28 U.S.C. § 1367

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, taking judicial economy and fairness into account.

Thomas v. Pacific County Sheriff's Department · filed 2023-11-02(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim … if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of 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.

Europa Auto Imports, Inc. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge No. 1448 · filed 2023-11-02(c)(3)

Here, because the Court grants dismissal of the federal causes of action, there is no 18 basis for the Court’s jurisdiction; therefore, it sua sponte GRANTS dismissal of state law 19 claims.

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

Foote v. Micron Technology, Inc. · filed 2023-11-02(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because the claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction is being dismissed.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it disposes of the federal claims when no compelling reason supports retaining them.

Cameron v. Wichita, City of · filed 2023-11-02(c)(3)

Here, there is no compelling reason for the Court to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and neither party presents an argument to the contrary. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Maxieson v. Thrasher · filed 2023-11-02(c)(3)

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

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

Milner v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Las Cruces · filed 2023-11-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff's federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims and dismisses this case 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.

Adams v. Robert Half International Inc. · filed 2023-11-03(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 and local claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly early in the litigation.

Bobadilla v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation · filed 2023-11-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the plaintiff's federal claims, the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law and city-law claims is appropriate at this early stage of the litigation.

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

MOSLEY v. STARBUCK CORP. · filed 2023-11-03(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 dismissing the federal claims.

Gurley v. Scott County Circuit Court · filed 2023-11-06(c)(3)

To the extent that Gurley intended to assert claims under state law, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hernandez v. Chandler, City of · filed 2023-11-06(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss the federal claims against the City of Chandler, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related state-law claims.

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

Webster v. Williams · filed 2023-11-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims under § 1983, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Vercollone · filed 2023-11-06(c)(3)

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

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

BARRACLOUGH v. ANIMAL FRIENDS, INC. · filed 2023-11-06(c)(3)

Since there is no other basis for this Court to assert jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, and Counts IV-VI, are dismissed, without prejudice.

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.

Penn v. Sullivan County · filed 2023-11-06(c)(3)

Therefore, it is appropriate for the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s sole remaining potential 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.

Coleman v. The City and Borough of Juneau · filed 2023-11-07(c)(3)

But 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.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with the early stage of the litigation favoring that choice.

Pace v. The County of Cortland · filed 2023-11-07(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Here, because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff's federal claims and considering the early stage of this litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims.

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

Nouri v. State of Ohio · filed 2023-11-07(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff's federal claims should be dismissed, this court should also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendant state claims.

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

Miller v. Collins · filed 2023-11-06(c)(3)

Again, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing a federal claim of original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.

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

Dingle · filed 2026-02-10(c)(2)

Having dismissed the federal claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state- and city-law claims.

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

Spiegel · filed 2026-02-13(c)(2)

Because the Court grants the State’s motion to dismiss the federal claims, ... the Court will use its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

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

The Estate of David Shafer and Colleen Shafer v. The City of Spokane · filed 2023-11-08(c)(3)

Due to the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, the 12 Court no longer has federal question jurisdiction over this action. 28 U.S.C. § 13 1331. Rather than retaining supplemental jurisdiction, the Court dismisses the 14 remaining negligence claim 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.

Medina v. Aprile · filed 2023-11-08(c)(3)

A District Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the District Court properly dismissed Medina’s claims under federal law, it plainly acted within its discre- tion in declining to hear his claims under state law.

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

Crenshaw v. Staton Healthcare Service (INMATE 2) · filed 2023-11-13(c)(3)

In the posture of this case, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is inappropriate based on the Court’s dismissal of the 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 the federal claims and to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

Gill v. Woelfel · filed 2023-11-13(c)(3)

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

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

Broecker v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ. · filed 2023-11-13(c)(3)

To the extent that any state-law claims remain, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Murdock v. Maverick Turtle Creek Apartments · filed 2023-11-14(c)(3)

Where the court lacks original jurisdiction over the Murdocks’ state-law claims, and all of the Murdocks’ federal claims are dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Murdocks’ state-law claims.

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

Ntamere v. Amerihealth Adminstrators Inc · filed 2023-11-14(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Mr. Ntamere’s federal claims and this case is at a relatively early stage, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Richards v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation · filed 2023-11-14(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Title VII and Fourteenth Amendment claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim for breach of contract, which is therefore dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Slaughter v. Catholic University of America · filed 2023-11-15(c)(3)

Further, as the federal question raised in that count was the sole basis for the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining D.C. wage claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Teetz v. Sedgwick County, Kansas · filed 2023-11-15(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff's federal claims against the County and the City, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining negligent training claims.

