28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

LINNABARY v. SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC · filed 2024-02-02(c)(3)

Because Ms. Linnabary’s FDCPA claims are the only federal claims in the Amended Complaint, see ECF No. 26, and the Court has granted summary judgment on all federal claims which Ms. Linnabary has standing to bring, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where 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 the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lane v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2024-02-05(c)(3)

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

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

KIRBY v. JOYNER · filed 2024-02-05(c)(3)

Under these circumstances, the Court should dismiss without prejudice any state-law claims in the Complaint under Section 1367(c)(3).

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

ELFAR v. TOWNSHIP OF HOLMDEL · filed 2024-02-05(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain, pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the common law claim and accordingly, will not address the parties’ arguments as to Plaintiffs’ common law malicious prosecution claim at this stage.

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

LaComba v. Eagle Home Loans and Investment LLC · filed 2024-02-05(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ RICO claims are dismissed, and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their 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.

Harvey v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2024-02-05(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Berna v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2024-02-05(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Morlu v. Amazon · filed 2024-02-05(c)(3)

Thus, after considering the Carnegie-Mellon factors, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendent state law claims that Plaintiff is 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.

Paxton v. LVNV Funding, LLC · filed 2024-02-05(c)(3)

In order to prevent “needless decisions of state law” best left to state courts, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction at this time.

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

SEGURA v. GREYSTONE PARK PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL · filed 2024-02-05(c)(3)

Having “dismissed all claims over which [this Court] has original jurisdiction” with respect to Defendants, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims Plaintiff asserts against Defendants in Counts V through IX of the TAC.

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

Raymond v. City of New York · filed 2024-02-05(c)(3)

Here, in light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, principles of judicial economy and comity counsel heavily in favor of declining to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim. Indeed, the parties agree that, in the event that the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim. See Def.’s Br. at 8-9; Pl.’s Br. at 13-14; Def.’s Reply at 2. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

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.

Manchanda v. Lane · filed 2024-02-05(c)(3)

A district court may decline 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 federal district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lee v. N.Y.C.H.A. · filed 2024-02-05(c)(3)

A federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of claims under state law when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed Plaintiff’s claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction (her claims under Section 1983), the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any of her claims under state law that remain.

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.

Cora v. Wright · filed 2024-02-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction (Plaintiff’s claims under federal law), the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any remaining claims under state law that Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Blanchard II v. Amin · filed 2024-02-05(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the section 1983 claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Blanchard’s remaining state-law claims of medical negligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Zhang v. Bank of China (Chicago Branch) · filed 2024-02-06(c)(3)

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

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

JONES v. DWIGGINS · filed 2024-02-06(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise that jurisdiction because all federal law claims have been dismissed. 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.

Sneed v. University of Louisville Hospital · filed 2024-02-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental Jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims.

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

Talley v. Horn · filed 2024-02-07(c)(3)

To the extent that the Court has the option of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims,2 it will decline to do so.

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.

Blackwell v. Social Security · filed 2024-02-07(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction, the Court will not 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Brown v. Suffolk County Police Dept. · filed 2024-02-07(c)(3)

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

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

DOBBS v. S.C.I. PHOENIX SUPERINTENDENT SORBER · filed 2024-02-07(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

The Estate of Brian Jones v. MD Department of Public Safety · filed 2024-02-08(c)(3)

Because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ asserted claim in Counts I through III (to include Plaintiffs’ assertion of a claim for relief under the 8th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitutional), the court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claim in Count IV.

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

Mason v. Walmart Stores, Inc. · filed 2024-02-08(c)(3)

Here, the court dismisses Mason’s Title VII claim, and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mason’s negligence claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy and convenience do not favor retaining them.

ZUPKO v. COUNTY OF OCEAN · filed 2024-02-08(c)(3)

For the same reasons this Court stated in its previous Opinion, having dismissed Plaintiff’ s federal claims, the Court finds that no judicial economy or convenience concerns favor exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

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

Ball v. Hope East of Fifth HDFC Inc. · filed 2024-02-08(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order 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 the FHA and the Rehabilitation Act 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 its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state and local law, including Plaintiff’s claims under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, 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 the federal claims.

