28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court that resolves all federal claims before trial to remand remaining state claims while retaining jurisdiction over a closely related state claim.

Kaltenberg, Richard v. County of Dane · filed 2023-07-19(c)(3)

When a district court disposes of all federal claims before trial, the usual and preferred course is to remand any remaining state claims to the state court. Leister v. Dovetail, Inc., 546 F.3d 875, 882 (7th Cir. 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“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”). This is particularly true where a defendant has raised specific state law defenses to plaintiffs’ remaining claims, including notice of claim, discretionary immunity and a public policy defense, as the County has here. Under the circumstances, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law nuisance claim and will remand that claim to state court. However, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ near identical takings claim under the Wisconsin Constitution.

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

Davis v. Elmore County Jail · filed 2023-07-19(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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including at the motion to dismiss stage.

GIBSON v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON · filed 2023-07-19(c)(3)

Because this case has not progressed past the motion to dismiss stage, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its discretion and dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

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

Dupre v. City of San Diego · filed 2023-07-20(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims against the City and Individual Defendants.

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

Gilmore v. Vital Core, LLC · filed 2023-07-20(c)(3)

This Court is not obliged to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, even if valid, given that Plaintiff's federal constitutional claims are subject to dismissal.

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

Canders v. MSN Online News · filed 2023-07-20(c)(3)

The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in the following manner: the Court (1) dismisses Plaintiff’s claims in which she seeks the criminal investigation and prosecution of the defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); (2) dismisses Plaintiff’s claims of copyright infringement and trademark infringement for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and (3) declines to consider, under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, any of Plaintiff’s claims that she asserts under state law, 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Vargas v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2023-07-21(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3), allowing the court to exercise discretion upon dismissal of all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, applies here.

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

Lewis v. Stango · filed 2023-07-21(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff asserts any claims under state law, 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Miller v. Gettel · filed 2023-07-21(c)(3)

As such this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims for negligence and gross negligence under Michigan law (Counts V and VI).

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

Aiken v. Station Casinos, LLC · filed 2023-07-21(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses plaintiff's state law claim arising under NRS 651.070 without prejudice to its filing in state court.

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

Zamichieli v. Ficks · filed 2023-07-21(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court having dismissed Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment sexual assault and excessive force claims, will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law assault and battery claims against Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Jackson v. Mitchell · filed 2023-07-24(c)(3)

If Plaintiff intended to allege state claims in his Amended Complaint for defamation, slander, and false imprisonment, the Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over such claims as it recommends all federal claims be dismissed.

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

Wise v. Maier · filed 2023-07-24(c)(3)

But as a matter of statute, a court may decline 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Allfrey v. Fairhope Motorcoach Resort Condominium Owners Association, Inc. · filed 2023-07-25(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Lech v. Gettel · filed 2023-07-25(c)(3)

As such this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims for negligence and gross negligence under Michigan law (Counts V and VI).

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.

Gloe v. Terex Corporation · filed 2023-07-25(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over ... these claims because there are no remaining federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

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

Raynor v. Connecticut · filed 2023-07-26(c)(3)

The court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal law claims. Thus, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law tort 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.

Hunt v. City of Madisonville, Kentucky · filed 2023-07-26(c)(3)

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 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.

Cain v. Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office · filed 2023-07-26(c)(3)

The State-law issues here are not novel or complex and they do not predominate over the § 1983 claims, but there is a compelling reason to remand them, because, as the Court discusses below, the Court will dismiss Cain’s federal-law claims.

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

Ripple Analytics Inc. v. People Center, Inc. · filed 2023-07-26(c)(3)

Even assuming this Court has discretion to exercise such jurisdiction, given that the Court has not dealt with the substance of this action in any significant way, and the federal claims are being dismissed well before trial, the factors weigh against such exercise. Therefore, the third claim is dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no plausible federal claim remains, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Hassan v. United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corp · filed 2023-07-26(c)(3)

Thus, given the absence of a plausible federal claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any such state law claims. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Madera v. King County Criminal Term Supreme Court of New York · filed 2023-07-26(c)(3)

Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Plaintiff’s slander claim because all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local-law claims requiring separate analysis under a different standard.

