28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

STRUM v. THE CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT OF COLUMBUS COUNTY · filed 2024-05-23(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Strum's state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after an amended complaint removes all federal claims, especially when litigation is at an early stage.

Smith v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2024-05-28(c)(3)

Even if Royal Canin did not categorically require remand, there is no question that courts can decline supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims have been eliminated from a complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988). Typically, once the federal claims are gone, courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Hayat, 2021 WL 2379396 at *2 (quoting McManemy v. Tierney, 970 F.3d 1034, 1041 (8th Cir. 2020)). The Court will follow that trajectory here.

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.

Marta v. City of Las Cruces · filed 2024-05-23(c)(3)

Given the potential distinctions in how these facts might be resolved under state law, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and will remand them back to state court.

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

Scelza v. Scelza · filed 2024-05-28(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 amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims contained in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Toadflax Nursery, LLC v. County of Washington · filed 2024-05-28(c)(3)

Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, not mandatory.

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

VERTICAL BRIDGE REIT, LLC v. EVEREST INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS, INC. · filed 2024-05-23(c)

And, even if the VB Plaintiffs’ state-law claims were independently viable, the Court would decline to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Cleveland v. Buchanan · filed 2024-05-23(c)

To the extent Plaintiff's complaint may be read to include claims pursuant to state law, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, including when the state-law issue has not been briefed.

Meyler v. Mayor and City Council of Ocean City · filed 2024-06-05(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), when a court has dismissed all federal claims from a case, it has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Atkinson v. National Credit Systems Inc. · filed 2024-06-05(c)(3)

The court dismisses counts one, four, five, and six. Eliminating all federal claims before trial generally suffices to decline supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims.

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

Hankerson v. 125 Worth St. Department of Health Vital Records · filed 2024-06-05(c)(3)

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

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

ROBERTSON v. EPFURSICH · filed 2024-05-31(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Robertson’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Emrit v. Combs · filed 2024-05-31(c)(3)

With respect to claims that Emrit sought to bring under state law, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 181 (3d Cir. 1999).

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

Vincent Pastore-v-County of Santa Cruz · filed 2024-06-05(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all federal claims and the parties are not diverse, it has subject matter jurisdiction over the state claims only if it exercises supplemental jurisdiction. ... No intervening event has changed the Court’s reasoning that judicial economy favors dismissal because the Court has not issued any prior substantive ruling on the state law matters; the convenience factor appears neutral; fairness favors retention of jurisdiction given the age of the case, but Mr. Pastore has a strong argument for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations on his claims related to the challenged 2014 actions; and comity favors dismissal because California courts have the primary responsibility of determining questions of California law. ... Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Mr. Pastore’s state law claims without prejudice to their refiling in state court.

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

Prytime Medical Devices, Inc. v. Certus Critical Care, Inc. · filed 2024-05-31(c)(3)

The remaining claims are state law claims. The parties are not diverse. For the reasons announced from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing, the Court declines to exercise Jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Van Dyke v. Chase · filed 2024-06-05(c)(3)

Consequently, the court grants defendants’ motions to dismiss Count V with prejudice. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law counts (I-IV) 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

BROTHERS HOLDING LLC v. TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN · filed 2024-05-31(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which permits a court to 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ellis Jr. v. Sandoval · filed 2024-06-04(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise 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 and remand them after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Curry-Cobbs v. Richland County Sheriff's Department · filed 2024-05-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims in this case and remands those claims to state court.

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.

Webb v. Harold · filed 2024-06-10(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 claim that Plaintiff is attempting to raise.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim, particularly when the case is at an early stage and no clear federal interest remains.

United States Ex Rel. Jaha C. Smith v. Empire City Labs · filed 2024-06-11(c)(3)

Applying this standard here, given that the Court is dismissing the Plaintiff’s qui tam FCA claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. There is no clear federal interest remaining, and given that the Court has yet to even hold an initial conference, little (if any) economy is generated or convenience is saved by exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Ophir v. Koneksa Health Inc · filed 2024-06-12(c)(3)

Because the federal claim is dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state and city 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.

Magassouba v. The City of New York · filed 2024-06-12(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff raises a state law claim against the City, in light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim.

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

Heath v. Gallaway · filed 2024-06-10(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). ... Here, Plaintiff does not currently state a federal claim that would allow the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims that he is attempting to assert.

When all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c)(3) permits the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Forte Biosciences Inc v. Camac Fund LP · filed 2024-06-11(c)(3)

Thus the interference claim is before the Court under its supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). “The 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, or (4) in exceptional circumstances . . . .” Id. § 1367(c). “The general rule is that a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal- law claims are eliminated before trial . . . .” Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. v. Dayco Prods., Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 2009).8 Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Forte’s interference claim, and that claim is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when it finds no basis for original jurisdiction.

