28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the only federal claim, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Devillaz v. Atmosphere Gastropub, Inc. · filed 2023-05-15(c)(3)

Given this altered procedural posture, “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Burgess v. Shakiba · filed 2023-05-16(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 to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses the federal claims, and to remand those claims if the case was removed from state court.

Fillmore v. Washington County, Arkansas · filed 2023-05-17(c)(3)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims but can decline to exercise that jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The remaining state law claims will be remanded to the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas.

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

Clinton v. Pollard · filed 2023-05-17(c)

Because the Court has dismissed all of 12 Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 13 state law claims at this time.

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

Wakefield v. Christopher Police Dept. · filed 2023-05-17(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff failed to state any claim upon which relief may be granted under the FTCA or § 1983, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts 1 through 6 pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

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

SINGH v. INDIANA STATE EXCISE POLICE · filed 2023-05-17(c)

The relevant factors weigh in favor of the Court following the "usual practice" in the Seventh Circuit and relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims are dismissed.

Woods v. Aramark Correctional Services · filed 2023-05-17(c)(3)

The Court DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over any state-law claims against the dismissed defendants, and DISMISS any such claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims are dismissed.

Burke v. Aramark Correctional Services · filed 2023-05-17(c)(3)

The Court DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over any state-law claims against the dismissed defendants, and DISMISS 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.

Sapp v. Burke County Detention Center · filed 2023-05-18(c)(3)

Since Plaintiff has not alleged any viable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Frelix v. Hendrie Grant Lending Inc. · filed 2023-05-18(c)

The Court sees no reason to depart from the Eighth Circuit’s guidance here, so the Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction, to the extent it presents any 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.

BURKE v. POWELL · filed 2023-05-18(c)(3)

In any case, because the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of the BSP Defendants as to Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims asserted against Defendants Jones and Hall. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also supra Section IV.E.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim after dismissing the sole federal claim before trial, especially where a recent change in state law may require a different standard.

Green v. General Motors · filed 2023-05-18(c)

In light of the amendments to the NYSHRL, this Court finds that reasoning persuasive here as well: Because Green’s lone federal claim has been dismissed before trial, her NYSHRL claim—which now may be governed by a different standard—is best left to the New York State courts. ... This Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Green’s NYSHRL claim and instead dismisses that claim without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially when the case remains at an early stage.

Lilly v. Swick · filed 2023-05-18(c)(3)

This case is in early stages. This is not a situation where the Court, approaching trial, dismisses the federal claims. Accordingly, the objections are overruled, and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. The state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Vyas v. 26th District Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for City of Harrisonburg and County of Rockingham · filed 2023-05-19(c)(3)

Lastly, the court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims in the complaint. 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Willis v. Koning Associates · filed 2023-05-19(c)(3)

In light of these factors, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining PAGA claim under 28 U.S.C § 1367(c)(3).

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

Lynn (ID 64377) v. Willnauer · filed 2023-05-19(c)(3)

However, because the Court, through this Memorandum and Order and the Memorandum and Order at Doc. 152, is dismissing all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, guided by the statutory factors and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Chauvin v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc. · filed 2023-05-19(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-diverse state law claims where the court has dismissed all other claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

LGN International, LLC v. Hylan Asset Management, LLC · filed 2023-05-19(c)(3)

While Plaintiffs’ common law counts arise from the same operative facts as their RICO counts, the present dismissal of the RICO counts (the only original jurisdiction basis for this case) mandates declining exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, 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.

Gray v. Garman · filed 2023-05-19(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gray’s pendent 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.

Solares v. Burns · filed 2023-05-22(c)(3)

As set forth above, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, which are dismissed without leave to amend.

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.

Wakefield v. Franklin County Courts · filed 2023-05-22(c)(3)

Plaintiff failed to state any claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983, so the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to dismiss state law claims without prejudice after dismissing the related federal claims.

Trapp 770672 v. Huss · filed 2023-05-22(c)

With respect to Defendants Huss, Viitala, Pelky, and Tasson, because Plaintiff’s federal claims against these Defendants will be dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants without prejudice. As to Defendant Hoult, because Plaintiff continues to have a pending federal claim against Defendant Hoult, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim against Defendant Hoult.

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

Barnes v. New York State · filed 2023-05-22(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). ... 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 remaining state and city law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Flynn v. Bronx Parent Housing Network · filed 2023-05-22(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Flynn’s remaining claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice to their renewal in state court.