Fischman v. Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings America, Inc. · filed 2023-07-26(c)(3)

By contrast, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fischman’s claims under the NYCHRL, as they are subject to a different standard and must be analyzed separately.

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

Parker v. District of Columbia · filed 2023-07-27(c)(3)

Here, the Court in its discretion will, considering the balance of factors, dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; when the defendants removed the case, the court may remand the remaining local claim.

Lea v. District of Columbia · filed 2023-07-27(c)(3)

By the same token, they “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such] claim[s] . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... These factors weigh against retention here. ... Given that it was Defendants who removed the matter here, the fairer course is to remand the case to Superior Court, where Plaintiff may prosecute her local cause of action.

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.

Manley v. State of New York · filed 2023-07-27(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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

McPherson v. State of New York · filed 2023-07-27(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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, with fairness and comity favoring remand where the remaining state law issues are novel.

I Dig Texas, LLC v. Creager Services, LLC · filed 2023-04-24(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). ... However, the interests of fairness and comity favor remanding the case to state court for trial on the remaining state law claims, particularly in light of the novelty of the parties’s arguments and the lack of Oklahoma judicial precedent interpreting the ODTPA.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the claims supporting original jurisdiction have fallen away, after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and possible manipulation.

Mallory v. Terminal Investment Corporation · filed 2023-04-20(c)(3)

“[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... All in all, the factors strongly weigh in favor of remand. As such, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and instead remands the case to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

BRATHWAITE v. CITY OF LONG BRANCH · filed 2023-04-21(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court has discretion to decline jurisdiction over remaining claims after all federal claims have been dismissed from the action. ... Based on a careful consideration of all of the factors, the Court finds in favor of remanding Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

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

Betty Hussein-v-Marin General Hospital · filed 2025-01-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed the preempted claims, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's motion to remand the remaining claims to state court.

After dismissing the federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remand them after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Young · filed 2026-04-21(c)(3)

In short, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all weigh in favor of remand, and the Court assumes that the case will once again be consolidated in state court with the White matter, which also will avoid the multiplicity of litigation.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to remand remaining state law claims after the claim supporting federal jurisdiction has been dismissed.

Farr · filed 2026-06-15(c)

The only claims remaining are state law claims, and the Court remands per the 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) factors.

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

Eckhaus v. City of New York · filed 2023-05-01(c)(3)

Having found that summary judgment is appropriate on plaintiff’s federal law claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Singh v. The Procter & Gamble Company · filed 2023-05-03(c)(3)

But if he is, given that this case is at the very outset and the Court is dismissing all his federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, particularly when the case is still in its early stages.

Galanti v. James Miller DMD · filed 2023-05-03(c)(3)

When a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to assert supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(a) requires enough information about a state-law claim to assess whether it is so related to the federal claims that it forms part of the same case or controversy.

Brent v. City of Cumberland Police Department · filed 2023-03-10(a)

... and does not allow the Court to assess whether it ts “so related” to the federal law claims “that they form part of the same case or controversy” such that the Court may properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law defamation claim.

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

Futrell v. Cargill, Incorporated · filed 2023-03-15(a)

Because the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the FLSA claims, it has supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Sanchez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-03-21(a)

Count IV is related to claims in the action within the Court’s original jurisdiction such that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a permissive counterclaim only if it forms part of the same Article III case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Jackson v. Hardrock Landscapes, LLC · filed 2023-03-28(a)

In this case, the proposed counterclaims do not form part of the same Article III case or controversy as the FLSA claims, because the legal and factual issues arising from the breach of contract and conversion claim are not sufficiently related to the FLSA claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that arise from the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

Israel v. The City of Chicago · filed 2023-03-28(a)

Because these state claims and the federal claims arise from the same case or controversy, the May 18, 2006, arrest and reporting thereof, jurisdiction in federal court would be proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) applies only when a claim is so related to a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Oden v. Reed · filed 2023-03-29(a)

With respect to supplemental jurisdiction, the Court finds the mandatory language of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) does not apply here, where the privacy claim is not so related to the retaliation claim, over which this Court has original jurisdiction, such that it could be said that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

Section 1367(a) extends supplemental jurisdiction to a state-law assault and battery claim arising from the same encounter as a federal excessive-force claim.