Ritchey v. RTD Carriers, Inc. DO NOT DOCKET IN THIS CASE. (CASE REMANDED). · filed 2024-06-06(c)(3)

As the other Defendants have not put forward any other basis for removal, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it determines that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the federal claims.

Payne v. Highline School District · filed 2024-06-12(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court must find that it does not have standing to adjudicate Plaintiff’s federal claims. Without this jurisdictional anchor, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

When federal claims are reinstated on appeal, the judgment declining supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims must be vacated.

Costin v. Glens Falls Hospital · filed 2024-06-12(c)(3)

Because we vacate in part the dismissal of Costin’s federal claims, we vacate that much of the judgment declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Gray v. Rogers · filed 2024-06-07(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, and to remand those claims when the case was removed from state court.

Medley v. Figliola · filed 2024-06-11(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Sarpolis v. Tereshko, 625 F. App’x 594, 598-99 (3d Cir. 2016). The Court will therefore grant Plaintiffs motion to remand, and will remand the state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over federal claims; claims with overlapping proof and issues do not substantially predominate.

Jordan v. Smith · filed 2024-06-12(c)(2)

For these reasons, the Court concludes that the state law claims do not “substantially predominate” over the federal law claims.

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

Smith v. Monte · filed 2024-06-10(c)(3)

Therefore, any state-law claims for fraudulent concealment must be dismissed without prejudice, and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them given the dismissal of the federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Christian 815288 v. Rewerts · filed 2024-06-10(c)

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on considerations such as judicial economy and avoiding needless decisions of state law.

Jolly 922447 v. Rewerts · filed 2024-06-11(c)(3)

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

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

Moore v. Cleveland County Sheriff Office · filed 2024-06-11(c)(3)

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

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

Rosado v. Langdon · filed 2024-06-12(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; an early stage of litigation and unsettled state law favor remand.

Blume v. Navient Corporation · filed 2024-06-10(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law causes of action.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims after dismissing the sole claim within its original jurisdiction when retaining the claims would not serve judicial economy, convenience, or comity.

Manazer v. Adena Health System · filed 2024-06-12(c)

The Court finds that, after disposing of Dr. Manazer’s PSQIA claim (the only claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction), exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the balance of the litigation would not serve judicial economy, convenience, or comity—and therefore declines to do so.

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

LYLES v. GREYHOUND BUS LINES · filed 2024-06-10(c)

Due to the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and counterclaims after dismissing all federal claims before trial, with comity and the status of related state litigation informing that choice.

BURKE v. BACHERT · filed 2024-06-12(c)(3)

Because each of Plaintiffs’ federal claims are being dismissed before trial and the remaining state law claims and counterclaims depend in part on pending state litigation, the Court finds that it is in the interests of comity to decline to exercise 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.

SAUERS v. OAK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT · filed 2024-06-10(c)(3)

We today dismiss all claims over which we have original jurisdiction. We decline supplemental jurisdiction over 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.

PARKER v. LEE · filed 2024-06-11(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,10 it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any purported state ... law claims.

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

SPATAFORE v. SUGARHOUSE HSP GAMING, L.P. · filed 2024-06-11(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction, the Court has met the prerequisites for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3).

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

Baker v. Claiborne County, Tennessee · filed 2024-06-07(c)(3)

Further, because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims, the only claims on which this Court’s original jurisdiction rests, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims against any remaining Defendant and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor remand.

Westchester County v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2024-06-18

The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... In sum, all four factors favor remand. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Jones v. City of St. Louis · filed 2024-06-17(c)(3)

Therefore, on remand, the district court must resolve these state law claims, as well as any other matters raised by the parties, or decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because Jones’s federal 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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the action’s early stage can support remand.

Crawford v. Salve Regina University · filed 2024-06-18(c)(3)

The circumstances support remanding the action to state court. The action is in its earliest stages, before discovery has begun and before any significant motions, other than the motion to dismiss, have been filed. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remands them to the state court where the plaintiff originally chose to bring them.

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

Devita v. Mount Sinai Hospital · filed 2024-06-18(c)

Because Plaintiff has failed to state viable federal discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims (Counts Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).

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

Poorsina v. Bank of America, N. A. · filed 2024-06-14(c)(3)

Further, because the Court finds there is no subject matter jurisdiction over the False Claims Act cause of action, there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over any claims in this case, and thus no basis on which the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Parran v. Capital One Auto Finance · filed 2024-06-14(c)(3)

This case is at the very earliest stages of adjudication, making it appropriate for this Court to decline the exercise of pendent or supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with the decision guided by judicial economy, avoiding multiple suits, and avoiding unnecessary state-law rulings.