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.

EL-BEY v. ALLENTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2023-05-22(c)(3)

Here, the court finds no basis to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim.

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

Greene v. Justice · filed 2023-05-23(c)(3)

In his PF&R, the magistrate judge recommended that this court: find that the plaintiff’s amended complaint contains no allegation that could plausibly give rise to a present entitlement to relief against the defendant; find that the amended complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief can be granted therefore meriting dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); and dismiss this civil action from the docket of the court . See PF&R at 10-11. ... Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: the proposed findings made in the magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation be, and hereby are, adopted by the court and incorporated herein; and this civil action be, and hereby is, dismissed from the docket of this court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, especially before significant judicial resources have been invested.

Innes v. County of Warren · filed 2023-05-23(c)(3)

Having found no plausible ADA claim, the Court declines, in its discretion, to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims.

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

Johnson v. Martinez · filed 2023-05-24(c)(3)

Because Johnson fails to state federal claims against Defendants, the Court will dismiss his purported state law claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c); East- Miller v. Lake County Highway Dep’t, 421 F.3d 558, 564 (7th Cir. 2005).

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, considering comity and judicial resources.

Harris v. City of Tulare · filed 2023-05-24(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. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the California courts are better suited to resolve the remaining state law claims in this case; declining supplemental jurisdiction will reduce the risk of incorrect application of California law and further the principle of comity. Declining supplemental jurisdiction will also preserve this Court’s limited resources to resolve legal questions of federal significance.

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

Mays v. Exeter · filed 2023-05-24(c)

Finally, because the Plaintiff has failed to state a federal cause of action, supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, such as breach of contract or defamation, is foreclosed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (providing that a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when 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 only federal claim.

Cottrill v. Mason County Animal Shelter · filed 2023-05-24(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Fogg v. U.S.A. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) · filed 2023-05-24(c)(3)

The court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state-law claims against the RDAA, McFarland, and Johnson and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the state-law claims against those three defendants.

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

Evans v. Ishee · filed 2023-05-25(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because no federal claim has passed initial review. See Artis v. Dist. Of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594, 595 (2018) (when a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Wilson v. Ford Motor Service Company · filed 2023-05-26(c)(3)

Even if the Court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ... Plaintiff's remaining claims, which all sound in state law, the Court declines to do 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, taking judicial economy and convenience into account.

ZUPKO v. COUNTY OF OCEAN · filed 2023-05-26(c)(3)

Here, the Court finds that no judicial economy or convenience concerns favor exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. Having dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims under § 1983 (Counts V and VJ), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims (Counts I-IV, VII-IX).

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

GREEN v. ROWAN UNIVERSITY · filed 2023-05-26(c)(2), (c)(3)

Thus, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims under § 1367(c)(2) and (3), and remand the matter to state court.

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.

Skycoin Global Foundation Limited v. Stephens · filed 2023-05-30(c)(3)

But because the Court dismisses the DTSA and RICO claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims at this time.

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.

Bond v. Jackson County · filed 2023-05-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the claims at this time, however, in light of the dismissal of all federal constitutional claims at screening. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a), (c)(3) (district court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over supplemental claims or dismiss them when it dismisses the claims over which it had original jurisdiction). Accordingly, any potential state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when it has invested no substantial judicial resources in the state law claim.

McCorker v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. · filed 2023-05-30(c)(3)

As the Court has not engaged in any meaningful review of McCorker’s fraud claim and has not otherwise committed substantial judicial resources to the claim, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is proper in this instance.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses the federal claims before trial, leaving the state claims dismissed without prejudice.

Martin v. Goldsmith · filed 2023-05-30(c)(3)

Upon due consideration, the state law claims are dismissed without prejudice because the federal claim has been dismissed prior to trial.

When all federal claims have been dismissed, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity generally favor declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Dixon v. Joyner · filed 2023-05-30(c)(3)

Where the Court has dismissed all of the plaintiff’s federal claims, generally the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Staley v. Yost · filed 2023-05-30(c)(3)

Consequently, all of Plaintiff’s claims against the Village are dismissed and no federal claims remain. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims asserted against the Yost 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.

Andrews v. The City of New York · filed 2023-05-30(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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Rosario v. City of New York Comptroller · filed 2023-05-30(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses the sole federal claim.