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

Picou v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc. · filed 2023-11-15(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-diverse state law claims where the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... As both the statutory and common law factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.

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

Booker v. Suffolk County Department of Corrections · filed 2023-11-15(c)(3)

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

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses all federal claims before trial, and those state-law claims generally should be dismissed without prejudice.

Bibbs v. JPAY, L.L.C. · filed 2023-11-15(c)(3)

Finally, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law, breach of contract claim. Harper v. AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 210 (6th Cir. 2004) (although the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is a matter of discretion, when a court dismisses all federal claims before trial, it generally should dismiss the state law claims as well). Plaintiffs’ state-law contract claims should be dismissed without prejudice. Bullock v. City of Covington, 698 F. App’x 305, 307 (6th Cir. 2017) (“Normally, when a court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the court dismisses the claims without prejudice.”).

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

Alger v. Ruffin Hotels, L.P. · filed 2023-11-08(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 court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Walker v. Mezarahi · filed 2023-11-09(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.

Luna v. Barraza · filed 2023-11-09(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 over state law claims, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Vera v. Cali Viejo Restaurant, LLC · filed 2023-11-13(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) calls for a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Myers v. Cocina Dona Chona, Inc · filed 2023-11-13(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 Chi. v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (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.

Benford v. Kummerow · filed 2023-11-13(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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Maldonado v. Granados · filed 2023-11-13(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, California Disabled Person’s Act, California Health & Safety Code, and negligence 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.

Benford v. Quezada · filed 2023-11-13(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 district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Ventura v. Mota · filed 2023-11-14(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.

Garcia v. Commerce Outlet Inc. · filed 2023-11-15(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) lets a court weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Vera v. Mi Carbonero Restaurant Inc · filed 2023-11-15(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).

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

Cuevas v. Ramirez · filed 2023-11-15(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)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Smith v. Goodwill of the San Francisco Bay, Inc. · filed 2023-11-16(c)(3)

Having determined the federal claims—the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction—must be dismissed without leave to amend, the Court dismisses the remaining state law claims without prejudice to be brought in state court.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the related federal claims, while retaining jurisdiction over state law claims associated with surviving federal claims.

Summers 459083 v. Brown · filed 2023-11-16(c)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Parrish, Haddon, Garza-Martin, Aiken, Jane Doe #1, Barrett, S. Gregurek, Langdon, Ritter, Macauley, Robinson, Chauvez, Simpson, Yuki, Addis, Lewis, Page, Moyer, Proctor, Johnson, Walezak, Jones, Brokaw, Athearn, and Russell have been dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state claims against these individuals without prejudice. Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Ruth Brown, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, Rowland, Gilbert, and Larry Brown, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against them.

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.

Li v. Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, Inc. · filed 2023-11-16(c)(3)

Accordingly, as Li’s federal claims have been dismissed with prejudice, the Court declines to exercise 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.

Adam v. Nakhle · filed 2023-11-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once they have dismissed all claims over which they had original jurisdiction.

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

Gooldy v. Lake County and Juvenile Courts · filed 2023-11-20(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court now declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses those claims as well.

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

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

Because Plaintiff does not currently state a federal claim, the Court declines, at this time, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law defamation claim, or any other state-law claims, that Plaintiff is attempting to raise in her complaint.

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

Kellogg v. Nichols · filed 2023-11-21(c)(3)

The relevant values weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claim. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ state law claim shall be dismissed.

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.

Brown v. City of Tulsa · filed 2023-11-21(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c) permits district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on factors including the circumstances of the case, the governing state law, and the relationship between state and federal claims.

Orosco v. Chao · filed 2023-11-16(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- including the circumstances of the 18 particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing 19 state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims -- district 20 courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

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

Rhambo v. La Puente Ceramic Tile, Inc. · filed 2023-11-16(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 state-law claims.

Weilch v. LA Smoke Shop · filed 2023-11-17(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 other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to consider fairness and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Marquise Bailey v. AP Auto Registration · filed 2023-11-20(c)

The statute thereby 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.”

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline jurisdiction over supplemental state-law claims based on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the state-law claims, and their relationship to the federal claims.