Rouser 822775 v. Hofbauer · filed 2024-06-13(c)

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction. Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. See Experimental Holdings, Inc. v. Farris 503 F.3d 514, 521 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Generally, once a federal court has dismissed a plaintiff’s federal law claim, it should not reach state law claims.”) (citing United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)); Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). In determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues.” Landefeld, 994 F.2d at 1182; see also Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply, 465 F.3d 719, 728 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Residual jurisdiction should be exercised only in cases where the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation outweigh our concern over needlessly deciding state law issues.” (internal quotations omitted). Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Galeski 829281 v. Washington · filed 2024-06-17(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)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Brown v. Bailey · filed 2024-06-18(c)(3)

Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim to relief on his federal claim, it will decline to exercises 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.

CRIST v. FSB · filed 2024-06-17(c)(3)

The Court possesses discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction and may decline to do so if “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” are dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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.

Sapp v. Greyhound Lines Inc. · filed 2024-06-13(c)(3)

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

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor that result.

Belton v. The County of Nassau, New York · filed 2024-06-13(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(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Lawson v. 5pointz/Safety Clean (Business) · filed 2024-06-14(c)(3)

Further, to the extent that the Complaint seeks to bring claims under either the NYSHRL or the NYCHRL, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims and such claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without prejudice.

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

Harrison v. Board of Education of the Honeoye Falls-Lima Central School District · filed 2024-06-13(c)(3)

However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claim.

Section 1367(a) requires state-law counterclaims to share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims, and § 1367(c)(2) permits declining jurisdiction when those counterclaims would substantially predominate.

Pritchard v. FTM, LLC · filed 2024-06-14(a), (c)(2)

Because “the evidence needed to prove [Plaintiff Trinity’s underlying] claim differs materially from that needed to prove the purportedly supplemental claim[s],” Corpas, 2021 WL 1555004, at *2, FTM’s state-law claims do not “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,” Kubala, 984 F.3d at 1137. I therefore conclude that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over FTM’s state-law counterclaims would be improper under § 1367(a). But even assuming supplemental jurisdiction over these counterclaims is proper, I decline to exercise that jurisdiction pursuant to my discretionary authority under § 1367(c)(2).

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

FORISH v. BRASILE · filed 2024-06-18(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction. ... It will dismiss Counts VI, VII, VIII, IX and X without prejudice for Forish to assert them in state court.

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

Dyckes v. South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice · filed 2024-06-14(c)(3)

Federal courts are permitted to decline to ... exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), however, if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... In this case, dismissal of the state-law claims is appropriate in light of the Shanaghan factors.

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.

Whiting v. City Of Athens · filed 2024-06-14(c)(3)

Because the Court will grant summary judgment as to the only federal claim in this action, it will decline 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Mitchell v. HUD and Prichard Housing Authority · filed 2024-06-21(c)(3)

Mr. Mitchell’s remaining claims against the Prichard Housing Authority arise under State Law, and it is recommended that this Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. ... “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Taylor v. Capital One Financial Corp · filed 2024-06-25(c)(3)

These are dismissed without prejudice because the balance of factors to be considered in whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—points towards declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy, convenience, or fairness must affirmatively justify retaining the state-law claims.

Alston v. State of Delaware · filed 2024-06-20(c)(3)

There is no affirmative justification to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the amended state law claim. Therefore, the Court declines to do so.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the plaintiff offers no basis for exercising that discretion after the federal claim fails.

Frank v. Fine · filed 2024-06-25

However, Plaintiff’s objection provides no basis on which the court should exercise its discretion and assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Quinones v. Davis · filed 2024-06-24(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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Jipson v. Workman · filed 2024-06-21(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, the only source of original jurisdiction in this action, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remand this action to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court that has dismissed all federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state and local claims and remand them to state court.

White v. American Federation of State County and Government Employees Union Local 2250 · filed 2024-06-25(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). ... The court will exercise its discretion to remand Plaintiff’s remaining state and county-law claims to state court, which is better suited to adjudicate those claims.

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

Zambali v. Shulman Rogers, P.A. · filed 2024-06-25(c)

This case is at the very earliest stages of adjudication, making it appropriate for this Court to decline the exercise of pendent or supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Ragan 314744 v. Wellpath · filed 2024-06-24(c)

With respect to Defendants Wellpath, Riley, Tracy, and Blue, because Plaintiff’s federal claims against these Defendants will be dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. As to Defendants Travis and Mikel, because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against these Defendants, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims against Travis and Mikel.

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 when the case is still in its early stages.

Oduro-Amoako v. Delta Air Lines,Inc. · filed 2024-06-26(c)(3)

As for Mr. Oduro-Amoako’s remaining state-law claims under the MHRA, 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 the federal claims.

Ussery v. Cooper · filed 2024-06-20(c)(3)

Because, as discussed below, dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims is appropriate, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Count I insofar as it is premised on violations of the North Carolina Constitution.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when the federal claim fails initial review.

Ragin v. Lockwood · filed 2024-06-26(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the Plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive force claim has not passed initial review.

