28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Miller v. McFadden · filed 2022-10-31(c)(3)

To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks relief under North Carolina law based on a claim of false imprisonment, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as no federal claim has passed initial review.

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

Harris v. Hunt · filed 2022-10-31(c)(3)

Because Harris’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 Harris may also be attempting to assert.

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

Vorobyev v. Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania · filed 2022-10-31(c)(3)

Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion in this district, we should decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over potential ancillary state law claims in this case where the only potential federal claim brought before us failed as a matter of 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; the court may weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Borgman v. County of Butte · filed 2022-11-01(c)(3)

A federal 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). ... This case presents the typical balance of factors. Little has occurred in this court other than litigation over the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Borgman has not suggested the state courts are unavailable. The court thus dismisses his state law claims, without reaching the merits but with leave to amend if Borgman repleads them along with adequately pled federal claims.

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

Kinnel v. Connecticut · filed 2022-11-01(c)(3)

Because no federal claim in this action survives initial review, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Kinnel’s state law 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) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when no viable federal claim remains, dismissing the state-law claim without prejudice.

May v. Klinedinst · filed 2022-11-01(c)(3)

3. Plaintiff’s pendent state law claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

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.

Wagner v. Shasta County · filed 2022-11-02(c)(3)

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

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

Shampine v. East Cleveland Board of Education · filed 2022-11-02(c)(3)

In the absence of a plausible federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims plaintiff seeks to assert (including determining whether she has any plausible civil cause of action under the state criminal statutes she cites).

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

(PC) Ponce v. Solorio · filed 2022-11-03(c)(3)

Here, the Court lacks any basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims as there is no viable federal claim.

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

Frascatore v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB · filed 2022-11-04(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss all federal claims against Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law wrongful foreclosure claim.

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

Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Estate of Ronnell Dwight Burns · filed 2022-11-04(c)(3)

All federal claims having now been dismissed, upon due consideration I will exercise my discretion to dismiss without prejudice the remaining state law claim as it depends solely on a determination of state law and discovery is far from complete.

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.

Davis v. Welcher · filed 2022-11-07(c)(3)

Since all of his federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim Davis might assert.

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.

Eslick v. State of Washington · filed 2022-11-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, and considering the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Silva v. Annucci · filed 2022-11-08(c)(3)

However, in light of the dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims at this juncture. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Valencia v. Sung M. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 306 (2d Cir. 2003).

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

Whitley v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2022-11-10(c)(3)

Instead, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which is ordinarily appropriate where 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

MADIN v. MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-11-14(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Wilkins v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2022-11-14(c)(3)

And because none of the second amended complaint’s four changes convince the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the State-law claims, the Court would decline to exercise jurisdiction over the State-law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with dismissal of the state law claims without prejudice.

Deshone 591224 v. Rewerts · filed 2022-11-14(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed in their entirety, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring those claims in the state courts.

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

Hunter v. Skipper · filed 2022-11-14(c)(3)

As no federal claim has passed initial review, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claims under North Carolina law at this time.

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

LAWSON v. CITY OF VINELAND · filed 2022-11-14(c)(3)

When a court has dismissed 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the federal claims have not survived the initial screening process, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Deleon v. Kent, County of · filed 2022-11-15(c)(3)

In dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss Plaintiff’s state-law claims without prejudice 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 claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Robinson v. Prince William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center · filed 2022-11-18(c)(3)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it “dismisse[s] the claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), it is within the Court’s discretion whether “to retain jurisdiction over state claims when federal claims have been extinguished.” ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law employment, negligence, and unlawful detention claims.

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

Gilmore v. Beveridge · filed 2022-11-18(c)(3)

Because all federal claims against Kiger and McMullen are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gilmore’s KOMA claim against them as well.

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

Henley v. City of Charlottesville · filed 2022-11-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed the First Amendment claim providing original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over theVFOIA claim.

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

KITTRELL v. INDIANA WOMEN'S PRISON · filed 2022-11-21(c)(3)

Kittrell's ADA or Title VII discrimination claim, which arises under federal law, is dismissed. The remaining dispute, if any, is between Kittrell and her coworkers. It is an Indiana matter that does not independently invoke this Court's jurisdiction. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kittrell's state law claims.