Cuevas v. La Fondita Restaurant and Bakery, LLC · filed 2023-11-21(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- including the circumstances of the 18 particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing 19 state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims -- district 20 courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental 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.

Doering v. M and J Wireless · filed 2023-11-21(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 after considering the circumstances of the case and the state and federal claims.

Luna v. Enrique Villa Hernandez · filed 2023-11-21(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims to consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Turner v. Lee · filed 2023-11-21(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) calls for courts deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Gonzalez v. The Smoke Avenue · filed 2023-11-21(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)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when it dismisses the federal claims before trial and has not reached the state-law merits.

Mallett, Douglas v. Perrenoud, Keisha · filed 2023-11-22(c)(3)

While the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the court will decline to do so here because plaintiff’s related federal claims against these defendants are being dismissed before trial, and the court has not considered the merits of 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.

Mauer v. Jacobs · filed 2023-11-22(c)(3)

Further, in the absence of a viable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law tort claim Plaintiff alleges. District courts have discretion to refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Anderson v. Long · filed 2023-11-22(c)(3)

As discussed above, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against Defendants Judge Long and McBride. Those claims were the only claims on which this Court’s original jurisdiction rests. Because the Court dismissed those claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Harris v. Ganim · filed 2023-11-27(c)(3)

To the extent that Harris alleges any state law claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Astra Media Grp., LLC v. Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC, 414 Fed. App'x 334, 337 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[W]e have generally held that where all the federal claims have been dismissed at a relatively early stage, the district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent 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 when it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gibson v. Pasta City · filed 2023-11-27(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will dismiss this action; the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under federal and state law for the reasons discussed in this order, and will also decline to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law.

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

Washington v. Ortiz · filed 2023-11-27(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff does not currently state a federal claim, the Court declines, at this time, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any other state-law claims that Plaintiff is attempting to raise in her complaint.

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

Watson v. O'Brien · filed 2023-11-27(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the time allowed, or does not show cause to excuse such failure, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment dismissing this action; the judgment will dismiss 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 will decline 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 district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the claims with independent federal jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Goney v. SuttonPark Cap. LLC · filed 2023-11-28(c)(3)

The district court may also decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over T.N.’s state-law claims under the rubric of section 1367, especially in light of the dismissal of the claims with independent federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Baron v. Staff Benefits Management Inc. · filed 2023-11-28(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims in the Complaint over which it has original jurisdiction (i.e., Plaintiff’s federal claims), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state 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.

Donald v. United States Enrichment Corporation · filed 2023-11-28(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ...if... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, based on the balance of relevant considerations.

Middlebrook 351947 v. Perttu · filed 2023-11-28(c)(3)

Here, because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Lowrey v. Portis · filed 2023-11-28(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims against Defendant Johnston, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims against Defendant Johnston.

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

Cheeks v. Montefiore Medical Center · filed 2023-11-28(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, all of Cheeks’s potential federal claims must be and are dismissed. In light of that, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cheeks’s state-law claims to the extent that she pleads any. ... Here, there is no basis to depart from that general rule because the case is still at an early stage.

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

Curtis v. Mislevy · filed 2023-11-29(c)(3)

Because Curtis fails to allege a federal civil rights claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims and dismisses the claims without prejudice for Curtis to seek relief in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Midkiff v. Regional Finance Corp. · filed 2023-11-29(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Deshauna Midkiff’s (“Midkiff”) remaining state law claims against Defendant First Financial Credit (“FFC”). As a result, the case is REMANDED to Hardin Circuit Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction; the early stage of litigation may support that decision.

MINISOHN CHIROPRACTIC & ACUPUNCTURE CENTER, LLC v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2023-11-29(c)(3)

Finally, because the Court has dismissed the ERISA claims upon which its subject-matter jurisdiction is predicated and because neither party alleges that there is diversity jurisdiction, the Court need not reach Plaintiffs’ common law breach of contract claim, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in light of the relatively early stage of this litigation.

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

Jenkins v. City of Chattanooga · filed 2023-11-29(c)(3)

The Court may, nonetheless, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Considering the disposition of Ms. Jenkins’ § 1983 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 remaining state law claims after it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction.

NASTASI v. RAVOLLI · filed 2023-11-30(c)(3)

As Plaintiff’s federal RICO claim has been dismissed and Plaintiff has not alleged any other basis for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction over this matter,6 the Court declines 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 after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially early in the litigation.