Salaam v. City of New York · filed 2024-02-08(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action; the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983 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 law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Estate of Q.W. v. Lucas County Children Services · filed 2024-02-08(c)(3)

These claims should not be tried by a federal tribunal that no longer has original jurisdiction over any of the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering the statutory and common-law factors.

Dejoie v. Napoleon · filed 2024-02-09(c)(3)

After consideration of the above factors, the Court finds that the factors favor declining the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) 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.

Null v. Entrepreneur Startup Business Development · filed 2024-02-09(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Screeton v. Trinity Multi-Family · filed 2024-02-12(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. As Plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, guided by statutory and common-law factors.

Daniels v. The State of Texas · filed 2024-02-12(c)

Federal district courts have the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; that discretion is guided by the statutory factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and the common-law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Mendoza v. Murphy, 532 F.3d 342, 346 (5th Cir. 2008). ... Having considered the statutory and common-law factors, the Court would follow the general rule and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Daniels’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; a surviving federal claim supports retaining jurisdiction over related state claims.

Peretto v. Erickson · filed 2024-02-12(c)(3)

But as the court has not dismissed the FDCPA claim as to Constable Defendants, over which it has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the court retains 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 dismissing the federal claims.

St Clair v. Okanogan County Washington · filed 2024-02-12(c)(3)

Because the Court dismissed the federal § 1983 claim, it does not retain supplement jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of actions, and they are moot even if properly plead. 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; at an early stage, the court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp. · filed 2024-02-12(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c)(3), a district court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Here, the litigation is in its early stages and discovery has not yet begun. Because none of the factors indicates that the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines to do so.

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

DOE v. Ohio Hi-Point School District Board of Education · filed 2024-02-12(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs’ federal claims do not survive Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state- law claims and DISMISSES them 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 federal claims.

Nichols v. Spalding · filed 2024-02-13(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff also raises claims under the Kentucky Constitution, because Plaintiff's federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over them.

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

Thompson v. Dezarn · filed 2024-02-13(c)(3)

Alternatively, as no other claims can proceed against Judge Branch and it is recommended that the Court dismiss all the federal claims against all defendants, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismiss the state law claim against Judge Branch 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.

McBryde-O'Neal v. Lenox · filed 2024-02-14(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.

Gibson v. Pasta City · filed 2024-02-14(c)(3)

A federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of claims under state law when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed those of Plaintiff’s claims of which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any of his claims under state law.

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

Clinch v. Chambers · filed 2024-02-15(c)(3)

After granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendants—the only federal claims in this action—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims which lack an independent jurisdictional basis.

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

Ratfield v. United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2024-02-15(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law counts (III-XII) and dismisses those counts without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Mann v. Laroque · filed 2024-02-15(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. 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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Crenshaw v. Toulon · filed 2024-02-15(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. 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 state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the state-law claims require different standards.

Spencer v. NYC Department of Education · filed 2024-02-15(c)(3)

Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, they are dismissed without prejudice to refile in state court.

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

Nastasi & Associates, Inc. v. Bloomberg, L.P. · filed 2024-02-15(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [pendent state law claim] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, there is no basis to depart from that general rule — especially because N&A makes a tolling argument under New York law, see Pl.’s Mem. 22, as to which Defendants do not substantively respond, see ECF No. 141 (“Defs.’ Reply”), at 11 n.9. Accordingly, N&A’s state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Luckey Farmers, Inc. v. Vergote · filed 2024-02-15(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, I need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where I have dismissed all claims over which I have federal question 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.

Luckey Farmers, Inc. v. Fergus Farms, LLC · filed 2024-02-15(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, I need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where I have dismissed all claims over which I have federal question 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, with convenience, fairness, comity, and judicial economy informing that choice.

Patterson v. Stirling · filed 2024-02-15(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if— . . . (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, the Court exercises its wide discretion and remands Plaintiff’s state law claims to state court.

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

Hodges v. Henrico Police Department · filed 2024-02-16(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all of Mr. Hodges’s federal claims... the Court declines to address Mr. Hodges’s remaining state law claims.

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

Golden v. Verizon · filed 2024-02-16(c)(3)

However, as there are no longer any federal claims in this action, and “with due consideration of concerns of judicial economy, convenience and fairness,” this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Golden’s state law claims.

