28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with dismissal of the state claims generally favored before trial.

Gelb v. Niblack · filed 2023-09-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of plaintiff’s federal claims, I decline to retain jurisdiction over plaintiff’s substantive FOIL claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with convenience and comity favoring state court when the federal court has not reached the state claims’ merits.

Smalls v. Charleston County Sheriff's Office · filed 2023-09-06(c)(3)

This court has not reached the merits of the state law claims and therefore finds that convenience and comity weigh in favor of reserving those state law issues for state court. See ECF Nos. 49, 53, 54. As such, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims brought against the Sheriff’s Office and dismisses those claims 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.

Jordan v. Wichita, Kansas, City of · filed 2023-09-08(c)(3)

The court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. The court finds no compelling reasons to depart from our Circuit’s general directives. Fairness and comity provide that a state court should resolve plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Chavez v. Partyka · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)

Given that all federal claims will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, including the assault claim in Claim Three.

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.

Murphy v. Cooper · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)

The Court concludes Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims against Cooper are better suited for resolution in New Mexico state court and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

S.A. v. Board of Education of Perry County, Kentucky · filed 2023-09-15(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over S.A.’s state law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

BUTLER v. PLASSE · filed 2023-09-22(c)(3)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims, but it declines to exercise that jurisdiction because all federal-law claims have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hammer v. Chestnut · filed 2023-09-27(c)

Because the court concludes that all § 1983 claims must be dismissed, the court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that Hammer has asserted.

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, especially when litigation is still at an early stage.

Necaise v. May · filed 2023-09-27(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if. . . (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court sees no reason to depart here from this well-established practice, as this case remains in a relatively early stage of litigation.

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

Hamilton v. Dunn · filed 2023-09-28(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

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

HALL v. STAFF · filed 2023-09-28(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the § 1983 claims against Staff, Story, and Strickland—the claims over which it has original jurisdiction— the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hall’s state law claims for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726.

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

Singleton v. Buncombe County Sheriff's Department · filed 2023-10-02(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent the Plaintiff intended to state a claim under North Carolina state law for defamation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claim 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with the state law claims dismissed without prejudice.

Culpepper v. Toulon Jr. · filed 2023-10-04(c)(3)

Further, given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims without leave to amend, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state laws claims Plaintiff may have; any such claims are thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Tompkins 518783 v. Unknown Part(y)(ies) · filed 2023-10-06(c)(3)

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, including at the pleading stage.

Mula v. Mula-Stouky · filed 2023-10-10(c)(3)

Absent a viable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over ... Paul Jr.’s state law claims.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim when it dismisses all federal claims before trial.

Coke v. Retirement Systems of Alabama · filed 2023-10-13(c)(4)

Where all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, district courts are encouraged to dismiss any remaining state-law claims. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004). Therefore, this court declines to entertain Plaintiff’s state-law claim advanced under Alabama Code § 13A-5-13. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, considering judicial economy and whether state courts should decide novel state law issues.

Lee v. Flint Community Schools · filed 2023-10-13(c)(3)

Because Michigan state courts are best suited to address those questions, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, taking account of whether any factors favor retaining them.

LAMONT v. KENCO ENGINEERING, INC · filed 2023-10-24(c)(3)

Since this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and there are no other factors present which would compel it to maintain jurisdiction over this straightforward state law action, it will exercise its discretion to remand this matter to the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3) and 1447(c).

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

Jones v. McComas · filed 2023-10-31(c)(3)

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

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

Frias v. Hernandez · filed 2023-11-06(c)(3)

Because the court is dismissing plaintiffs’ federal-law claim, in its discretion it would also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

When all federal claims are gone, federal courts generally should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Carpenter, Terry v. Liu · filed 2023-11-08(c)(3)

Regardless, with the federal claims gone and no diversity of citizenship between the parties, the general rule is that federal courts should relinquish 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.

Spilsbury v. Demchok · filed 2023-11-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Doe v. Watts · filed 2023-11-15(c)(3)

Here, plaintiff’s federal claims have been eliminated. Accordingly, this court ... declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and exercises its discretion to dismiss those claims.