Rasmussen v. Swanson · filed 2023-03-29(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), this Court “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action [over which this Court has original jurisdiction] that they form part of the same case or controversy|.]” Rasmussen’s state-law assault and battery claim is part of the same “case or controversy” as her Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. Thus, this Court appears to have supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law assault claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction only when a claim is so related to a claim within original jurisdiction that both form part of the same case or controversy.

Braun v. Termaat · filed 2023-04-11(a)

But, as currently pled, it is unclear to me that Plaintiffs’ claims against Hensel are “so related” to the potential § 1983 claims as to form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) requires a state or local claim to be so related to a claim within original jurisdiction that both form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Mendez v. A. L. Contractor NY · filed 2023-04-11(a)

However, it is not clear to the Court, based on plaintiff’s complaint, that plaintiff’s age discrimination claims are “so related to” his federal wage-and-hour claims “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims so related to claims within original jurisdiction that they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Gray v. CTP Funding · filed 2023-04-12(a)

For the remainder of the claims the Court exerts supplemental jurisdiction pursuant ... to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because “all other claims are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same facts as a § 1983 claim.

Smith v. Knight · filed 2023-04-27(a)

This claim arises from the same facts as his § 1983 claim. Thus, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same allegations and relating to the same wages, hours, and working conditions as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Stendal v. Memorial Health Services · filed 2023-05-08(a)

Stendal’s remaining claims arise from the same allegations and relate to the same wages, hours, and working conditions. Therefore, Stendal’s remaining claims are sufficiently related to the preempted claim that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims.

Niewiedzial v. Robinson Medical Staff · filed 2023-05-08(a)

The state law claims in Counts 3 through 9 form part of the same case or controversy as the federal law claims in Counts 1 and 2, so the Court will screen them as part of this case.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim that arises from the same events as federal trademark claims.

Waters v. Notorious Media LLC · filed 2023-05-11(a)

As a result, the breach of contract claim and the federal Lanham Act claims flow naturally from one another, meaning that it would be both judicially inefficient and generally unreasonable to not find this claim subject to supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court finds the breach of contract claim subject to supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1967.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a fraudulent transfer claim when it arises from the same asset transfers on which federal successor liability claims depend.

Ji v. New Aily Foot Relax Station Inc · filed 2023-05-19(a)

However, because Ji’s FLSA claims against the Successor Companies depend on the imposition of successor liability, his FLSA claims and the Fraudulent Transfer Claim arise from largely the same events—i.e., that Old Aily, Ji’s former employer that allegedly failed to pay him adequate wages, transferred all its assets to New Aily, and then to Eileen, for no consideration, to render Old Aily insolvent against a judgment to Ji in the Prior Litigation. Accordingly, in this particular case, the Fraudulent Transfer Claim and the FLSA claims “form part of the same case or controversy,” making the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction appropriate.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that forms part of the same Article III case or controversy as a claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Jones v. Fischer · filed 2023-05-25(a)

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) grants district courts “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within [the courts’] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” These grounds do not apply here.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law lien claim arising from the same set of facts as a maritime lien claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator, AK Registration No. AK3565AN · filed 2023-05-30(a)

Notwithstanding, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that supplemental jurisdiction exists over Liberty’s state law lien claim because it arises from the same set of facts as AGS’s lien claim, which invokes this Court’s original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that arise from the same wage and hour violations as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Novoselac v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o. · filed 2023-06-07(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Claims 3-7, asserted under state law, as those claims arise out of the same wage and hour violations that form the basis of the FLSA claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. AMCK Aviation Holdings Ireland Limited · filed 2023-06-07(a)

Even if the amount in controversy on Frontier’s other claims against these two defendants did not exceed $75,000, the Court would elect to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, as these “form part of the same case or controversy” and “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Smith v. City of Kansas City, Missouri Board of Police Commissioners · filed 2023-06-09(a)