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

Crable v. City of Cleveland · filed 2024-02-16(c)(3)

This Court “has discretion as to whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Miller v. Collins, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29681 at *10 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2023) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). ... Here, after considering and weighing the above factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Crable’s remaining state-law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when all federal law claims have been dismissed before trial.

Terrell v. Town of Woodworth · filed 2024-02-19(a)

Again, because we have already concluded that the district court properly dismissed all of Terrell’s federal law claims against Defendants, we uphold its decision declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Terrell’s remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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.

Skydiving School, Inc. v. Sky-Med, Inc. · filed 2024-02-20(c)(3)

A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when, inter alia, “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.

Wright v. Department of Children and Family Services · filed 2024-02-20(c)(3)

Without any claims for which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wright’s state law claims at this time.

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

Turner v. White · filed 2024-02-20(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” Because all federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining 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.

Banks v. McGynn, Hays & Co., Inc. · filed 2024-02-20(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

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

Ward v. Chemerinski · filed 2024-02-20(c)

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims for the reasons set forth in the December 28, 2023 order; and declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims.

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

Hoge v. Schmidt · filed 2024-02-21(c)(3)

Further, as all federal claims have been dismissed, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hoge’s remaining state law claims.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, which the Tenth Circuit requires dismissing without prejudice absent compelling reasons to the contrary.

Nichols v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Adams, The · filed 2024-02-21(c)(3)

In the Tenth Circuit, when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), courts must dismiss pendent state law claims without prejudice “absent compelling reasons to the contrary.” ... Because the Court will dismiss Ms. Nichols’ federal claims, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over her state claims.

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

Cain v. Evans · filed 2024-02-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claim.

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

Harris v. Fambro · filed 2024-02-21(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of Harris’s federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims against NCSP and Fambro and dismisses without prejudice his remaining state-law claims against NCSP and Fambro.

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

Brown v. O'Connor · filed 2024-02-21(c)(3)

Furthermore, in light of the recommended dismissal of all of Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims that remain against Defendants. 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Jones v. City Of Cincinnati · filed 2024-02-21(c)(3)

But a court also may decline to continue exercising such supplemental jurisdiction when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... Given this legal landscape, the Court declines to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over Jones’s three remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim raises a novel issue of state law or all federal claims have been dismissed.

HORTON v. RANGOS · filed 2024-02-21(c)(1), (c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, however, if it has dismissed all federal claims or if the claim raises a “novel or complex issue of State law[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (3). Here, because the Court is granting summary judgment on the federal constitutional claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania constitutional claims....Because Plaintiffs’ claims raise a novel issue of state law, that is another basis for the Court to decline to exercise supplemental 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.

Browder v. Hopkins County, KY · filed 2024-02-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 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.

Anderson v. Mississippi Bar · filed 2024-02-22(c)(3)

Based on the circumstances of this case, and because it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction and the remaining claims raise novel or complex state-law issues.

Blankenship v. Stitt · filed 2024-02-22(c)(1), (c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and the remaining state-law claims involve novel and complex issues of state law regarding whether various provisions of the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act exempt Defendants from liability. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental 54 Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7; see Southard v. Newcomb Oil Co., LLC, 7 F.4th 451, 455 (6th Cir. 2021) (“Once a federal court no longer has federal claims to resolve, it ‘should not ordinarily reach the plaintiff’s state-law claims.’” (quoting Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply, 465 F.3d 719, 728 (6th Cir. 2006))); Barnett v. Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C., 956 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2020); Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213, 1229 (10th Cir. 2010) (explaining that the Tenth Circuit has “generally held that if federal claims are dismissed before trial, leaving only issues of state law, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction” (cleaned up)). 55 Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726. This principle is rooted in the design of our nation’s federal structure, which recognizes that state courts are to be the driver of state law claims. 56 See, e.g., Hoffschneider v. Marshall, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66146, 2023 WL 2955318, *20 (D. Colo. Apr. 14, 2023); Gilmore v. Beveridge, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210016, 2022 WL 17082681, *18 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2022); AKC v. Lawton Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 8, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165252, *12 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 26, 2014). jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, which are thus dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

BURK v. WELLPATH · filed 2024-02-22(c)

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

After all claims within original jurisdiction are resolved at summary judgment, § 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims based on judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

ROBINSON v. SHADYSIDE · filed 2024-02-22(c)(3)

As summary judgment has been granted in favor of the Defendants on all federal claims, the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over Robinson’s state law claims that ID Connect and UPMC breached her employment contract and violated the WPCL by withholding compensation for unused PTO for the following reasons. ... Having considered judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, the Court finds no affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Robinson’s breach of contract and WPCL 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, including at screening.