HOFFMAN v. WARREN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE · filed 2023-11-30(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of the federal § 1983 claims against the Warren County Prosecutor’s Office and First Assistant Robinson (in his official and individual capacities) over which this Court had original jurisdiction and the relatively early stage of this litigation, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the other state law claims in the Complaint,8 and the Court does not reach the alternative arguments as to why these claims are subject to dismissal, including the asserted immunity under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.

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

OZTURK v. AMSHER COLLECTION SERVICES, INC. · filed 2023-11-30(c)(3)

Given those claims have been dismissed, the Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” and may therefore decline to exercise supplement jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c); see also Ozturk I, 2022 WL 1602192, at *9. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff’s claim under the New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Act (Count I).

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

Mirinaviciene v. Keuka College · filed 2023-11-30(c)(3)

Under Section 1367(c)(3), a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such state-law claims where the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after considering the circumstances of the case and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Cuevas v. Fiesta Insurance Franchise Corporation · filed 2023-11-22(c)

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

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

Rhambo v. H. G. H. Oil Company, Inc. · filed 2023-11-27(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.

Section 1367(c) calls for courts to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Ventura v. La Monarca Bakery IV, LLC · filed 2023-11-27(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, fairness, and comity.’” ... In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims at any stage, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Davidson v. Technoland Computer Repair · filed 2023-11-28(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 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) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims before deciding whether to decline it.

Cuevas v. Delgado · filed 2023-11-28(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).

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 litigation.

Garcia v. DJs Restaurant and Grill Inc. · filed 2023-11-29(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 why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Cauley v. Dona Mireya Inc. · filed 2023-11-29(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) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff fails to justify its exercise in response to a show-cause order.

Gonzalez v. Elisea · filed 2023-11-30(c)

Further, an inadequate response will result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims and the dismissal of those claims pursuant to 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 jurisdiction.

Orosco v. Melgoza · filed 2023-11-30(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and to require the plaintiff to show why it should exercise that jurisdiction.

Rhambo v. Civic Center Cleaners and Dryers, Inc · filed 2023-11-30(c)

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

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

Elliott v. Risen Bakery and Grill Corp. · filed 2023-11-30(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 orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and related state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Davidson v. Nissi Restaurant and Bakery Corporation · filed 2023-11-22(c)

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Orosco v. Fast Lane 2015 Inc. · filed 2023-11-22(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 decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, including an Unruh Act claim accompanying an ADA claim.

Garcia v. Carbajol · filed 2023-11-30(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons the subsection lists.

Hernandez v. Flores · filed 2023-11-30(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims accompanying an ADA claim for the reasons it specifies.

Williams v. Linderdale, LLC · filed 2023-11-30(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons it specifies.

Davidson v. Union Discount Tire Care ER Division, Inc. · filed 2023-11-30(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim accompanying an ADA claim and to require a showing on whether it should exercise that jurisdiction.

Doering v. Solano · filed 2023-11-30(c)

The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c). ... Therefore, to assist this Court in its duty, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction ... over the Unruh Act claim and the other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff.

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

Lee v. Chentnik · filed 2023-12-01(c)(3)

Because the Court has determined Lee’s federal claim must be dismissed, it will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Lee’s state-law medical malpractice claim.

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

Newcomb v. Gross · filed 2023-12-01(c)(3)

Because the Kentucky state court is a more appropriate venue to adjudicate the remaining state claim and counterclaim, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will remand the case to the Estill Circuit Court.

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

Bonanno v. 41 Sherbrooke Rd. LLC · filed 2023-12-01(c)(3)

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

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

Hale v. St. Clair County Sheriff Department · filed 2023-12-04(c)(3)

While the 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 jurisdiction over any potential state law claims.

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

Bonilla v. City of New York · filed 2023-12-04(c)(3)

Having dismissed Bonilla’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bonilla’s claims arising under the New York state constitution and various provisions of state and local law.

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

Newberg Crestview, LLC v. City of Newberg · filed 2023-12-04(c)(3)

The court has already dismissed Crestview’s only federal claim, triggering the court’s discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). After careful consideration, the court finds that the balance of factors favors declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state- law claims. The court therefore dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Mora v. Burn and Plastic Hand Clinic · filed 2023-12-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed Ms. Mora’s federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Mora’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.

