plaintiff intended to direct any of her state law claims to the Gretna defendants, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Johnson v. Schmidt · filed 2022-10-17(c)(3)

Because the complaint does not state a federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any putative claims arising under state law. The court will dismiss any state law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Johnson v. Cooper · filed 2022-10-17(c)(3)

Because the complaint does not state a federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any putative claims arising under state law. The court will dismiss any state law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Weis v. Shipley · filed 2022-10-19(c)(3)

This court’s jurisdiction over the state law claim in Count 2 is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). But, once a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, such as Count 1 above, the court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claims or to dismiss them. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Kennedy v. Schoenberg, Fisher & Newman, Ltd., 140 F.3d 716, 717 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 870 (1998). Typically, a district court dismisses the pendant state claim. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 (1988). Given the dismissal of the federal claim in Count 1, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state law claim in Count 2 and shall dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.

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.

Bird v. State of Wyoming · filed 2022-10-20(c)(3)

In this case, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction of the state law claims and remands them to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Goshen County.

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

FRANKLIN v. MIDDLESEX WATER COMPANY · filed 2022-10-21(c)(3)

As no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

D&T Partners LLC v. Baymark Partners LP · filed 2022-10-21(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) applies because the Court dismisses the RICO claims, leaving only 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.

Pedotti v. Adler · filed 2022-10-24(c)(3)

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

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

Mallet v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · filed 2022-10-24(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

BELL v. CO CACIA · filed 2022-10-24(c)(3)

Where, as is the case here, all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

HIGGS v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-10-27(c)(3)

Insofar as Plaintiff may be attempting to assert that tort claim here, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at this time because the complaint fails to state a claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction, based on the dismissal of Plaintiff's § 1983 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.

Miroth v. County of Trinity · filed 2022-10-28(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims at this time.

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.

Chatman v. WeDriveU, Inc · filed 2022-10-28(c)(3)

Retaining jurisdiction here would be inappropriate because I have “dismissed all claims over which [I have] original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Therefore, I GRANT Chatman’s Motion to Remand, in part, and remand the PAGA cause of action and its remaining underlying claims.

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

Griffith v. Metropolitan Transit Authority - New York City Transit · filed 2022-10-28(c)(3)

Because Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law failure-to- promote claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Pryor v. Trident Medical Center, LLC · filed 2022-10-28(c)(3)

A district court has discretion to dismiss remaining state claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Since the court dismisses Pryor’s federal claims, the court finds that Pryor’s request in light of that decision weighs in favor of remand. In the absence of any objection from Trident, Pryor’s remaining claim for defamation is remanded to the state court where this action originated.

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

Salway v. Wilson · filed 2022-10-28(c)(3)

Thus, because all of Salway’s federal- law claims have been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; when federal claims are dismissed well before trial, it ordinarily should decline jurisdiction.

Quinn v. Doherty · filed 2022-10-31(c)(3)

As for Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law negligence claim in Count III, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... There is no reason to deviate from this general rule here.