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

Doe v. New Castle County · filed 2023-11-16(c)(3)

Because I am dismissing the remaining federal claim, I find it appropriate to dismiss the DWPA claim as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (‘The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim ... if... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction ....”). The work the parties have done should be easily transferable to a state court proceeding should Plaintiff choose to refile there.

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

WHALEY v. WATTLINGTON · filed 2023-11-17(c)(3)

With the dismissal of Whaley’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a district court ordinarily relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retaining them.

Wilson v. Johnson · filed 2023-11-20(c)(3)

Thus the general rule is that, when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims rather than resolving them on the merits. Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726. There are, however, unusual cases in which the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point to federal decision of the state-law claims on the merits. This is not such a case. The supplemental state-law claims will be DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in 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.

Long Island Anesthesiologists PLLC v. United Healthcare Insurance Company of New York Inc. · filed 2023-11-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Donnelly Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after disposing of the related federal claims.

Plotnick v. Dayton Public Schools · filed 2023-11-22(c)(3)

As to Plotnick’s third and final claim, a state law claim for disability discrimination, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim without having independent federal subject matter jurisdiction over a civil claim making up a part of the same case or controversy.

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

Johnson v. Pruett · filed 2023-11-28(c)(3)

The court looks to both the statutory factors set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) as well as “the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Enochs v. Lampasas Cnty., 641 F.3d 155, 158–59 (5th Cir. 2011). ... While the action has been pending in this court for some time, there has been little motion practice and the trial date is still several months away. Accordingly, the court finds inadequate justification to retain these remaining claims sounding purely in state law between non-diverse 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.

Syville v. City of New York · filed 2023-11-29(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 the federal claims.

Swinson v. 22nd Judicial Circuit Court Officials · filed 2023-11-30(c)(3)

The Court will therefore dismiss this action at this time, without prejudice, and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims plaintiff may be understood to bring.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Hale v. Strano & Associates, LTD · filed 2023-12-04(c)(3)

While this federal district court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, “the Seventh Circuit has adopted ‘the sensible presumption that if the federal claims drop out before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over the state-law claims.’” Doe v. Sch. Dist. 214, 532 F. Supp. 3d 665, 684 (N.D. Ill. 2021) (quoting Williams Elecs. Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 2007)). Because the Court has found that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief under the SCRA, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims.

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

Dalton v. Miller · filed 2023-12-07(c)(3)

To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks relief under North Carolina law, 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 a state-law claim after disposing of the federal claims.

Mihalich v. City of Eugene · filed 2023-12-07(c)(3)

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 57 & 83, are GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ Federal claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claim for wrongful death. 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, based on a discretionary balance of relevant considerations.

Jenkins 962092 v. Aspirus Eye Clinic · filed 2023-12-12(c)(3)

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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lee v. City of Pascagoula, Jackson County, Mississippi · filed 2023-12-14(c)(3)

A district court has discretion to decline 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.

Ahmad v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · filed 2023-12-14(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his state-law claims standing alone. The Court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once 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 the federal claims before trial.

Wilson 453216 v. Blue · filed 2023-12-15(c)(3)

Because the magistrate judge recommends dismissal of Wilson’s federal law claims, he recommends that this Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This Court finds that the R&R makes a sound recommendation, and as such will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Wilson’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after disposing of federal claims, but courts generally decline to do so before trial when they have not considered the state-law merits.

Moore Jr, Andreas v. Hoffman · filed 2023-12-19(a)

While the court may continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), courts are generally discouraged from doing so when the federal claims are disposed of before trial and the court has not considered the merits of the state-law claims. See Hagan v. Quinn, 867 F.3d 816, 830 (7th Cir. 2017) (the presumption when all federal claims in a suit in federal court are dismissed before trial is that the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over any supplemental state-law claims). Regardless, since exercising jurisdiction over the state-law claims does not appear to serve judicial efficiency, and neither party asks the court to retain jurisdiction over them if the federal claims are dismissed, plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to him pursuing them in state court, subject to any applicable statute of limitations.

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, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Govan v. State of Maryland · filed 2023-12-20(c)(3)

This litigation was originally filed in state court and has just begun. For reasons explained above, the federal law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit. The remaining state law issues presented in this case, including whether Longtin claims extend to state governments and whether Article 24 protects convicted prisoners, are better adjudicated in state court given Maryland’s strong interest in adjudicating such disputes under its own laws and protocols. Thus, after considering the Carnegie-Mellon factors, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendent state law claims.