PARKMAN v. ELLIS · filed 2023-12-05(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines 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 federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor doing so.

Scelza v. Suffolk County Correctional Facility · filed 2023-12-05(c)(3)

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

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.

Stratton v. Narcise · filed 2023-12-05(c)(3)

Where a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over any remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court finds nothing that distinguishes this Action from “the usual case.” ... Thus, Plaintiff’s state claims are 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.

Hamilton v. New York State Justice Center · filed 2023-12-05(c)(3)

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

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

Phillips v. Russ · filed 2023-12-05(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 the reasons stated in this order, and the Court will decline, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Almanzar v. ZAM Realty Management Co., LLC · filed 2023-12-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed those of Plaintiff’s claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any of his claims under state law that remain, including any against Zam Realty.

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

Natalia v. Group Shelter Bowery · filed 2023-12-05(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Indiana Land Trust 3082 v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission · filed 2023-12-06(c)(3)

However, § 1367(c) specifically provides that a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... In the absence of any circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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, especially early in the case.

Dorosh v. Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner · filed 2023-12-06(c)(3)

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

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

Amerson v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors · filed 2023-12-07(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiff’s state-law claims because Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim on the merits at an early stage.

Hakobyan v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. · filed 2023-12-07(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiff's FDCPA claim on the merits at an early stage of the case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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.

Mauer v. Jacobs · filed 2023-12-07(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Mauer’s federal claims at this early stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims. District courts have discretion to refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

PASCAL v. ARMSTRONG COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS · filed 2023-12-07(c)(3)

When all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... The claims that provided the basis for federal jurisdiction have been dismissed and the litigation remains in its earliest stages, therefore the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice to reassert in the proper state court forum.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction to continue after all claims supporting original jurisdiction are voluntarily dismissed, subject to the court’s considered decision whether to retain the remaining state-law claims.

Gillaspy v. Club Newtone, Inc · filed 2020-07-22(c)(3)

With some exceptions, “[i]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district 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,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and “supplemental jurisdiction persists even if all the claims giving rise to original jurisdiction have been dismissed,” Miller v. Herman, 600 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Anodyne Therapy, LLC, 589 F.3d 881, 883 (7th Cir. 2009)). This principal holds true even when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the claim.

Section 1367(c) supports declining supplemental jurisdiction when only state-law claims remain after the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the sole claim invoking federal jurisdiction.

Baker v. Othon, Inc. · filed 2022-06-24(c)

The third statutory factor asks whether the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C § 1367(c). While the court has not dismissed any claims, Baker has voluntarily dismissed the sole claim invoking federal jurisdiction. See Dkt. 5. Therefore, this factor favors remand. ... Therefore, the court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction on the remaining state law claims and remands the case to the 215th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses all federal claims.

DUFFY v. ABSECON POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2019-10-17(c)(2), (c)(3)

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

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state law claim after the federal claims have been adjudicated or voluntarily dismissed.

Sanders v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. · filed 2009-10-28(c)(3)

After plaintiffs federal claims were finally adjudicated against her or voluntarily dismissed, the Court exercised its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction (Dkt. # 268), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over a pendent state law claim.

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

Putman v. City of Dyersburg, Tennessee · filed 2022-07-19(c)(3)

This leaves Plaintiff’s supplemental state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress pending before the Court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]”2 ... As the federal claims in this matter have been voluntarily dismissed herein, Plaintiff’s state law claims are also DISMISSED.

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

Evans v. Vengroff Williams Inc · filed 2023-12-08(c)(3)

In declining jurisdiction under section 1367(c)(3), the Court “must first identify the dismissal that triggers the exercise of discretion”—here, Evans’ voluntary dismissal of his FDCPA claim—“and then explain how declining jurisdiction serves the objectives of economy, convenience and fairness to the parties, and comity.” Trs. of Const. Indus., 333 F.3d at 925. ... The factors weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands Evans’ claim to the King County Superior Court.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law damage claims that the Illinois Human Rights Act removes from the jurisdiction of Illinois courts because they are inextricably linked to sexual harassment.

Al-Dabbagh v. Greenpeace, Inc. · filed 1994-12-21

That description of “inextricably linked” claims plainly covers Al-Dabbagh’s efforts to fit her allegations into common law categories here, though her counsel argues otherwise. And of course federal courts cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction in those circumstances (see, e.g., Schwitzenberg v. Lifeline, Ltd. of Illinois, 1994 WL 684984, at *3-6,1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 17298, at *7-*16 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 30)).