Day v. Velissaris · filed 2023-05-31(c)(3)

Finally, the Plaintiffs FLSA claim was the only federal claim in this matter and the Plaintiff has not alleged a basis for diversity jurisdiction, so the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims for unjust enrichment and breach of contract. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Charlton Jr. v. Grieg · filed 2023-05-31(c)(3)

In light of the limited procedural history of this case in this district court, and because there are only state law claims remaining, this Court finds that the interests of “economy, convenience, fairness and comity” weigh against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. See Bahrampour, 356 F.3d at 978. Therefore, in the exercise of its discretion, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Charlton’s state law claims.

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.

JS Beck RD LLC v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF NORTHVILLE · filed 2023-05-31(c)(3)

A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Beck’s state law claim of appeal.

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

WASHINGTON v. NORTON, LLC · filed 2023-05-31(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s potential state law claims. 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Izeh v. Officer Boy'ls New Rochelle Police · filed 2023-05-31(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 state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed as time-barred.

Parker v. Barlow · filed 2023-05-31(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims are barred by the statute of limitations, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

LEWIS v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY · filed 2023-05-31(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Lewis’s state law claims for fraud and replevin because we dismissed all claims over which we have 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, and to remand those claims to state court.

Staley v. Graziano · filed 2023-05-31(c)(3)

The Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state law claims, however, once it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Staley’s state law claims, those claims are REMANDED to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas.

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

Nelson v. Dreher · filed 2023-05-31(c)(3)

To the extent Nelson intended to raise a state law negligence claim, given his ... failure to state a claim under federal law, we conclude that the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over his supplemental state law claim.

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.

Marquez v. Smith · filed 2023-06-01(c)(3)

Because the Court concludes that any federal claims asserted in this case must be dismissed, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, finds that any remaining state law claims should be dismissed without prejudice.

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

WASHINGTON v. NORTON, LLC · filed 2023-06-01(c)(3)

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

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

RAWLS v. United States · filed 2023-06-01(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s potential 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.

Susser v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2023-06-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed the plaintiff’s only federal claim, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the contract and negligence claims at this time. The plaintiff does not present any “exceptional circumstances” warranting the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, and judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity all weigh against doing so.

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

CARTER v. CROZIER HOSPITAL · filed 2023-06-01(c)

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

Maxieson v. Woosley · filed 2023-06-02(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

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

Mattinas v. Idaho State Correction Institution · filed 2023-06-05(c)

Moreover, because the three documents found at Docket Nos. 3, 8, and 10 fail to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim in any event. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Davis v. Board of Regents of Eastern Kentucky University · filed 2023-06-05(c)(3)

A federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Since the EKU Board of Regents is an agency of the state, principles of comity weigh in favor of remanding the matter to state court, which is arguably better equipped to determine whether a state university has violated provisions of the KCRA.

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

Melissa and Daniel Willey v. Board of Education of St. Mary's County · filed 2023-06-05(c)(3)

A federal court’s supplemental jurisdiction is not extinguished as a matter of course when all pending federal claims are dismissed. ... Principles of judicial economy, efficiency, and comity support dismissal. Accordingly, 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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims and considering the applicable factors.

Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Baker Botts L.L.P. · filed 2023-06-05(c)(3)

Finally, all federal claims having been dismissed, and having considered the applicable factors, I 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Deyo v. Eck · filed 2023-06-05(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed Deyo’s federal claims, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Amorosa v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY · filed 2023-06-06(c)(3)

Given the relatively early stage of the case and the traditional “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” that the Court must consider, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the latter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Ketring v. City of Loveland, Ohio · filed 2023-06-06(c)(3)

But as a matter of statute, it may decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its 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 within its original jurisdiction.

Sales Jr v. Sumner County District Attorney's Office · filed 2023-06-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear any state law claims set forth in the complaint.

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

BUTLER v. WILSON · filed 2023-06-05(c)

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

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff alleges no diversity jurisdiction and fails to state a federal claim.

GRAHAM v. OJELADE · filed 2023-06-07(a)

Because Plaintiff has not alleged diversity jurisdiction and failed to state a claim under § 1983 or any other federal law, this Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law medical malpractice claims? at this time.