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

CULBRETH v. PRIMECARE MEDICAL INC. · filed 2023-12-21(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.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it disposes of all federal claims by summary judgment.

Hollie v. Essentia Health Moose Lake Clinic · filed 2023-12-22(c)(3)

And the Court agrees with Judge Brisbois’ conclusion that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Hollie’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is appropriate under the circumstances.

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

Harris v. Wells Fargo, N.A. · filed 2023-12-27(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in various circumstances, including when the district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Here, following the dismissal of HUD (ECF No. 18), no federal claims remain and no rulings as to the state-law claims have yet been made. This Court concludes that these circumstances favor remand back to the state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with comity and judicial economy weighing in the decision.

Crosby v. Colleton County Sheriff's Office, The · filed 2023-12-27(c)

The Court declines to exercise it supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state law claims. While it might be more convenient for the Parties to remain in this forum, the Court finds that underlying issues of comity and considerations of judicial economy weigh in favor of remanding the remaining claims to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally favors declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Harley v. Fay Servicing LLC · filed 2023-12-29(c)(3)

Generally, when federal claims drop out of a case, federal courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. ... Nothing in this case suggests that the presumption should be ignored. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ state law claim for breach of contract against Defendant will be dismissed without prejudice so that it may be pursued in a state forum.

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

Paixao v. City of Greenwood · filed 2024-01-02(c)(3)

The fact that all federal claims have been disposed of counsels in favor of the district court declining to retain jurisdiction over any 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.

Varlack v. TD Bank North · filed 2024-01-02(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 remaining state-law claims after all claims supplying independent federal jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Lattimore v. Brahmbhatt · filed 2024-01-03(c)(3)

And because all the claims that give rise to jurisdiction in this court have been dismissed, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these paradigmatic state-law claims and remand this action to the Henry County Circuit Court for resolution.12 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint fails to state a federal claim.

Lewis v. Ivy Medical · filed 2024-01-11(c)(3)

Moreover, because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims in any event. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Coulter v. Coulter · filed 2024-01-16(c)(3)

But the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over those claims once it had dismissed Coulter’s federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123-24 (3d Cir. 2000).

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

S.M. v. FREEHOLD REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2024-01-17(c)(3)

Because judgment is entered for the Board on Plaintiffs’ federal claims, 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 state law claims after dismissing the federal claims within its original jurisdiction.

Watkins v. Tuscaloosa County School District · filed 2024-01-18(c)(3)

As explained above, those claims are due to be dismissed. Assuming without ... deciding that Plaintiffs’ state law claims are “so related” to their § 1983 claims as to allow this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, it declines to do so here. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are eliminated early in the case.

(PS) Jayaton-Kerry v. Cooper · filed 2024-01-19(c)(3)

Where the federal claims are eliminated early in a case, the federal court may—and should here—decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims.

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

Washington v. State Bar of Texas · filed 2024-01-25(c)(3)

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

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

Nouri v. State of Ohio · filed 2024-01-29(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendant state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Musson Theatrical v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254-55 (6th Cir. 1996) (“When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims...”).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the case has not progressed substantially and no particular prejudice will result.

GRANT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2024-01-31(c)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.® See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Such a dismissal is appropriate where, as here, the only federal claims have been dismissed, the case has not progressed substantially, and no particular prejudice will result.

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

Hurt v. Greene County Tech School District · filed 2024-01-31(c)(3)

But, in the absence of any federal question, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claim.

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

Maloney v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2024-01-31(c)(3)

Given my disposition of Plaintiff's Title VII claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining DDEA 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.

Simon v. House · filed 2024-01-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed those of Plaintiff’s claims of which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction (Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983), the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any of his claims under state law.

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

Reed v. Lucky Leaf LLC · filed 2024-02-21(c)(3)

Under the circumstances currently before the Court, these factors weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Galindo v. City of San Francisco · filed 2024-02-27(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ only federal cause of action, the Court, ... in its discretion, declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint fails to state a federal claim.

Howard v. Radtke · filed 2024-02-27(c)(3)

Because the court has concluded that the complaint does not state a federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims the plaintiff may have stated in the second amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Lavite v. Dunstan, 932 F.3d 1020, 1034-35 (7th Cir. 2019).