Supplemental jurisdiction does not permit a federal court to hear a state-law claim that the state courts lack jurisdiction to hear.

Vazquez v. Suncast Corporation · filed 2019-06-24(a)

Whatever the source of a federal court’s jurisdiction over a state law claim, the federal court cannot exercise jurisdiction if a state court would not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Section 1367 grants supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims only to the extent a state court would have subject matter jurisdiction over those claims.

Osterkamp v. Salt Lake County · filed 2020-09-04

However, supplemental jurisdiction “only grants a federal court subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims to the extent that the state court would have had subject matter jurisdiction to hear such claims.”

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff fails to oppose a motion seeking that result and thereby concedes the jurisdictional argument.

Giffing v. Appoquinimink School District · filed 2023-12-19(c)(2)

In keeping with this precedent, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s failure to respond as a concession that the District is correct, and that the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s three state-law claims against the District.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims asserted in a pending federal case, not over a separate related state-court action.

Jeffco Estates MHC, LLC v. City of Arnold Board of Adjustment · filed 2023-12-29(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction applies to claims asserted in a pending federal-court case.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a separate insurance coverage action merely because it relates to tort claims pending in another federal action.

McCarthy v. Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2023-12-29(a)

Because these are distinct cases and controversies, no basis for supplemental jurisdiction exists here.

Section 1367(c) calls for courts deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to consider economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, rather than whether defendants should win summary judgment on those claims.

The Estate of Demetrius Stanley v. City of San Jose · filed 2023-12-22(c)

The Court’s discretion to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims is informed by principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, and not, as defendants suggest, on the Court’s determination of whether defendants should win or lose their motion for summary judgment on those claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to avoid jury confusion.

Crawford v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC · filed 2024-01-10(c)(4)

Because the parties in this case appear to be nondiverse, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims so as to avoid jury confusion.

Section 1367(a) does not permit removal of a state court action merely because its claims are related to claims in a separate federal action.

Sun City Emergency Room v. Phelan · filed 2024-01-29(a)

As such, even assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs’ state law claims are sufficiently related to the claims in the Quantas Lawsuit, Defendants could not properly remove this lawsuit on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction.

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.

Guptill v. City of Chattanooga · filed 2024-02-01(c)(3)

As there will be no remaining federal question, the Court will DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case which is now composed exclusively of a state law claim.

After disposing of all claims within its original jurisdiction, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Hubbard v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC · filed 2024-02-01(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a court may decline such jurisdiction after it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor dismissal.

Stroud v. Steffen · filed 2024-02-01(c)

Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Missouri Sunshine Law claim and dismisses the claim without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially when litigation remains at an early stage and comity favors resolution in state court.

Manchanda v. Reardon · filed 2024-02-01(c)

The Court thus concludes that the balance of the relevant factors points toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims now that his federal claims are dismissed.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and the plaintiff’s choice of forum.

Holt v. Rural Health Services, Inc. · filed 2024-02-01(c)(3)

The Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims, however, once it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Carmody v. Tennessee Department of Corrections · filed 2024-02-01(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing all Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726–727 (1966) (“[I]f the federal claims are dismissed before trial, ... the state claims should be dismissed as well.”).

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

Caruano v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2024-02-02(c)(3)

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

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

Leo v. Koch Foods LLC · filed 2024-02-02(c)(3)

A “district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The court therefore DECLINES to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims and WILL DISMISS those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

McGee v. Schindler · filed 2024-02-02(c)(3)

The Court recognizes that it has supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 based on its original jurisdiction to hear the federal statutory claim. However, because the Court is dismissing the federal claim for failure to state a claim, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses the claims on that basis.

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

Staake v. Jablonski · filed 2024-02-02(c)

District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if they have dismissed all claims over which they have original jurisdiction. ... This Court thus recommends dismissing all federal claims in this case, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, and remanding this proceeding to state court for adjudication of those claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, with the decision informed by the stage of the case and judicial economy.

Doe v. The Board of Directors of New York University · filed 2024-02-02(c)

Here, all factors weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law claims. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law claims.

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

Watts v. Brito · filed 2024-02-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action; 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 its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state and local law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Conklin v. Reedy · filed 2024-02-02(c)(3)

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