And the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim because it involves the same case or controversy as her federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law wrongful termination claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Schmit v. Trimac Transportation Inc. · filed 2023-06-13(a)

The facts alleged relating to his wrongful termination claim “form part of the same case or controversy” as his federal claims. See Starkey v. Amber Enterprises, Inc., 987 F.3d 758, 765-66 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)). Trimac recognizes in its motion that constructive discharge may form the basis for a wrongful termination claim under South Dakota law. Supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim is proper and Trimac’s motion to dismiss the claim should be denied.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law wage claims arising from the same failure to pay wages as a federal claim.

Jimenez v. Terrific Tree Trimmer LLC · filed 2023-06-23(a)

As to Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims—failure to pay minimum wage, in violation of the AMWA and failure to pay wages due and owing, in violation of the AWA—this Court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction because the claims arise out of the same case or controversy, i.e., Defendants’ failure to pay wages.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to pending federal claims when they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

Christianson v. Klang · filed 2023-06-27(a)

The state-law claims were related to those federal claims, such that “they form[ed] part of the same case or controversy under Article III.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Babinski has failed to explain how the Court abused its discretion when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law medical malpractice claim based on the same facts as an Eighth Amendment claim.

Sokolowski v. Kuber · filed 2023-07-06(a)

Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that is “so related to claims in the action within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). ... Because the facts underlying the plaintiffs claim of medical malpractice are the same as those underlying his Eighth Amendment claim, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claim. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Bliss v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2023-07-14(a)

The retaliation and defamation claims are so related to the federal claim that it is appropriate for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Ivey v. County of Albany · filed 2023-07-18(a)

Here, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim given that it arises out of the exact same set of facts as Plaintiff’s federal Title VII claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims before it.

Riley, Jimmy v. Lange, Brian · filed 2023-07-19(a)

Because plaintiff’s negligence claims “form part of the same case or controversy” as plaintiff’s claims against Lange, Thielen, and Keehn, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over claims so related to claims within its original jurisdiction that they form part of the same Article III case or controversy.

John Muir Health v. Health Care Service Corporation · filed 2023-07-24(a)

Any remaining claims – claims relating to non-payments for patients who may not have been beneficiaries of ERISA-covered plans – are “so related to the claims in the action within [the Court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,” and the Court has supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim unrelated to the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Ali v. Harry · filed 2023-07-26(a)

Specifically, there is no supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the claim is not “so related to the claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Kozak v. CSX Transportation, Inc. · filed 2023-08-01(a)

Here, both of Kozak’s discrimination claims arise from the same facts, and therefore form the same case or controversy such that this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her New York discrimination claim.

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

Kessler v. Casey's General Stores, Inc. · filed 2023-08-04(a)

However, because this case also involves state law and there is no question that the claims arise from the same set of operative facts, supplemental jurisdiction applies.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim sufficiently related to a federal claim to form part of the same case or controversy.

Knight v. Avery · filed 2023-08-14(a)

At this stage, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that state-law claim because it is so related to his excessive force claim that the two claims are part of the same case or controversy.

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

Alexander v. Lencrerot · filed 2023-08-14(a)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction to consider Alexander’s state-law claims because they “are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state law negligence claim arising from the same events and operative facts as a pending federal excessive force claim.

Young v. Stenger · filed 2023-08-15(a)

Accordingly, the court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pending state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (“[D]istrict courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution”). The negligence claim arises from the same series of events during the interview between Plaintiff and Defendants and is to be decided on the same operative facts.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same case or controversy as claims within its original jurisdiction.

SEXTON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2023-08-17(a)

Plaintiff's state law claims arise from the same case or controversy as her federal claims — Defendants allegedly discriminated against her based on her sex — so the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that involve different facts from the federal claims and do not form part of the same case or controversy.

Thirty Three Threads, Inc. v. Pacific Manufacturing LLC · filed 2023-08-22(a)

Upon review of the FAC and Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause, the Court is not persuaded that it has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because they are not so related to the federal claims against Pacific ... “that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

GEIGER v. SA & G CORP. · filed 2023-08-25(a)

Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when there is an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, such as federal question jurisdiction or diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Particularly, courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form “part of the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(a) permits a plaintiff to include state-law allegations closely related to federal allegations when they form the same case or controversy.