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

Alexander v. Greenville County Police Department · filed 2023-06-07(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Johnson, Richard v. Justice Point Security Technologies · filed 2023-06-08(c)(3)

I am dismissing all of Johnson’s federal claims, so I decline to rely on § 1367 to retain the state- law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Pratt v. Govan · filed 2023-06-09(c)(3)

As the Court recommends dismissal of Plaintiff's federal claim it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs pendant state court claim pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated 16-88-214.

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

May v. Carbon Hill, Alabama, City of · filed 2023-06-09(c)(3)

Under 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 May’s state law claims (Counts I, III, & IV).

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

Hammerlord v. Elliott · filed 2023-06-09(c)(3)

But where it has dismissed all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to extend its jurisdiction to the remaining state claims.

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

Baca v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services · filed 2023-06-09(c)(3)

To the extent the Complaint alleges any claims under New Mexico law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Baca’s remaining state-law claims and will remand those claims to state court.

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

Taylor v. Starr · filed 2023-06-12(c)

The court will decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and DISMISS those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Short Term Rental Alliance of San Diego v. City of San Diego · filed 2023-06-12(c)(3)

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Hart v. Thompson · filed 2023-06-12(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). Generally, “when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bethea v. NYCHA Law Department · filed 2023-06-12(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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Madson v. Fato · filed 2023-06-12(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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; fairness and comity favor remand when the case is at an early stage.

Lawless v. Roundpoint Mortgage Service Corporation · filed 2023-06-12(c)(3)

However, district courts should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The interests of fairness and comity favor remanding the case to state court on the remaining state law claim, particularly in light of the case’s early stage. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining breach of contract claim.

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

Emberton v. San Francisco City Government · filed 2023-06-13(c)(3)

The Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state claims where the federal claims have been dismissed and Plaintiff is a California citizen suing a California governmental entity under California law seeking to adjudicate how local government interprets its local land use regulations.

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.

Saunders v. Corizon Health · filed 2023-06-13(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff raises state law claims of medical malpractice and negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and thus will dismiss such claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers vy. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

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.

Castro v. Utah County Sheriff's Department · filed 2023-06-14(c)(3)

As shown above, Plaintiffs fail to state any claims under federal law. Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claim for civil conspiracy.

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

(PS) Claire v. County of Sutter · filed 2023-06-14(c)(3)

Because the federal claims in this case have been eliminated, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims is discretionary.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including early in the case when no justification for retaining them is shown.

NJ COED SPORTS LLC v. ISP SPORTS, LLC · filed 2023-06-14(c)(3)

The Court sees no justification for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims at this early stage of the litigation and Plaintiff has not presented any. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and Counts I through IX are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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.

Johnson v. McClain · filed 2023-06-14(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). ... 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hollaway v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2023-06-15(c)(3)

However, 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). ... With there being no remaining federal issues for the court’s consideration, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims being brought against the WVDOC.

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

Kister v. Naglich (INMATE 2) · filed 2023-06-15(c)(3)

In the posture of this case, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is inappropriate based on the court’s dismissal of all the claims over which the court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (allowing district courts to 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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on a discretionary balance of the relevant considerations.

Schwab v. Wyoming Police Department · filed 2023-06-15(c)

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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Brumble v. Andrew M. Jordan, Inc. · filed 2023-06-16(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001). Discretion counsels such a result here.

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. 7-Eleven, Inc. · filed 2023-06-16(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Unruh Act claim and DISMISSES the claim without prejudice.

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

Mehboob Shah v. Desert Auto Group V LLC · filed 2023-06-16(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim.

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

Velazquez v. Nextphase, Inc. · filed 2023-06-16(c)

Having dismissed the federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ NYCHRL claim.

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

Buress v. Bruns · filed 2023-06-16(c)(3)

“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court ‘may decline’ to exercise supplemental jurisdiction ‘if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction’”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). As the only remaining claim in the instant action is a state law claim, the Court will DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s state law claim for malicious prosecution.

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 2023-06-20(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 to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it dismisses the federal claims.

Pascoe v. Cabressa · filed 2023-06-20(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law malicious prosecution claim.

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

STALLINGS v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2023-06-20(c)(3)

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

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.

Hussey v. Ward · filed 2023-06-20(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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hussey v. The New York Police Department & Precincts in Manhattan NY · filed 2023-06-20(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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Smickle v. Croce · filed 2023-06-20(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may seek to raise.

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

Thomas v. Federal Government · filed 2023-06-20(c)(3)

Insofar as the complaint might be liberally construed as doing so, the Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of such state law claims because it dismisses herein the federal claims of which it had original jurisdiction.