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

Bulfin v. Rainwater · filed 2022-11-21(c)(3)

After consideration of the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims, which involve numerous 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 state-law claims when no federal claims remain.

MEYER v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-11-21(c)(3)

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

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

LATTA v. LUCKMAN · filed 2022-11-21(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... After considering the concerns of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Latta’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims; an early case with little discovery weighs against retaining the state-law claim.

Correnti v. City of Cleveland · filed 2022-11-21(c)(3)

Here, the case in its early stages, and the parties have not engaged in significant discovery. Therefore, the factors that guide the exercise of the Court’s discretion weigh against consideration of Plaintiff’s claim under State law.

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

Christian v. Rancho Grande Manufactured Home Community · filed 2022-11-22(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims (the sixth through twenty-first causes of action). 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001).

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

Inner City Contracting LLC v. Charter Township of Northville, Michigan · filed 2022-11-22(c)(3)

Here, the Court is not only dismissing all federal claims in this case, it is doing so at a very early stage of the litigation – on motions to dismiss filed prior to discovery. As such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims and shall remand those claims back to 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.

Reaves v. Williamson · filed 2022-11-22(c)(3)

Accordingly, where all of plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining state and municipal claims without prejudice after the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Jusino v. Fed'n of Cath. Tchrs., Inc. · filed 2022-11-23(c)(3)

In any event, the district court’s dismissal of such claims was affirmatively proper. See Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[I]n general, where the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3))); Baylis v. Marriott Corp., 843 F.2d 658, 665 (2d Cir. 1988) (“When all bases for federal jurisdiction have been eliminated from a case so that only pendent state claims remain, the federal court should ordinarily dismiss the state claims . . . 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.

Lock Logistics, LLC v. Harun Transportation, Inc. · filed 2022-11-23(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed the only federal claim asserted, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims 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 the claims within its original jurisdiction, especially when the case is still at an early stage.

Mitchell v. Kurkowski · filed 2022-11-23(c)(3)

As the Court will dismiss the TILA claim—the only claim over which the Court had original jurisdiction—and the case is still at a very early stage, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

EDWARDS v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-11-28(c)(3)

Plaintiff has again failed to state any federal claims. To the extent Plaintiff’s submission raises claims under state law, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state law claims.

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

WILLIAMS v. FRANCOIS · filed 2022-11-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, having dismissed Williams’s federal claims.

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

Gaines v. County of Wayne · filed 2022-11-29(c)(3)

The Court exercises its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

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

Murphy 287367 v. Krager · filed 2022-11-29(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Krager will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim against Defendant Krager. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claim against Defendant Krager will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring the claim in the state courts.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of the sole federal claim, weighing comity, fairness, convenience, and judicial economy.

McNeil v. Trinity Health Corporation · filed 2022-11-29(c)(3)

In sum, the interests of comity and fairness weigh most heavily upon the Court in declining to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims—in particular, the avoidance of unnecessarily deciding issues of state law. Having considered the interests identified in Gamel, the Court remands this action to the forum best equipped to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims: state court.

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

Washington v. Miami County · filed 2022-11-29(c)(3)

Given that the Court now has granted judgment to the Miami Defendants and Montgomery Defendants on all claims in the Complaint over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Washington’s remaining claims.

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

Brown v. Matthews · filed 2022-11-29(c)(3)

Now before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 33) and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having thoroughly reviewed the Report and the record in this case, the court, finding no clear error, agrees with and wholly ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in the Report (ECF No. 44), which are incorporated herein by reference.

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, with judicial economy informing that choice.

JOHNSON v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS · filed 2022-11-30(c)(3)

Here, all federal claims against the Defendants have been dismissed, and Johnson failed to respond to Defendants’ supplemental jurisdiction argument or argue that an exception applies. Substantial judicial resources have not been expended on the claim and it is not clear how the pendent claim will be decided. Under these circumstances, the pendent state-law claim (which will be based on the interpretation of Indiana constitutional law) should be decided in state court. The Court finds it is in the best interest of judicial economy to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim against the Defendants.