MCMILLAN v. CITY OF CAMDEN · filed 2024-02-23(c)(3)

When a court dismisses all claims over which it had original federal question jurisdiction, it has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As Plaintiff's federal claims have been dismissed at the screening stage, this Court will exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any related state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after resolving the federal claims; the dismissal should be without prejudice.

Rosero v. Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. · filed 2024-02-26(c)(3)

While we conclude that the court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rosero’s state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), that dismissal should have been without prejudice, see Farlow v. Wachovia Bank of N.C., 259 F.3d 309, 316-17 (4th Cir. 2001).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction; that ground does not apply while a federal claim remains.

Posey v. School District No. 1 in the County of Denver and State of Colorado · filed 2024-02-26(c)(3)

The Court denies this portion of defendant’s motion since the Court has not dismissed all of Mr. Posey’s federal 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, including when the litigation is at an early stage.

Burbo v. Epic Property Management · filed 2024-02-26(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that both claims over which it has original jurisdiction must be dismissed and because this litigation is at an early stage, it also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and therefore dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining jurisdiction.

Stampone 713769 v. Michigan Supreme Court · filed 2024-02-26(c)

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

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

Flores v. Chaves County Sheriff's Office · filed 2024-02-26(c)

A district court’s decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction is discretionary. ... This Court thus recommends dismissing without prejudice all federal claims in this case, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, and remanding this proceeding to state court for adjudication of 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.

Acklin v. Eichner · filed 2024-02-26(c)(3)

Here, by dismissing Plaintiff’s RICO claims, the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Goldberg v. Stein Saks, PLLC · filed 2024-02-26(c)(3)

In addition, having dismissed Goldberg’s sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his NYSCRL claim.

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

Gunkel v. OU Medical Inc · filed 2024-02-26(c)(3)

The Court finds no reason to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. Accordingly, those claims are REMANDED to the District Court of Oklahoma County.

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

Capriotti v. Sadowski · filed 2024-02-26(c)(3)

There is nothing unique about this case such that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide an affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Accordingly, because we conclude that defendant Stephens is entitled to summary judgment as to the federal claims against him, we will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim only if it is sufficiently related to a cognizable federal claim.

(PC) James v. County of Sacramento · filed 2024-02-21(a)

Plaintiff asserts violations of California’s Constitution, but the court would not have jurisdiction over a claim arising under California law unless the claim is sufficiently related to a cognizable federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state wage claims so related to a federal FLSA claim that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Vassel v. Littleton Auto Repair LLC · filed 2024-02-21(a)

Additionally, Plaintiff’s CWA and CMWA claims are so related to Plaintiff's FLSA claim that they form part of the same case or controversy. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the court has original jurisdiction over another claim.

Wilson v. Ramsey County · filed 2024-02-23(a)

And though a federal court can sometimes exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law causes of action when it has original jurisdiction over related claims, there is no original jurisdiction because Wilson’s § 1983 claim fails.

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.

Zelvin v. Circle of Drink, Inc. · filed 2024-02-26(a)

Because the state law clain “form part of the same case or controversy” as the federal law claim over which this court has original jurisdiction, this court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Rosales v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego · filed 2024-02-29(c)(3)

If a federal court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over any remaining causes of action. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This is not the “usual case.” As explained later, this case is frivolous. Thus, a remand will aid neither judicial economy nor convenience nor fairness. ... In sum, comity concerns are at an ebb here, which also cuts against remand.

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

Curtis v. Inslee · filed 2024-02-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court has “dismissed 2 all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and so has discretion to decline to exercise 3 supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under § 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.

Pemberton, James v. Walker, Kyle · filed 2024-02-27(c)(3)

Seeing no reason to do otherwise here, the court will decline to consider any possible remaining state law claims and dismiss those claims without prejudice and with leave to ... file them, as appropriate, in state court, subject to any applicable statute of limitations or dismissal with prejudice as set forth above.