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.

Cano v. City of New York (NYCDOC) · filed 2023-06-20(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 a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Oliverio v. Virginia Commonwealth University · filed 2023-06-21(c)(3)

Given these principles, and having dismissed Plaintiff's discrimination and FERPA claims, the Court finds that retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claim would be inappropriate.

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.

Hicks v. Norwood · filed 2023-06-21(c)(3)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Warner v. Delano · filed 2023-06-21(c)(3)

The Court finds that this is the “usual case,” and thus in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Pouncy 571990 v. Burgess · filed 2023-06-21(c)

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

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

Serna v. Keleher · filed 2023-06-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims and dismisses the state-law claims without prejudice.

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

Serna v. County of Bernalillo Sheriff's Department · filed 2023-06-21(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims against the individual Defendants and dismisses Plaintiff’s state-law claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“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”).

After dismissing the federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.

Williams v. Gilbert · filed 2023-06-22(c)(3)

court declines to exercise jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hill v. Grand Coulee Dam School District · filed 2023-06-22(c)(3)

In sum, summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiffs’ Title VI claim because no reasonable jury could find that P.S. experienced a racially hostile environment at Lake Roosevelt High School or that school officials were deliberately indifferent to any perceived racial harassment or discrimination. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibb, 383 U.S. 715, 725-26 (1966).

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

Garland v. Clinton Correctional Facility · filed 2023-06-22(c)(3)

The Court declines to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law. 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, particularly at an early stage.

Waterman v. Nolan · filed 2023-06-22(c)(3)

The dismissal of the plaintiffs’ federal cause of action under § 1983 eliminates the only claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction. It is therefore appropriate, at this early stage, to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

LEWIS v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY · filed 2023-06-22(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Lewis’s state law claims for fraud, trespass, and replevin because we dismissed all claims over which we have original jurisdiction.

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

Walker v. State Of Delaware · filed 2023-06-23(c)(3)

Plaintiffs federal claims are frivolous and fail to state claims, as discussed above. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's supplemental 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.

Perry v. Hayes · filed 2023-06-23(c)(3)

In light of the court’s disposition of the federal claims asserted in the complaint, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims for slander or libel under state law and will dismiss such 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses the federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Tingler · filed 2023-06-23(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff alleges medical malpractice or other state-law claims, the Court has determined that the federal claims, which provide the jurisdictional basis of this suit, should be dismissed. This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 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.

LINS v. PENNSYLVANIA SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS · filed 2023-06-23(c)(3)

To start, because the court has found that the Surrender and Release Forms are enforceable as to Lins’ constitutional claims, meaning there are no more federal questions at issue in the case, the court declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence 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.

Banner v. Tisdale · filed 2023-06-23(c)(3)

In addition, since this Court no longer has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Banner’s State law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the case’s early stage can support that choice.

White v. City of Arlington TX · filed 2023-06-26(c)(3)

Since the Court has dismissed all federal claims for which the Court had original jurisdiction, and because this case is not in its late stages, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state tort claims against Defendant Washington.

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

Lucas v. Whitlaw · filed 2023-06-26(c)(3)

In the alternative, to the extent that Lucas’ state-law claim (but not his federal claim) could otherwise survive, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

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

Sowell v. Annucci · filed 2023-06-26(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 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

CAMP v. THE CURRENTLY UNKNOWN AND UNNAMED CITY OF PHILADELPHIA EMPLOYEES · filed 2023-06-26(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over Mr, Camp’s remaining state law claims for assault and battery and false imprisonment against Scotlandyard and its employees.

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

Ross v. Rutherford County Detention Center · filed 2023-06-26(c)(3)

To the extent the complaint can be construed to allege independent state law claims for medical malpractice,2 the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims because Plaintiff’s federal law claims must be dismissed, as discussed below. 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.

Harris 456411 v. Cota · filed 2023-06-27(c)(3)

As discussed above, all of Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims concerning violations of MDOC policy, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the case is at an early stage, and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Niemann v. Carlsen · filed 2023-06-27(c)

Given the early stage of this case and the Court’s dismissal of all federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Niemann’s state-law claims and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Zafar v. New York Police Department · filed 2023-06-27(c)

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and on immunity grounds. The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

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.