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

Augustus v. Green County Adult Detention Center · filed 2022-11-30(c)(3)

Finally, insofar as plaintiff is alleging claims under Ohio law, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Staton v. Quiros al · filed 2022-12-02(c)(3)

Because no federal claim in this action survives initial review, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims of violation of the Connecticut Constitution.

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

Sutton v. Kiefer Public Schools · filed 2022-12-02(c)(3)

However, because the sole federal claim has been dismissed, this Court no longer has original subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331, and the Court has discretion to remand the state-law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McMenamon v. NH Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner · filed 2022-12-05(c)(3)

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

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

Rodriguez v. Blanding · filed 2022-12-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Pedotti v. Musk · filed 2022-12-05(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 also be attempting to assert.

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

Baker v. Pestana Park Avenue · filed 2022-12-05(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Marquez v. Prieston · filed 2022-12-06(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of a plausible federal claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any state law claims that may be reasonably construed from the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims contained in the Complaint and dismisses any such claims 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.

Lara-Grimaldi v. County of Putnam · filed 2022-12-06(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s remaining federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these 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.

Milhouse v. The City of New York · filed 2022-12-06(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after all federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Clark v. Dewey County Oklahoma · filed 2022-12-06(c)(3)

Because all federal law claims have been dismissed prior to trial, the court, exercising its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the remaining state law claim for retaliatory termination under the OPLA, as applied through Oklahoma’s Burk tort doctrine and, accordingly, DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE that state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) requires a district court to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before it sua sponte declines supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Ho v. Russi · filed 2022-08-19(c)

Thus, the district court was required to provide Ho with notice and an opportunity to be heard before sua sponte declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing his state law claim.

Before sua sponte declining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all original-jurisdiction claims, a court must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Raimondi v. Avaya, Inc. · filed 2023-01-11(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the only claim over which is it has original jurisdiction, the Court is inclined to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims arising under the NYSHRL. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Because the parties should be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court sua sponte dismisses such claims, the Court directs the parties to submit further briefing with respect to whether the Court should, in its discretion, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining NYSHRL 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.

WOODS v. REAGLE · filed 2022-08-19(c)(3)

Where, as here, "a district court has dismissed all federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction," it "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over" remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Woods' state law negligence claim.

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

Williams v. Osborn Medical Dept. · filed 2022-08-23(c)(3)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’s remaining state law claims because the PLRA exhaustion requirement does not apply to those claims and Williams can still pursue them in state court if he wishes.

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

STEWART v. WEXFORD · filed 2022-08-23(c)

The Court ultimately has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state-law claims. ... The relevant factors weigh in favor of the Court following the "usual practice" in the Seventh Circuit and relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all federal claims have been eliminated before trial, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Chulsky v. Golden Corral Corporation · filed 2022-08-23(c)

All federal claims have been eliminated prior to trial, and the values of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not outweigh the interest in allowing state courts to decide issues of state law.

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

Estate of April Blackmon-Logan v. Jenkins · filed 2022-08-24(c)(3)

The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if there is a jurisdictional basis for doing so; however, 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 Miserlian’s state-law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over pending state law claims when no federal claim survives summary judgment.

Baltas v. Maiga · filed 2022-08-24(c)(3)

Because no federal claim in this action survives the motion for summary judgment, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pending state law claims.

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

Strange v. SP Processing LLC · filed 2022-08-24(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over purely state-law claims when it has dismissed the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... Strange’s FDCPA cause of action is the only federal claim here, and it is time-barred. The Court therefore declines to exercise its discretion over Strange’s remaining GFTPA and GUDTPEA claims.

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

PALMER v. JOHN BROOKS RECOVERY CENTER · filed 2022-08-24(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s potential state law claims, including any attempted negligence claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially when dismissal occurs at the earliest stage of litigation.

SIMS v. THE CITY OF TRENTON · filed 2022-08-25(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed the federal claims at the earliest possible stage of the proceedings and exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any possible state law claims.

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

MENDEZ v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2022-08-25(c)(3)

Finally, because Mendez’s federal claims are being dismissed, and the court lacks original jurisdiction over his state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mendez’s claims under state law.