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

Kersey v. Catawba Valley Medical Center · filed 2024-03-01(c)(3)

As to Plaintiff's state law medical negligence claims against Catawba Valley Medical Center and the unidentified healthcare providers employed there, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as no federal claim has passed initial review.

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

Harts v. Calvert County Sheriff · filed 2024-03-05(c)(3)

Considerations of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of remanding the case. Therefore, the court exercises its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

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

Savage v. Baltimore City Community College · filed 2024-03-07(c)(3)

The court declines to extend supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over these claims in view of the absence of any viable federal 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.

Williams v. Honda Development and Manufacturing of America, LLC · filed 2024-03-07(c)(3)

Having dismissed Claim II!—Williams’s FMLA claim, the lone federal claim— the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’s state law discrimination claims set forth in Claims |, Il, 1V, V, VI, and VIl.

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

Mirkooshesh v. Elie · filed 2024-03-11(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c) permits discretionary dismissal of a supplemental state-law claim after federal claims are dismissed, but parties can forfeit the issue by failing to raise it.

Southern California Edison Company v. Orange County Transportation Authority · filed 2024-03-13(c)

The parties in this case might have argued that the district court should dismiss the supplemental state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) in the event that it dismissed the federal claim. But neither party so argued, either in the district court or before us. We decline to excuse the parties’ forfeiture by sua sponte disclaiming supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

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

Ash v. Law Enforcement Agencies · filed 2024-03-14(c)(3)

The decision to dismiss all federal claims raises the question of whether this Court should exert jurisdiction over these remaining state claims. While district courts have “supplemental jurisdiction” over all other claims that are related to claims in the action that the court has original jurisdiction over, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c). On this issue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has stated that when a district court has dismissed all such claims, “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity normally weigh against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.” Wells ex rel. Glover v. Creighton Preparatory Sch., 82 F.4th 586, 594 (8th Cir. 2023) (quotations omitted). There is no reason to depart from Wells’s guidance here. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, based on 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 a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Balaban v. Winters · filed 2024-03-15(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over this remaining claim.6 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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

Turner v. MTA Metro-North Commuter RR · filed 2024-03-19(c)(3)

I have dismissed all claims over which I had original jurisdiction, as well as the state law claims governed by the same standards as their federal counterparts. Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYCHRL claims.

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

Sovereign Freeman, Sovereignty Joeseph v. Hallet, Todd · filed 2024-03-20(c)(3)

Ordinarily, this court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all federal causes of action.

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

Givens v. Wichita, Kansas, City of · filed 2024-03-20(c)(3)

But a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when the claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... The Court therefore does not reach the merits of any of the remaining state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

Back v. Bank Hapoalim, B.M. · filed 2024-03-21(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), if the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any non-federal claims over which it could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction. ... Because no federal claims remain that are subject to a merits determination by this Court, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate Back’s state and city law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when it dismisses all federal claims supporting original jurisdiction at an early stage of litigation.

Soscia Holdings, LLC v. P Terrence Gray, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, And David · filed 2024-03-25(c)

The court has already determined that all of Soscia’s federal claims, which were the basis for the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, should be dismissed. At this early stage in the litigation, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims after the claims supporting original jurisdiction are eliminated.

Paselio v. Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc. · filed 2024-03-26(c)(3)

Once the claim over which it had original jurisdiction is dismissed, a federal court may remand or dismiss the remaining state law claims.

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

McIntosh v. City of Madisonville, Kentucky · filed 2024-03-26(c)(3)

Having concluded that summary judgment is warranted on Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their 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.

Clements v. City of Elgin · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3), the Court follows this presumption and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Estate’s pendent state law claims.

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

Jones v. District of Columbia · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

With these considerations in mind, “the Court concludes that it is most appropriate not to [exercise] supplemental jurisdiction over” Mr. Jones’s IIED claim. Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Court will remand that sole remaining count to the D.C. Superior 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.

Waukegan Potawatomi Casino, LLc v. City of Waukegan · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

In view of this outcome on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim (Count I, its only federal-law claim), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction [if] . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”); see also Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 404 (7th Cir. 2007) (“As a general matter, when all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, the federal court should relinquish jurisdiction over the remaining pendant state claims.”). Counts IT and III are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims have dropped out early and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor state court.