(PC) Powell v. Saradeth · filed 2023-08-28(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely to his federal allegations that “the form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same incident as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Quinney v. City of Santa Monica · filed 2023-09-06(a)

Further, Plaintiff’s remaining claims arise from the same incident of police misconduct as the Bane Act claim. (See Complaint ¶ 15–83). Accordingly, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the proof needed for it does not overlap with the proof needed for the federal claim.

Gose v. Krebs · filed 2023-09-12(a)

But the evidence necessary for Plaintiff to succeed on such a claim will not overlap with the evidence necessary for him to succeed on his federal claim. As such, the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over this state-law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party complaint arising from the same facts as an underlying diversity action because it forms part of the same case or controversy.

Troy Brave LLC v. Grantsville Truck & Trailer, LLC · filed 2023-09-14(a)

Grantsville’s Complaint also arises from the same facts giving rise to Brave’s complaint, making it part of the same case or controversy for purposes of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of facts with surviving federal claims.

Thorpe v. Aramark Correctional Services, LLC · filed 2023-09-19(a)

Here, because the Court finds that some of Plaintiff’s federal claims survive the initial PLRA screening, the Court will, at this time, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Plaintiffs federal and state law claims share a common nucleus of facts.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against one defendant when they form part of the same case or controversy as federal claims against other defendants.

Schaap v. Arcuri · filed 2023-09-21(a)

Rather, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against Defendant Bell because they “form part of the same case or controversy” as the Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against the Defendant Officers. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not permit a court to consider state law claims when it otherwise lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Roberts · filed 2026-02-10(c)

This Court will not consider Roberts’ state law claims because it does not otherwise have proper subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) requires original jurisdiction over a claim in the same action; jurisdiction over a separate action in another district does not confer supplemental jurisdiction.

IME Watchdog, Inc. v. IME Companions, LLC · filed 2023-05-18(a)

That a district court in New York has original jurisdiction over claims before it in a separate action does not bestow supplemental jurisdiction on this Court over the state law claim in this action.

A state court’s ability to decide a federal claim does not divest a federal court of supplemental jurisdiction over the accompanying claims under § 1367(a).

Crawford v. Ally Finalcial, Inc. · filed 2023-06-23(a)

And although Plaintiff correctly notes that the state court “is fully capable of deciding” his federal claim, (id.), that fact does not divest this Court of original jurisdiction over the claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over his other claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when exceptional circumstances, including evasion of state filing restrictions for frequent Unruh Act litigants, give compelling reasons grounded in fairness and comity.

Elliott v. Zevallos · filed 2023-07-26(c)(4)

The Court finds Elliott’s state law claims unsuitable for supplemental jurisdiction within the meaning of section 1367(c)(4). ... It is therefore appropriate in view of the Gibbs values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness to litigants, and comity to decline supplemental jurisdiction so that Elliott may comply with the requirements and California’s interest in curtailing abuse can be vindicated.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when evasion of state procedural requirements creates exceptional circumstances and fairness and comity provide compelling reasons.

Escobedo v. Jensen & Pilegard · filed 2024-03-04(c)(4)

Accordingly, considering the two-step inquiry under § 1367(c)(4), the undersigned 20 concludes that this case presents “exceptional circumstances” such that “there are other compelling 21 reasons for declining [supplemental] jurisdiction” over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Trujillo v. Cisneros · filed 2024-06-14(c)(4)

Because there are “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” as described above, the Court now exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to Section 1367(c)(4).

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

Trujillo v. Gogna · filed 2024-08-21(c)(4)

However, as described above, there are “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” for the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Unruh Act and California Health & Safety Code.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons justify doing so.

Robinson v. Lee · filed 2024-11-20(c)(4)

Accordingly, based on the two-step inquiry under Section 1367(c)(4), the Court concludes that this case presents exceptional circumstances such that there are other compelling reasons for declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when California’s accessibility-claim requirements create exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons favor declining jurisdiction.