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

Kathleen Wright Croft v. Township of Donegal · filed 2022-08-26(c)(3)

Having affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of Count I, we affirm the District Court’s refusal 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

King v. Alameda County Department of Child Support Services · filed 2022-08-26(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff has not stated a cognizable federal claim.

HARRIELL v. CUZZUPE · filed 2022-08-26(c)(3)

Even if the Court construed the complaint as alleging a negligence claim under state law, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a claim at this time because Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable federal claim over which this Court has 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 after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Kane v. de Blasio · filed 2022-08-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” where “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 a remaining state-law claim after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Cameron v. District of Columbia · filed 2022-08-29(c)(3)

The statute also provides that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if,” among other reasons, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). That is precisely the case here.

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

Christy v. Bastain · filed 2022-08-29(c)(3)

Here, the balance of factors to be considered—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—point toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction now that all federal claims have been dismissed.

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.

United States of America ex rel. NPT Associates v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings · filed 2022-08-29(c)(3)

I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that the district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” once the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). ... As the Court has dismissed all federal claims, 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 remaining state law claims after it dismisses every claim within its original jurisdiction.

J.R. v. GREATER LATROBE SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2022-08-29(c)(3)

A district court may, however, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(c)(3). ... Plaintiff asserted a single claim in this matter that provided the Court with original jurisdiction, and that claim has now been dismissed. Given the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, amendment may ultimately prove futile with respect to that claim. At this time, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

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

Red Rock Healthcare v. Rowland · filed 2022-08-30(c)(3)

Therefore, the circumstances warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with the early stage of proceedings informing its discretion.

Juster v. Workday, Inc. · filed 2022-08-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if, e.g., “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, given the early stage of the proceedings, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Juster’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; absent compelling reasons to retain jurisdiction, the state claim is dismissed without prejudice.

Smith v. Shy · filed 2022-08-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claim two and dismiss claim two without prejudice.

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

Winters v. Hogan · filed 2022-08-30(c)(3)

Because this court sees no reason to retain jurisdiction over this case, the court declines to retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

BARNES v. ORTIZ · filed 2022-08-30(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 and counterclaims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Marinac v. Todd · filed 2022-08-30(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In determining whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, we consider four factors: “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” City of Chi. v. Int’l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Likewise, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Millcraft’s state law counter claims.

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

ALEJANDRO v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION · filed 2022-08-30(c)(3)

However, when the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it has authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within its original jurisdiction.

Aponte v. 5th Ave. Kings Fruit & Vegetables Corp. · filed 2022-08-25(a)

As an initial matter, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, and has supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because they form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims whose factual basis overlaps with federal claims.

Cobb v. McLean · filed 2022-08-26(a)

A district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that “are so related to claims in the action” over which the court has “original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). The proposed state law claims allege that Nurses Kropidlowski and Vaughn negligently failed to treat the plaintiff immediately before and after his seizure. The factual basis for these claims overlaps with the factual basis for the plaintiff’s proceeding federal claims. See Sheppard v. Bowens, No. 21-cv- 127, 2021 WL 1171705, at *3 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 28, 2021) (quoting Birdo v. Mathis, No. 15-cv-456, 2015 WL 3948150, at *3 (S.D. Ill. June 26, 2015)) (explaining that it is appropriate for a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when “‘the proof necessary for the state claim overlaps with the proof necessary for the federal claim.’”). The court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and allow the plaintiff to proceed on the state law claims, as well.

Section 1367(a) allows a federal court to hear a state-law claim when it is so related to a federal claim within the court’s jurisdiction that it forms part of the same case or controversy.

Azizi v. Zierhut · filed 2022-08-26(a)

This federal court cannot decide state-law claims unless the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of different states, 28 U.S.C. §1332,or unless the state-law claim is “so related” to a federal-law claim over which the court has jurisdiction that it forms “part of the same case or controversy,” 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share no common questions of fact or law with the federal claims.

Cofield v. Worktime, Inc. · filed 2022-08-29(a)

But the discrimination claims and the state law claims do not involve common questions of either fact or law. ... Accordingly, this Court finds that it may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that have no common questions of fact or law with the federal claims.