Gayhardt v. Genesis Healthcare, LLC · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

After considering the Carnegie-Mellon factors, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' pendent state law claims.

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

Irish v. Tropical Emerald LLC · filed 2024-03-30(c)(3)

Finally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the New York State Executive Law, the New York City Administrative Code, and the New York State Civil Rights Law, to the extent that such claims remain at issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed or resolved by summary judgment.

Watson v. City of Henderson · filed 2024-04-05(c)(3)

Because I have granted summary judgment on or dismissed Watson’s federal claims, I am not inclined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims at this time, so I dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Torgerson v. Roberts County, South Dakota · filed 2024-04-05(c)

This Court will not use its discretion to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims of the plaintiff or defendants.

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

Williams v. Ascension Medical Group-Southeast Wisconsin Inc · filed 2024-04-17(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining portions of Plaintiff’s claims seeking bonuses under STARP, and the Court will remand those remaining claims to the Wisconsin state court from which the case was removed.

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

McFalls v. NCH Healthcare System, Inc. · filed 2024-04-19(c)

With the federal claims dismissed, the Court will decline its supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Anderson v. First Horizon Bank · filed 2024-04-19(c)(3)

When a federal court lacks jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Vega v. Kirschenbaum · filed 2024-04-24(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff does not currently state a federal claim, the Court declines, at this time, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims of negligence and malpractice that Plaintiff is attempting to raise in his complaint.

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 gone, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Reid v. Atlas Cars, Inc. · filed 2024-04-25(c)(3)

Fairness and comity to the state courts weigh against supplemental jurisdiction. Thus, balancing the above factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Reid’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, weighing judicial economy and the avoidance of multiple suits against the need to avoid deciding state-law issues.

Cullen 766186 v. Wall · filed 2024-05-02(c)(3)

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, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Klinger, Hellman, Wall, Crace, and Spencer will be dismissed, and the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s potential state-law negligence claims against Defendants Klinger, Hellman, Wall, Crace, and Spencer will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Perkins Jr. v. Panorama Towers Condo Unit Owners, Dennis Kariger · filed 2024-05-07(c)(3)

Because I lack subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and am dismissing all federal claims with prejudice, I also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Nampiaparampil v. The New York City Campaign Finance Board · filed 2024-05-08(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), if the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any non-federal claims over which it could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction. ... Because no federal claims remain that are subject to a merits determination by this Court, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate Nampiaparampil’s state law claims.

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

Bowers v. City of Porterville · filed 2024-05-09(c)(3)

Relevant here, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Lazarou v. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology · filed 2024-05-13(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law unjust enrichment claim. See Thomas v. City of Chi., No. 20 C 4323, 2021 WL 1923406, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2021) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims fail at summary judgment.

Betts v. Varner · filed 2024-05-14(c)(3)

First, and most importantly, because Betts’ federal claims fail at summary judgment, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state- law negligence claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to dismiss remaining state claims after it dismisses the final claim within its original jurisdiction.

68V BTR Holdings, LLC v. City of Fairhope · filed 2024-06-18(c)(3)

Because it is dismissing the final claim over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court has discretion to dismiss the remaining state claims under Section 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) generally calls for a federal court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are resolved before trial.

Doughty, Matthew v. Hoffman, Karl · filed 2024-06-25(c)(3)

Since the general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Ditlefson, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999), and this court is dismissing Doughty’s federal claim against Dr. Hoffmann, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim.

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

Noe v. Harris-Stowe State University · filed 2024-07-02(c)(3)

Thus, the Court may refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Colorado Property Owners for Property Rights v. Town of Breckenridge, Colorado · filed 2024-07-09(c)(3)

In the interest of judicial economy and fairness, and to promote the notions of comity and federalism, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim and, rather dismissing the remaining claim, will sua sponte REMAND that claim to the District Court for Summit County, Colorado.

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

O'Flaherty v. United States Marshall Service · filed 2024-07-09(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, dismisses Plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice and dismisses this case without prejudice.

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

Patterson v. Florida Department of Children and Families · filed 2024-07-11(c)(3)

Here, given the numerous deficiencies in the operative complaint and the absence of any connection between Plaintiff’s non-federal claims and this venue, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Patterson’s non-federal claims asserted in Counts II, III, and V.