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

Fraser v. Hallmark · filed 2024-02-27(c)(3)

As all federal law claims have been dismissed, 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-law claims when no federal claim remains.

Anderson v. Haggar · filed 2024-02-27(c)(3)

Because Anderson does not state any federal claim for relief, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims alleged in Anderson’s amended complaint and supplement.

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

Traylor v. Pacciuco LLC · filed 2024-02-28(c)(3)

Because I will dismiss all of Traylor’s federal law claims, I will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Traylor’s claims against the town under the Connecticut Constitution.

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

Reaves v. National Law Enforcement · filed 2024-02-28(c)(3)

Indeed, a District Court is well within its discretion to dismiss state law claims once the basis for original federal court jurisdiction no longer exists.

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

Triggs v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association · filed 2024-02-28(c)(3)

As to the statutory factors, Section 1367(c)(3) specifically authorizes the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when, as here, the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants with pending federal claims while declining it over claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed.

Jackson 622337 v. Surety · filed 2024-02-28(c)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Surety, LaCrosse, McCollum, Corrigan, Clark, Batho, Russell, McLean, Davidson, O’Brien, Grondin, Martin, Newcomb, Loridon, Wilkins, Bond, Ormshee, Watson, Ghallger, and Haase 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 Bensel, Hetrick, and Henning, the Court will not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against those three Defendants at this time.

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

Spierer v. The County of Suffolk, New York · filed 2024-02-28(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining State Law Claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which permits “[t]he district courts [to] 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 the federal claims.

Toyee v. Washington · filed 2024-02-29(c)(3)

With respect to Toyee’s state-law claims, however, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction now that the federal claims have been dismissed. 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.”). The Court instead dismisses Toyee’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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Watson v. Sharpton · filed 2024-02-29(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.

Woods v. Westchester County D.O.C. · filed 2024-02-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed those of Plaintiff’s claims of which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any of 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 within its original jurisdiction.

Gelish v. Retro Predecessors USA Government and present USA President Joseph Biden · filed 2024-02-29(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.

Perez v. City of New York · filed 2024-02-29(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ federal claims having been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remand a removed case after dismissing the federal claim.

White v. Living Resources Corporation · filed 2024-03-06(c)

Accordingly, the Court remands this action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Albany County, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remand them to state court.

Clark v. Wallace · filed 2024-03-08(c)(3)

The Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Those claims will be remanded to state court.

After dismissing the federal claim, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remand them to state court.

Austell v. Washington University, EMBA 38 · filed 2024-03-08(c)(3)

Although Defendant moves the Court to accept supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, the Court declines the invitation and will remand Plaintiff’s state law claims to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Lous, Missouri. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand remaining state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially when the case remains at the motion to dismiss stage and no scheduling order has issued.

Lopez v. West Coast Arborists, Inc. · filed 2024-03-13(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.” Id. at § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the case is only at the motion to dismiss stage and the court has not yet issued a scheduling order. Remanding the case to state court is therefore appropriate.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and remand them when the federal claim is omitted or dismissed.

Janiskee v. Vertafore, Inc. · filed 2024-01-12(c)(3)

Additionally, in the event Plaintiff dismisses the FMLA claim by amendment or stipulation, the R&R further recommends that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and remand the state-law claims to state court. ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) is ADOPTED by the Court. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff amends his complaint to omit his FMLA claim or stipulates to dismiss the claim with prejudice, this action will be remanded to state court.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims leave the case when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor remand.

Crippen v. International Paper Co. · filed 2024-03-19(c)(3)

In total, the court concludes that the balance of the factors weighs in favor of remand. Accordingly, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim and remand it after resolving the federal claim.

Cole v. 3 Circle Church, Inc. · filed 2024-02-26(c)(3)

... supplemental jurisdiction is declined and Defendant Blake Stanley’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 37, 38) is REMANDED to state court for resolution.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been resolved.

King v. King · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Although a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Seventh Circuit has provided clear directives in favor of remand. ... And because the federal jurisdictional hook of ERISA preemption is no longer present, the resolution of these claims is appropriately left to the state court. With these considerations in mind, remand is appropriate.

Section 1367 does not transform a state-law claim into a federal-law claim for purposes of Little Tucker Act jurisdiction.