Schutza v. R&H Mission Gorge, Inc. · filed 2024-12-12(c)(4)

Accordingly, this Court finds that exceptional circumstances justify the Court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). ... Both exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons exist for the Court to exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to do so.

Escobedo v. Blessing-Co,Inc · filed 2024-12-12(c)(4)

However, as described above, there are “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Escobedo’s claims for violations of the Unruh Act and California Health & Safety Code.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons, assessed in light of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, warrant doing so.

Sepulveda v. Russell J. Bruzzone, Inc. · filed 2025-02-07(c)(4)

For the reasons cited above and in Judge Hixson’s report and recommendation, the Court finds that, under the Arroyo two-step test and weighing the Gibbs factors, the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other California state law claims to avoid Plaintiff bypassing regulations and restrictions intentionally put in place by the California legislature.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons favor doing so, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

United African-Asian Abilities Club v. ASP Mohawk, LLC · filed 2025-04-16(c)(4)

This case presents “exceptional circumstances” and “there are compelling reasons,” primarily based on comity and fairness, for declining jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Unruh Act claim, which outweigh the other factors.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons justify doing so.

Acosta v. Singh · filed 2025-06-17(c)(4)

However, as described above, there are “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Unruh Act and California Health & Safety Code. Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt the recommendations related to the claims arising under state law and exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Acosta v. All American Glass, Inc. · filed 2025-08-18(c)(4)

However, as described above, there are “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Unruh Act and California Health & Safety Code. ... The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over novel or complex state-law issues, but those claims may be revived on remand after the state-law uncertainty is resolved.

St. Augustine School v. Underly · filed 2023-08-14(c)(1)

Those theories were always part of the case, but they ceased being novel or complex after the state court addressed them. That eliminated the reason for relinquishing jurisdiction over them.

State-law claims relinquished under § 1367(c)(1) may be revived on appeal when the novel or complex state-law issue is resolved, restoring supplemental jurisdiction on remand.

St. Augustine School v. Underly · filed 2023-08-14(c)(1)

For reasons already stated, St. Augustine IV reinstated the state-law theories. The district court thus had supplemental jurisdiction over them, and on that basis was empowered to issue its de- claratory judgment.

Section 1367 leaves dismissal of supplemental state law claims discretionary, and a court may retain those claims when federal claims remain after screening.

Smith 619752 v. Rykse · filed 2023-08-16(c)

However, because federal claims remain in this case, the Court will invoke supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims despite a proffer that the federal claims lack evidentiary support.

Cantu v. Kings County · filed 2023-12-20(c)

The Court finds it may properly exercise discretion to proceed despite such proffer.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain related claims when they do not substantially predominate and judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor keeping the claims together.

Gonzalez v. The Swig Company LLC · filed 2024-01-02(c)

After reviewing the allegations in both the Complaint and the Cross- Complaint, the Court finds that retaining jurisdiction of all claims—for now—is most consistent with the factors described above. Keeping all claims here will promote judicial economy, convenience, and fairness because it will avoid litigation on parallel state and federal tracks, and therefore avoid potentially conflicting rulings and duplication of efforts.

Section 1367(c) lets a district court consider judicial economy when deciding to retain one state-law claim and remand others after dismissing the federal claims.

Browning v. Bay Radiology Associates PL · filed 2024-06-27(c)

Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion by remanding some state law claims to state court and exercising supplemental jurisdiction with respect to his breach-of-contract claim because it was clearly resolved under Florida law due to a lack of damages.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against one defendant when federal claims against other defendants remain and the case’s progress favors retention.

Spriestersbach v. State of Hawaii · filed 2024-11-29(c)(3)

First, there are federal claims remaining against other defendants in this case. ... Under the circumstances of this case, this Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Spriestersbach’s state law claims against the City.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Lento v. Altman · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

A district court “may” decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (emphasis added). The decision is discretionary.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to retain supplemental state-law claims after resolving all federal claims.