Cofield v. The Progressive Corporation · filed 2022-08-29(a)

But the discrimination claims and the state law claims do not involve common questions of either fact or law. ... Accordingly, this Court finds that it may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction based on a related federal action that has been terminated.

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GAGE · filed 2022-11-10(a)

The matter, therefore, cannot form the basis of an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Dunning v. Jefferson County School District R-1 · filed 2022-12-07(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) of 28 U.S.C. provides that a district court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim for three reasons.

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.

Illescas v. Annucci · filed 2022-12-07(c)(3)

“[D]istrict 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). ... With the dismissal of Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim against all Defendants, there remains no independent jurisdictional basis for his remaining state law claims. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims against Defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all original-jurisdiction claims, but the parties must have an opportunity to be heard before the court does so on its own initiative.

Brock v. Logsdon · filed 2022-12-07(c)(3)

That said, the Second Circuit has cautioned against district courts declining, sua sponte, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state-law claims after dismissing the claims that provide the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F. 3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 2018) (concluding that district court erred in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction without affording parties an opportunity to be heard). Therefore, the Court will afford the parties an opportunity to brief whether the Court should 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.

Menhe v. Rochester Psychiatric Center · filed 2022-12-07(c)(3)

However, the Court having dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, /.e., the Section 1983 claim, it declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Tipton v. Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · filed 2022-12-07(c)(3)

Because the undersigned recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the undersigned also RECOMMENDS, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress and that those claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling in an appropriate state court.

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

Urmancheev v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Health Services Corps · filed 2022-12-08(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims at this time.

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

Piechowicz v. Lancaster Central School District · filed 2022-12-08(c)(3)

A “district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This Court agrees with Judge Foschio’s recommendation to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Piechowicz’s state law claims. This case is still at an early stage, and this Court has not yet passed on the viability of any of Piechowicz’s state law claims.

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

CARROLL, JR. v. THE GEO GROUP, INC. · filed 2022-12-08(c)(3)

We will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Carroll’s state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and gross negligence because we dismissed all claims over which we have original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it dismisses the federal claim.

Nelson v. Dreher · filed 2022-12-08(c)(3)

Additionally, because the federal claim in this lawsuit is being dismissed with prejudice, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law negligence claim that Nelson may be attempting to raise.

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

McCormick v. City of Summerville · filed 2022-12-08(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and remands these claims to the Court of Common Pleas for Dorchester County, South Carolina.

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.

Zuckerman v. Davis · filed 2022-12-09(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because this Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal law claims, it will also dismiss his state law claims.

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

Meltzer v. The Trial Court of the Commonwealth by John Bello, its Administrator · filed 2022-12-09(c)(3)

Here, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim after the only federal claim has been dismissed.

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

Jasmin v. Maccarone, PC · filed 2022-12-09(c)(3)

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

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

Mahoney v. iProcess Online, Inc. · filed 2022-12-12(c)(3)

Despite dismissing the ERISA claim, the Court may exercise 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 federal claims, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing the decision.

Neira v. Office of the District Attorney · filed 2022-12-07(c)(3)

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

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

Ellis v. Arkansas, State of · filed 2022-12-08(c)(3)

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

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

Smith 482352 v. Goostrey · filed 2022-12-12(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after granting summary judgment on all claims within its original jurisdiction, and to dismiss the state-law claim without prejudice.

Williams v. Salvucci · filed 2022-12-12(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law negligence claim Plaintiff may have intended to bring, and dismiss any such claim without prejudice.

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. Palmdale Lodging Associates LLC · filed 2022-12-07(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) allows a court considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims to require the plaintiff to show why it should do so.

Elliott v. Romero · filed 2022-12-07(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 Person’s Act, Unfair Competition Act, and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Luna v. Pax Properties, LLC · filed 2022-12-12(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 decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after considering the circumstances of the case, the nature of the claims, governing state law, and the relationship between state and federal claims.

Luna v. Y. Loo · filed 2022-12-12(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- including the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims - - district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only when an enumerated exception applies; otherwise, jurisdiction over related state claims is mandatory.

Sanchez-Rivera v. United States · filed 2023-02-17(c)

Because none of the exceptions delineated at Section 1367(c) appear applicable here, the Court is mandated to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state tort claims against MTC.