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

Alvarado v. Birdyshaw · filed 2024-07-12(c)

Now that the Court has granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the federal claims, the court declines to continue to exercise that jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Bailey v. City of Chicago, 779 F.3d 689, 696 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

Teetz v. Sedgwick County, Kansas · filed 2024-07-16(c)(3)

At this time, the Court has granted summary judgment to the WPD Officers on all of their federal claims. Thus, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims against the WPD Officers.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when no federal questions remain, taking comity and the case’s progress into account.

Webb v. Beridon · filed 2024-07-16(c)(3)

At this point, there are no federal questions left and the case has not proceeded beyond the filing of the Complaint (no Defendant has yet been served). So as a matter of comity, the Court finds it best to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and to dismiss these remaining state-law claims without prejudice.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when comity favors remand.

Gillespie v. Spartanburg County School District Five · filed 2024-07-18(c)(3)

Further, comity favors remand since the remaining claims are quintessential state law questions. Therefore, 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Francis v. Lafayette Parish · filed 2024-07-29(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and those claims will be remanded 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.

Brightwell v. Temesgen · filed 2024-07-31(c)(3)

In the absence of viable claims that come within federal question jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brightwell’s state law negligence claims.

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

Jordan v. Davis · filed 2024-07-31(c)(3)

I have concluded that Counts 1 and 2 are subject to dismissal. ... As a result, I must decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. ... In my view, a remand to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City is the appropriate disposition.

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

Wintrode v. Carter · filed 2024-08-07(c)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after all federal claims have failed and to dismiss that claim without prejudice.

Thomas v. Virginia Department of Transportation · filed 2023-07-05(c)(3)

Because all federal claims have failed, I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and the state claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

(PC) Sanford v. Eaton · filed 2023-07-05(c)(3)

Because the Court has found at the screening stage that Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable federal claims, the Court finds that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims is not appropriate.

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.

Willis v. CSL MANAGEMENT L.L.C., d/b/a CEDARBROOK SENIOR LIVING · filed 2023-07-05(c)(3)

But when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court has dismissed all claims against Defendant that raise a federal question. Thus, no claims remain over which the Court has original jurisdiction. The Court will accordingly “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” the two remaining State-law claims.

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

HOWARD v. CINNAMINSON TWP. BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2023-07-05(c)(3)

Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the IDEA and the SAC will be dismissed. Consistent with the reasoning behind that decision, 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Squire v. Suffolk 1st present police · filed 2023-07-05(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, 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 the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Squire v. New · filed 2023-07-05(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Squire v. Brooks · filed 2023-07-05(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, 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 a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims.

Plater v. Poirot · filed 2023-07-05(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law fraud claim 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Burnside v. Monarch Real Estate Crop · filed 2023-07-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ 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 dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Marrara v. Murphy · filed 2023-07-07(c)(3)

The District Court likewise did not err in declining to review Appellants’ state law claims and remanding them to state court after dismissing the 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Beriones v. IMH Asset Corp. · filed 2023-07-07(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) states that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the “district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Here, the Court has dismissed all claims arising under federal law, and declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, including her proposed fraud claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, and subsection (d) tolls the limitations period to permit refiling in state court.

Gilbert v. Centers for Advanced Orthopaedics, LLC · filed 2023-07-07(c)(3), (d)

However, because the Court finds that the FCA claim is subject to dismissal, the remaining claims are state law claims, and the parties are both citizens of Maryland, there are no remaining claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, the Court need not address the remaining argument for dismissal on the merits because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2018). The statute of limitations is tolled for 30 days to permit Dr. Gilbert to refile his remaining claims in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

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

SAMPSON v. BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE · filed 2023-07-07(c)(3)

Upon dismissal of a plaintiff’s federal claims, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Kramer v. Kubicka, 222 F. App’x 184, 186 (3d Cir. 2007). Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claim against Defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claim against Defendant under the NJCRA.

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

Fraser v. The Pennsylvania State University · filed 2023-07-07(c)(3)

Because Fraser’s federal claims must be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 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.

Harris v. Vassallo · filed 2023-07-10(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, however, 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 of any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Robinson v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services · filed 2023-07-10(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and she cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), of any state law claims.