Burns v. Rekeweg · filed 2020-12-02(c)

Rather than automatically losing jurisdiction over supplemental state-law claims, the statute grants district courts broad discretion in determining whether to retain or relinquish jurisdiction over supplemental claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when claims within its original jurisdiction survive.

Brown v. City of Brockton · filed 2025-09-18(c)(3)

Accordingly, and in light of the survival of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Monteiro, including Count XIX, the Court will maintain supplemental jurisdiction over this ... claim against the Moving Defendants at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not authorize declining supplemental jurisdiction when a federal claim survives, absent another ground for declining jurisdiction.

Sorbara v. Carilion Rockbridge Community Hospital · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

Here, because the federal EMTALA claim in Count One will survive the motion to dismiss with respect to a failure-to-screen theory, the court has not dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Finding no other “compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction,” see id. § 1367(c)(4), the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Two and Three.

A court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claim survives summary judgment.

Dobrov v. Hi-Tech Paintless Dent Repair, Inc. · filed 2024-09-27(c)(3)

Because the motion for summary judgment on the FLSA claim is denied, the Court retains jurisdiction over the state law claims, and briefly addresses the parties’ dispute on the interpretation of the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when a timely federal claim remains.

Buccini v. Carrasco · filed 2025-03-28(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs have stated a timely federal claim, the Court will not relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction at this time.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when there is no cognizable federal claim.

Northway · filed 2026-03-02(a)

A state law claim may only proceed in federal court ... if the claim is supplemental to a cognizable federal claim,32 of which there are none in these cases, or if the federal court has diversity jurisdiction over the case, which requires that the plaintiff be a citizen of a different state than all the defendants, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.33 Here, neither requirement is met in any of these three cases.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a claim substantially predominates over the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Banner Life Insurance Company v. Moore · filed 2025-09-04(c)(2)

The court may, however, decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). ... Under the circumstances here where the original Interpleader action over which this Court had subject matter jurisdiction was brought by a diverse party who no longer has an ownership interest in the at-issue funds, the state law claims in the Crossclaim substantially predominate.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state claim substantially predominates over claims within its original jurisdiction.

MARCHESE v. 21ST CENTURY CYBER CHARTER SCHOOL · filed 2024-11-13(c)(2)

The Court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) to decline jurisdiction of Count IV of Plaintiff’s Complaint—the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act Claim—because it “substantially dominates” over the claims for which the Court does have original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state class claims that substantially predominate over a remaining individual federal claim.

HOUTZ v. MELT RESTAURANT · filed 2024-02-26(c)(2)

The Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state class actions (Counts II and III) because, without Count I, they now predominate over the remaining individual federal claim in Count IV.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a broad state law class claim would substantially predominate over a narrower federal claim.

Mata v. Deslauriers, Inc · filed 2023-09-18(c)(2)

The scope of the issues raised by the BIPA law claim, which Mata proposes as a class action, would substantially predominate over her ADA claim. The BIPA class action claim raises a wide variety of issues, alleges several statutory violations, and its scale would threaten to eclipse the ADA claim, which is based on a discrete set of facts during the four months Mata was employed at Deslauriers.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that would substantially predominate over the federal claim.

Ybarra v. Centurion Health of Indiana LLC · filed 2023-10-19(c)(2)

It is arguable the claims against the other five defendants are sufficiently related to be the same case or controversy, but this court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them because they would substantially predominate over the one narrow federal claim against Tracy Pacheco. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over portions of a counterclaim that would substantially predominate over the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Salazar v. Thunderbird Restaurants LLC · filed 2025-03-10(c)(2)

The court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the other portions of Thunderbird’s assumpsit claim regarding whether Salazar “retained money from Thunderbird that did not belong to him” or whether “Thunderbird further provided [Salazar] with cash to pay the kitchen staff based upon the number of hours worked[ ]” (Doc. 35 at 7) because that would lead to the counterclaim substantially predominating over Salazar’s claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when supplemental claims substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. · filed 2025-05-28(c)(2)

Here, I find that Bohnak’s claims in the Amended Complaint substantially predominate over Jones’ sole remaining cause of action.