Turner v. Long · filed 2023-06-29(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), however, “[t]he 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.” Having determined that the federal claims over which this Court has jurisdiction should be dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claim, taking judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state law issues into account.

Torvinen v. Seattle Service Bureau, Inc. · filed 2023-06-29(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Torvinen’s state law claim is properly dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed; pending original-jurisdiction claims support retaining a related state-law claim.

Copeland v. Kline · filed 2023-06-29(c)(3)

The court will deny Defendant Kline’s request that the court refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim at this time because there are pending claims over which the court hass original jurisdiction.

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.

Watkins v. McKinney · filed 2023-06-30(c)(3)

And where the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over any remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Eleventh Circuit encourages district courts to do so if all federal claims are dismissed before trial. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004). This court therefore will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Watkins’ state law 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.

Mason v. Carruth · filed 2023-06-30(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Mason’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, upon balancing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Klaneski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-06-30(c)(3)

Thus, the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and it must decide whether to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over Ms. Klaneski’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, after balancing the factors set forth in Gibbs and Cohill, the Court will decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Leftridge v. Judicial Branch · filed 2023-06-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Leftridge’s state law claims, which I will dismiss without prejudice to Leftridge’s right to seek any relief that may be available in state court.

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, subject to a balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Hampton v. Judicial Branch · filed 2023-06-30(c)(3)

The balance of factors here weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as the sole claims conferring jurisdiction on this Court will be dismissed, as discussed above.

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

DONALDSON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2023-06-30(c)(3)

Pursuant to the discretion afforded the Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of Baldwin County.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; an early stage of litigation weighs against retaining them.

Schiebel v. Schoharie Central School District · filed 2023-06-30(c)(3)

Here, Defendants argue that the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims in light of the unviability of Plaintiff’s federal claim. Mot. at 9. The Court agrees. This case is in its infancy, as parties have yet to proceed to discovery. See Docket.

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

Behl v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2023-08-08(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). Here, the Court has dismissed Behl’s federal law claim. ... The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Behl’s state law claims.

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

Dames v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. · filed 2023-08-08(c)(3)

Because it dismisses the § 1981 claim, the court is within its dis- cretion to also dismiss Plaintiffs supplemental state law ITED 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 the federal law claims.

Elboute v. Highgate Hotels.LP · filed 2023-08-10(c)(3)

Because, for the reasons above, Elboute’s federal law claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and does not consider their merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state claims when an amended complaint eliminates the federal claims; an early pleading stage and lack of discovery favor remand.

Harris v. City of San Diego, San Diego Police Department · filed 2023-08-14(c)(3)

Even though the court had original jurisdiction at the time of removal, the court finds no basis for original jurisdiction over the First Amended Complaint, which prompts the Court’s discretion under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This case is still in an early procedural posture, at the pleading phase, and no discovery has been conducted to date. The Court finds that the balance of factors in this case point toward declining 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.

Morrow v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Tenn. · filed 2023-08-15(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Morrow’s state-law trespass claims.

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

Craft v. Townsend · filed 2023-08-21(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s federal claims are subject to dismissal, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

Munck Wilson Mandala LLP v. Jordan · filed 2023-08-22(c)(3)

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

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

Thomas v. Waterman · filed 2023-08-23(c)

Because I conclude that all § 1983 claims must be dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that Thomas has asserted.

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.

Burroughs v. Westchester Supreme Court · filed 2023-08-23(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 state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, guided by statutory and common-law factors.

El-Bey v. Berkshire Hathaway Home Service · filed 2023-08-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal causes of action in this case, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over El-Bey’s 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.

Lietzke v. City of Montgomery, AL (MAG+) · filed 2023-08-24(c)(3)

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lietzke’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the sole federal claim is withdrawn, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Silver v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC · filed 2023-08-29(c)(3)

In light of the early state of litigation and the parties’ agreement that the state law claims should be dismissed, this Court finds no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are disposed of before trial; the usual course is to relinquish jurisdiction unless circumstances favor retention.

Barger v. Wells County Sheriff's Office · filed 2023-08-30(c)(3)

Principles of comity encourage the court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all of the federal claims are disposed of before trial. See Hansen v. Bd. of Trs. of Hamilton Southeastern Sch. Corp., 551 F.3d 599, 608 (7th Cir. 2008); Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... None of those circumstances are present here. Therefore, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims and they will be dismissed without prejudice.