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.

Senear v. Mininni · filed 2023-07-10(c)(3)

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 over remaining state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Celester v. Baker Buick & G.M.C. · filed 2023-07-10(c)(3)

(4) the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and hereby dismisses this action.2 See 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 the federal claims are dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Garramone v. SUNY - Stony Brook Un. Hospital · filed 2023-07-11(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of a viably pled federal law claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any other state law claims that may be reasonably construed from the amended complaint.

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

Fitzgibbons v. County of Tompkins · filed 2023-07-11(c)(3)

But because Plaintiff's federal claims have been dismissed for the reasons stated above, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Section 75-b and NYSHRL claims.

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

Cargo On Demand, Inc. v. Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. · filed 2023-07-11(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of its sole federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state-law claims. ... Given the relatively early stage of the case, the traditional “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” that the Court must consider do not counsel in favor of exercising jurisdiction.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim when diversity jurisdiction is absent.

Mid-Atlantic Field Services LLC v. Barfield · filed 2023-07-12(c)(3)

In this case, because Plaintiff's sole federal claim will be dismissed and diversity jurisdiction does not exist,° the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

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

McDonald v. Transit Authority River City · filed 2023-07-12(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss Plaintiff federal claims, it 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Sheehan v. Chelsea Soldiers Home. · filed 2023-07-12(c)(3)

Here, at this early stage of the litigation, the Court can discern no reason why keeping the case in federal court is warranted based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, or comity. The Court will therefore not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and they too are dismissed.

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

Tanser (Keye) v. Surrogate Court · filed 2023-07-12(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 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 state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Harris v. Denully · filed 2023-07-12(c)(3)

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

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

Staten v. Buchanan · filed 2023-07-13(c)(3)

Now that the court has granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the federal claims, the court declines to continue to exercise jurisdiction over Staten’s state law claims.

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

Esters v. Pettway · filed 2023-07-13(c)(3)

Because the court has granted summary judgment for all federal law claims, only the tort of outrage claims arising under Alabama law remain. But a “district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having entered judgment in the Defendants’ favor for all claims arising under this court’s original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and those claims are DISMISSED 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.

Pereira v. Town of North Hempstead · filed 2023-07-13(c)(3)

Because the Court herein dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal claims, only Plaintiffs’ state law claims under MRHL §§ 10 and 23 and the New York State Constitution remain.15 The Court, however, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Jones v. Gonzalez · filed 2023-07-14(c)(3)

A federal court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” See 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 remaining state law claim after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Roman Serpik LLC v. Marsee · filed 2023-07-14(c)(3)

All federal claims have now been dismissed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Serpik’s remaining state law claim asserted under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 424.

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

SINGLETON V. HARBOR FREIGHT MANAGER · filed 2023-07-14(c)(3)

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

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.

FRANKLIN v. TWIGGS COUNTY GEORGIA · filed 2023-07-17(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims against these Defendants in accordance with the considerable discretion afforded the Court by 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 sole federal claim early in the case.

Sarvis v. Casey · filed 2023-07-17(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sarvis’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), given its early dismissal of the sole federal claim.

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

Thompson v. City of Mont Belvieu DO NOT DOCKET. Case remanded to 344th District Court of Chambers C · filed 2023-07-18(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the defendants’ motions and dismisses Thompson’s federal claims without prejudice. Dkts. 9, 10, 11. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any alleged violations under Texas law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It therefore remands what remains of this action to the 344th Judicial District Court of Chambers County.

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

Goings v. Jones · filed 2023-07-18(c)(3)

Because there are no remaining federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these 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.

Carter v. Washington · filed 2023-07-18(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all claims against Defendants that raise a federal question, and no claims remain over which the Court has original jurisdiction. The Court will accordingly “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” the two remaining State-law claims.

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

Bradley 364936 v. Woods · filed 2023-07-18(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Zuhovitzky v. UBS AG Che 101.329.562 · filed 2023-07-18(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Brathwaite v. Guerri · filed 2023-07-18(c)(3)

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims under federal law for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and declines to consider, under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Howard v. Radtke · filed 2023-07-19(c)(3)

Because the court has concluded that the complaint does not state a federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims the plaintiff may have stated in the amended complaint.