Section 1367(a) does not dispense with Article III standing; a plaintiff must establish standing for each claim even when supplemental jurisdiction otherwise exists.

Guthrie v. Rainbow Fencing Inc · filed 2023-02-24(a)

The Court finds this portion of Plaintiff’s arguments unavailing, because a Plaintiff must establish Article III standing for all of his claims, whether or not the Court also has supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not excuse a plaintiff from establishing Article III standing for a state-law claim.

Guthrie v. Rainbow Fencing Inc. · filed 2024-08-30(a)

We agree with the district court that the supplemental jurisdiction statute does not excuse Guthrie from demonstrating that he has standing to maintain his state-law claim for statutory damages.

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

Ryan v. Nagy · filed 2023-04-20(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ryan’s parallel claim under the Michigan Constitution.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with the decision informed by judicial economy and the interest in avoiding needless decisions of state law.

Johnson 255020 v. Unknown Part(y)(ies) 1 · filed 2023-04-21(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the state law claims raise a novel or complex issue and all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Bainbridge Taxpayers Unite v. City of Bainbridge Island · filed 2023-04-25(c)(1), (c)(3)

At least two of the Section 1367(c) factors are triggered here: Plaintiffs’ state law claims raise a novel or complex issue of state law (see infra, Section III.B.3); and the Court has dismissed (at Plaintiffs’ request) all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(1), (3). Therefore, the Court must weigh the Gibbs values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of this action.

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

Adcock v. Saint Jean Industries Inc · filed 2023-04-20(c)(3)

All that remains is Adcock’s outrage claim. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that state law matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Streambend Properties II, LLC v. Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC, 781 F.3d 1003, 1016-17 (8th Cir. 2015).

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

Robbin v. Lopez · filed 2023-04-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claim with prejudice, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Lavite v. Dunstan, 932 F.3d 1020, 1034 (7th Cir. 2019) (“The district court was well within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after it dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.”).

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

BARCIA v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PASSAIC · filed 2023-04-24(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 Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six, 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.

Beroid v. Lafleur · filed 2023-04-21(c)(3)

Because Beroid’s § 1983 claim was properly dismissed and there are no other federal claims, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining extension of supplemental jurisdiction to Beroid’s state law claims.

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

VARTELOV v. ACURA · filed 2023-04-24(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on the only claim providing this Court original jurisdiction, the Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

McArthur v. Pan Del Cielo 2 · filed 2023-04-28(c)(3)

Moreover, because there are no federal law claims remaining and there is no diversity jurisdiction based on the citizenship of the parties, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

WILSON v. CHESTER TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2023-04-28(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

MOSLEY v. TEN PENN CENTER · filed 2023-04-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, having dismissed Mosley’s federal claims against all Defendants.

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

Griffin v. Mattek · filed 2023-05-02(c)(3)

In the absence of any other basis for the exercise of 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 dismissing the federal claims, with dismissal of the state claims remaining discretionary.

Fisher 453446 v. Kerr · filed 2023-05-02(c)(3)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” ... Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Simmons v. Hamilton County, TN · filed 2023-05-02(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim—on which this Court’s jurisdiction rests—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims (Counts Three, Four, Five, and Six). See Weser v. Goodson, 965 F.3d 507, 519 (6th Cir. 2020); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all other claims over which it had original jurisdiction).

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

Doe v. Neighborhood Healthcare · filed 2023-05-03(c)(3)

Generally, when all federal claims are dismissed in an action that also presents state law claims, a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Because the Court has discretion to remand this litigation and no party opposes remand, the remaining claims lodged against Netgain are REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

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

Sifuentes v. Capital One · filed 2023-05-04(c)(3)

Mr. Sifuentes fails to state any federal claims on which relief can be granted, and, consequently, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

A district court cannot decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) based on an erroneous dismissal of the federal claims.

Pearson v. Apria Healthcare Group, Inc. · filed 2023-05-04(c)(3)

Last, because the district court granted summary judgment on the § 1692e and § 1692f claims in error, the court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) was also in error. We therefore vacate the district court’s dismissal of the State claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction when the statutory and common law factors favor doing so.