D'Agostino v. Secretary United States Air Force · filed 2024-03-21

Initially, D’Agostino’s reliance on § 1367 can be dismissed out of hand. Supplemental jurisdiction does not transform state-law claims into federal ones, including for purposes of the Little Tucker Act.

Section 1367 does not compel a plaintiff to bring related state law claims in federal court when those claims were filed separately in state court.

Guzman · filed 2026-02-03

Section 1367 allows a federal court to assert supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims joined with the federal claims if the state claims are “part of the same case or controversy” as the federal claims. Plaintiffs have not appended state law claims to her federal claim, however, instead opting to seek state law remedies in state court. Defendant offers no case law or authority suggesting that supplemental jurisdiction can be exercised over claims that are not before the federal court. Nor were plaintiffs required to assert all of their claims in a single lawsuit.

Section 1367 permits federal courts to hear related state law claims but does not require plaintiffs to bring all related claims in one federal action.

Ewing v. Freedom Forever, LLC · filed 2024-04-29

It does not, however, require a plaintiff to raise all related claims in a single action; nor does it empower federal courts or defendants to force plaintiffs to raise claims in federal court that they would prefer to raise elsewhere.

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

Howell v. McCormick · filed 2024-05-20(c)(3)

As the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal claims, it will decline to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims.

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

Carter v. Boyd · filed 2024-05-20(c)

For the foregoing reasons, the court will dismiss Carter’s claims under federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim, and the court will dismiss the remaining claims under state law without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Taylor v. Washington State Department of Corrections · filed 2024-05-16(c)(3)

Plaintiffs have failed to state any federal claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the State law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Anderson v. The Department of Housing · filed 2024-05-17(c)(3)

To the extent that Anderson’s allegations may state claims under New Jersey law, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Henderson v. Harmon · filed 2024-05-16(c)(3)

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction in the absence of a viable federal claim.

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

Orosco v. Marcus · filed 2024-05-16(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)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when numerous state-law claims substantially predominate over a weak remaining federal claim.

Robinson v. District of Columbia · filed 2024-05-20(c)(2)

Here, the § 1367 factors, together with the Gibbs considerations, weigh strongly in favor of remand to D.C. Superior Court. To begin, the state law claims in this case “substantially predominate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). Even if part of Robinson’s due process claim would survive a motion to dismiss, the Court has serious doubts about its viability.

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

Stratton v. Oroville City Elementary School District · filed 2024-05-16(c)(3)

However, because this matter is before the Court based on federal question jurisdiction and all federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims.

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

(PC) Lujan v. Hixon · filed 2024-05-20(c)(3)

In addition, as Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable federal claim, the Court would “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over any supplemental state law claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Grays v. Munn · filed 2024-05-21(c)(3)

Because this Court dismisses all Plaintiff’s federal law claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court further dismisses the remaining state law claims, without prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Quinones v. Meskin · filed 2024-05-21(c)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

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

Welch v. Rehmann · filed 2024-05-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Parker v. Hughes · filed 2024-05-22(c)(3)

Moreover, because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed, this Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state common law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921, 936 (7th Cir. 2008).

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

Scott v. Wright · filed 2024-05-17(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses the federal claims.

Lillacalenia v. Vue At 3rd Street · filed 2024-05-20(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff's federal claims are being dismissed, 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gavin v. Lady Jane's Haircuts for Men Holding Company, LLC · filed 2024-05-16(c)(3)

The Court will therefore dismiss Plaintiff Gibbons’s FLSA claims with prejudice and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Gibbons’s remaining State law claims.

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

Walker 230537 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2024-05-20(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed and the relevant considerations weigh against retaining them.

Martin 794831 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2024-05-22(c)

Here, all of Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed, and the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

New Mexico Horseman's Association v. Sunray Gaming of New Mexico, L.L.C. · filed 2024-05-22(c)

Nevertheless, after considering carefully the statutory factors in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, see Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988), the Court concludes that it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case, all of which arise under the laws or Constitution of New Mexico, see Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgement [sic] and Request for Preliminary/Permanent Injunction at 2, filed May 6, 2024 (Doc. 3)(italics in original)(“Defendants have excluded members of Plaintiff’s association from the respective racetracks for the unlawful reason of their association with each other and/or their exercise of speech and petition the government for redress contrary the protection of those rights by the NM Constitution in violation of NMSA 1978 § 60-1A-28.1.”); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. at 351 (approvingly noting that “[w]hen the single federal-law claim in the action was eliminated at an early stage of the litigation, the District Court had a powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction.”); Smith v. City of Enid By & Through Enid City Comm’n, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir. 1998)(“When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any 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, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Volant v. News 12 Long Island · filed 2024-05-22(c)(3)

Because the Complaint contains no plausible federal claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims in the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims in Volant’s Complaint.