Section 1367(c)(2) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a claim substantially predominates over claims within its original jurisdiction; substantial factual overlap can weigh against declining jurisdiction.

Adame v. North Mountain Foothills Apartments LLC · filed 2025-07-14(c)(2)

And because of that substantial overlap, the counterclaims will not “substantially predominate” over the FLSA claims, so the court will not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on that ground.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate in proof, scope, or remedy.

Groeneweg · filed 2026-04-07(c)(2)

Groeneweg’s state claims do not substantially predominate over his FDCPA claim. If they did, they would require far more proof, involve issues of much greater scope, or seek a far more comprehensive remedy.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over an unripe claim, even when it is part of the same controversy as claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Contessa v. White Pine Insurance Company · filed 2023-10-13(a)

While the bad faith claim likely is part of the same controversy as the claims in Counts I and II, because it is unripe, it fails to present a case or controversy over which the Court can exercise jurisdiction under § 1367.

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

Caporusso v. Garris · filed 2023-11-01(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court has continuing discretion regarding its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. ... Thus, the Court finds it appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim and to remand to state court.

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

Valentin v. Manderly Group I, LLC · filed 2023-11-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claim over which this Court had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the IMWL 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.

Larsen v. Papillion La Vista Community School District · filed 2023-11-01(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction have all been dismissed. ... Accordingly, this Court, in its discretion, dismisses Larsen’s supplemental state law claims, without prejudice, for lack of a substantial federal claim.

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

Dobry v. The Secretary of the Department of Corrections · filed 2023-11-01(c)(3)

The Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Dobry’s defamation claim and dismiss that claim 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.

BOOTH v. DRISSEL · filed 2023-11-01(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissal of all federal claims in an action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). Having failed to establish a federal claim, Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, including claims for violation of the PWL, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy, will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) calls for consideration of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, and the court may require the plaintiff to show cause on that issue.

Cooper v. Dorgalli · filed 2023-10-26(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a listed ground applies, including substantial predominance of a state claim or exceptional circumstances with compelling reasons.

Garcia v. Lee, Ho & Ho Partnership · filed 2023-10-26(c)

District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Rhambo v. Chung · filed 2023-10-26(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Cox v. Eum · filed 2023-10-26(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Magallanes v. La Terraza Restaurant 1, Inc. · filed 2023-10-26(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Holland v. Acafield Inc. · filed 2023-10-26(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) calls for weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Raglin v. Mattnjeremy, Inc. · filed 2023-10-27(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Walker v. Recendez · filed 2023-10-27(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Garcia v. A & E Gonzalez Properties No.4, LLC · filed 2023-10-30(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Greenstein v. B.P. America, Inc. · filed 2023-10-30(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Garcia v. Idleman · filed 2023-10-31(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Doering v. National Clean S and R, Inc. · filed 2023-10-31(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Brooke v. Oasis West Realty LLC · filed 2023-10-31(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) lets a court decide at every stage whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims by weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Gougis v. Moriel · filed 2023-11-01(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, faimess, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Walker v. Baker · filed 2023-11-02(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when there may be reasons to decline it.

Cox v. CE Virgil Owner I, LLC · filed 2023-11-02(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Brooke v. Patel · filed 2023-11-02(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Orosco v. Angulo · filed 2023-11-02(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

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

Brooke v. Chateau Property Holdings LLC · filed 2023-11-02(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Holland v. Kim · filed 2023-11-06(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

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

Gougis v. Mancino Door and Window Inc. · filed 2023-11-06(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims and to supply facts relevant to that decision.

Magallanes v. Rancheros Properties LLC · filed 2023-11-06(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his or her counsel also shall support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

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

Chilin v. Bonham · filed 2023-11-06(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

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

Weilch v. Joe Complete Auto Repair · filed 2023-11-06(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

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

Ho v. DDD Pham LLC · filed 2023-11-06(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims.

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

Brooke v. Oasis West Realty LLC · filed 2023-11-06(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

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

Brooke v. Leebove · filed 2023-11-06(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

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

Brooke v. B.W. Hotel LLC · filed 2023-11-06(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).