Picou v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc. · filed 2023-05-04(c)

As both the statutory and common law factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses 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.

Steib v. Sony Pictures Television Inc. · filed 2023-05-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed the sole federal cause of action, 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Arellano v. Guldseth · filed 2023-05-05(c)(3)

To the extent Arellano is seeking to bring claims under California state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this pendent state claim because there are no remaining federal claims in this action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses all federal claims long before trial and the relevant factors do not favor retaining jurisdiction.

Logering v. Morrison County Sheriff's Department · filed 2023-05-05(c)(3)

Miller dictates that this Court ought not exercise supplemental jurisdiction, for the Court is dismissing all of Plaintiffs’ potential federal-law claims long before trial. Furthermore, the Miller factors suggest no reason for this Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. The Court will therefore dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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.

Norwood v. Renown Hospital · filed 2023-05-05(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed Norwood’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on his state-law malpractice claim, and I dismiss this claim without prejudice due to a lack of jurisdiction.

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

MOSLEY v. BANK OF AMERICA · filed 2023-05-05(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, having dismissed Mosley’s federal 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, with the decision guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

STEWART v. JOHNSON COUNTY SHERRIFF'S OFFICE - JAIL DIVISION · filed 2023-05-08(c)(3)

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

Staffney 122425 v. Duncan · filed 2023-05-08(c)(3)

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

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

Hewitt v. Flowers · filed 2023-05-08(c)(3)

In light of this conclusion, this Court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, § 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim when retaining it would not serve fairness, judicial economy, convenience, or comity.

Smith v. Roger Williams Law School · filed 2023-05-08(c)(3)

Here, no discovery has taken place and no trial has been scheduled. Based on these circumstances, the court finds that this is the “usual case,” Zell, 957 F.3d at 15, and that none of the interests of “fairness, judicial economy, convenience, or comity would be served” by retaining jurisdiction over the state-law claim. See id. The court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Smith’s breach of contract 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, taking account of the case’s progress and comity.

HP Sanford, LLC v. Village of Sanford · filed 2023-05-09(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s MRTMA claim because no scheduling order has issued, discovery has not begun, and the Court has yet to invest significant time or resources in the litigation besides addressing the pending Rule 12 motion.

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

Holmes v. The City of New York · filed 2023-05-09(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.

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

Brooks v. City of Pekin · filed 2023-05-10(c)(3)

However, the Court has dismissed or granted summary judgment on each claim over which it has original jurisdiction. The Court declines to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim against Officer Melton and so sua sponte dismisses Count VII 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.

Toledo v. Unibud Restoration Corp. · filed 2023-05-11(c)(3)

Because this Court dismisses Plaintiff's Title VII claims, only Plaintiff's state law claims against Brend under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law remain. This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Abing v. Evers · filed 2023-05-12(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed each of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Urieta v. Capital Benefit, INC. · filed 2023-05-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims giving rise to original jurisdiction, 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 remaining state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed, following a balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Glass v. Bozzuto's, Inc. · filed 2023-05-12(c)(3)

Here, the balance of factors favors declining to retain supplemental jurisdiction. Principles of comity indicate that Connecticut courts are better suited to evaluate the merits of Mr. Glass’s CFEPA claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and comity do not favor retaining them.

Owens v. Jameson · filed 2023-05-12(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed Mr. Owens’s federal claims (which were only against the State of Ohio, the Columbus Police Department, the State of Florida, and Clay County), the Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. Exercising supplemental jurisdiction would not serve judicial economy, convenience, or comity, and therefore it declines to do so.

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

MEDINA v. APRILE · filed 2023-05-12(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Medina’s state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, medical negligence, defamation, false light, crimen falsi (deceit), and invasion of privacy because we dismissed all claims over which we have original jurisdiction.

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

Nieves v. County of Trinity · filed 2023-05-15(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ remaining claims arise under state law. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims, and accordingly GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss all remaining claims.

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

Grechko v. Calistoga Spa, Inc. · filed 2023-05-15(c)(3)

Since the Court has no subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s first claim under the ADA, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under the Unruh Act and CDPA; the Court has not addressed or adjudicated the merits of those claims.