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

Hajdasz v. Advanced Recovery of New York, Inc. · filed 2024-05-21(c)(3)

Here, all of the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed and this matter now involves only state law. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Schoch v. Scattaretico-Naber · filed 2024-05-16(c)(3)

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

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, guided by economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems v. State of Oregon · filed 2024-05-16(c)(3)

Even so, no factor weighs heavily in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction over OAHHS’s purely state-law claim. Further, because OAHHS asks this federal court to invalidate a state law solely on state constitutional grounds, considerations of comity strongly favor the conclusion that a federal court should decline jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over OAHHS’s state-law claim and dismisses that claim without prejudice.

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

MCCRAY v. DELAWARE COUNTY · filed 2024-05-20(c)

Due to the dismissal of his federal claims, the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

LLOYD v. MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2024-05-17(c)

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

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

Javitz v. Lukasewicz · filed 2024-05-20(c)(3)

Because this Court finds the §1983 claim upon which subject matter jurisdiction is predicated should be dismissed, the Court will decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction to the remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims or to review them on the merits, instead opting to remand this case back to state court for resolution.

After dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and remand them.

Taylor v. City of Mobile Police Department · filed 2024-05-28(c)(3)

In this circumstance, where the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”, the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state law claims and remand this action to the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy favors remand when the case is still in its early stages.

Bristol v. Town of Camden · filed 2024-05-28(c)(3)

Here, judicial economy weighs in favor of dismissing the state law claims. This case is in its early stages. Discovery has not occurred and Plaintiffs’ state-law claims are best addressed by a State Court. The Court will therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and remand the matter to the Supreme Court of Oneida County, New York.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with comity favoring a state forum for complex state-law issues.

Sanchez v. United States Bureau of Land Management · filed 2024-05-29(c)(3)

Comity, however, strongly favors the declination of federal supplemental jurisdiction because the remaining defendants are both California entities with a complex legal and regulatory relationship. In addition, plaintiffs’ fifth claim for unreasonable diversion of surface water implicates an especially complex body of state law better reserved for the California courts to resolve.

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

Hardy v. Mourges · filed 2024-05-28(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Robinson v. Sedgwick Claims Management Service · filed 2024-05-28(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, and she has not pleaded facts sufficient to establish diversity of citizenship, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Williams v. Settle Homes · filed 2024-05-28(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.

Hall v. Child Support Enforcement (CSU) · filed 2024-05-28(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed the federal claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Thomas v. Doja Cat · filed 2024-05-29(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s claims under the Copyright Act and Lanham Act are dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and the Court declines under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of 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.

Latimore v. Dutchess County · filed 2024-05-28(c)(3)

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

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

Robinson v. Magna Care · filed 2024-05-28(c)

The federal claims asserted in Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), are otherwise dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Foss v. King County · filed 2024-05-23(c)(3)

The court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, the Court 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

James Outdoor LLC v. City of Northport Alabama · filed 2024-05-28(c)(3)

Because the court will dismiss all claims arising under federal law, only the claims arising under Alabama law remain. A “district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Eleventh Circuit encourages district courts to do so if all federal claims are dismissed before trial. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004); accord Silas v. Sheriff of Broward Cnty., 55 F.4th 863, 866 (11th Cir. 2022) (“A district court . . . will rarely err by declining supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims that supported its jurisdiction are dismissed.”). The court therefore WILL DECLINE 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 after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Webb v. Daugherty · filed 2024-05-24(c)(3)

To the extent Mr. Webb alleges any claims under state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims as all federal claims in this action are dismissed as not plausible.

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

Letke v. Jennings · filed 2024-05-23

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 309 (3d Cir. 2003); Sarpolis v. Tereshko, 625 F. App’x 594, 598-99 (3d Cir. 2016).