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

Gaddy v. Alexander Correction Institution · filed 2024-06-26(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim, as no federal claim has passed initial review.

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

WINTERS v. VALLEAU · filed 2024-06-25(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims for which it has original jurisdiction, i.e., Plaintiff’s federal claims under Section 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and will remand those claims to state court.

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.

ADVANCED GYNECOLOGY AND LAPARASCOPY OF NORTH JERSEY, P.C. v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2024-06-25(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the only federal claims in this case,12 the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Haczynska v. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. · filed 2024-06-26(c)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims over which the 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,” and the Court accordingly dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs’ state law and city 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.

Platsky v. New York Police Department · filed 2024-06-24(c)(3)

After dismissal of the Section 1983 claims, no federal claims remain. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal claims once it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Platsky’s state claim against Etoria without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Kelly v. Florence · filed 2024-06-21(c)(3)

If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within the time allowed, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment dismissing this action for the reasons set forth in this order; the judgment will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims that she asserts on behalf of others without prejudice, dismiss Plaintiff’s own claims under federal law with prejudice 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 own claims under state law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

O'Neill v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District · filed 2024-06-26(c)(3)

District courts “may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a claim” where it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Here, Plaintiff’s only claim arising under federal law—employment discrimination under Title VII—has been dismissed. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim for employment discrimination and imposition of a hostile work environment under the NYSHRL.

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

Wade v. Franklin County, Ohio · filed 2024-06-25(c)(3)

When the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wade’s state law claims, the Court’s Order inherently granted Defendants’ motion only in part. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701, 709 (6th Cir. 2009) (“If the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims generally should be dismissed as well.”). Since the Court properly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), there has been no clear error that results in a manifest injustice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it resolves all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Harrison v. Dayton Municipal Court of Ohio · filed 2024-06-25(c)(3)

The resolution of all federal claims and “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988), lead this Court to conclude any state law claims properly belong in state court. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and dismisses them without prejudice to refiling in a state court of competent jurisdiction.

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

McKiver v. Ireland · filed 2024-06-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed the Section 1983 claims, which were the lone remaining claims that gave the court original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over McKiver’s state law claims.

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

Page, Emmanuel v. Bryant, Clinton · filed 2024-06-26(c)(3)

This court does not normally exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once the underlying federal claims fall away. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Diflefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015). Since plaintiff’s federal claims have been lost on the merits or under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the court will dismiss his remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, based on judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state-law issues.

Jackson 421729 v. Davids · filed 2024-06-21(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Minor Child by and Through Her Parents and Next Friends John Doe and Jane Doe Parents v. Canton Public School District · filed 2024-06-21(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. And that provides appropriate grounds to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3).

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.

Aquino v. City of Charlotte · filed 2024-06-20(c)(3)

Federal courts are permitted to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), however, if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” then the court has “wide latitude in determining whether or not to retain jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims have been extinguished.” ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims in this case and dismisses them without prejudice.

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when judicial economy and comity favor doing so.

Solata Foods, LLC v. Farmers Direct Corp. · filed 2024-06-24(c)(3)

Here, in light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal law claims, principles of judicial economy and comity counsel heavily in favor of declining to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim(s). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim(s).

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

Sampson v. Bergen County Prosecutors Office · filed 2024-06-26(c)(3)

To the extent that Sampson seeks to challenge the dismissal of his state law claims, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. See Doe v. Mercy Cath. Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 567 (3d Cir. 2017) (“A court may [decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction] under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over dismissed federal claims and raise novel or complex issues of state law.

Clark v. District of Columbia · filed 2024-06-26(c)

But even if the Court were to assume that some minimal overlap of “operative facts” exists, the Court is unpersuaded that this is a case that would warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretion to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ D.C.-law claims. Among other things, Plaintiffs’ dozen-plus D.C.-law claims “substantially predominate[] over” their perplexing collective Section 1981 claim,3 which the Court has dismissed, and their D.C.-law claims “raise novel or complex issues of State law,” principally relating to whether and when the District government can be bound by promises or representations made by government officials or included in government-issued documents. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

SINCLAIR v. RADIO · filed 2024-06-21(c)

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

A party that first requests remand of a supplemental state-law claim on appeal cannot establish that the district court abused its discretion by retaining the claim.

Tufaro v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma · filed 2024-07-09(c)(3)

Our holding here is of a different sort – that we cannot find an abuse of discretion when a plaintiff never requests a remand to state court before the district court but instead complains about it for the first time on appeal.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when the proposed anchor claim lacks Article III standing.

Franzini v. Bissell Homecare, Inc. · filed 2024-08-12

But as explained above, the Court reaches the contrary conclusion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s argument for maintaining the MMWA claim through supplemental jurisdiction fails.

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

Duke's K9 Dash N' Splash, LLC v. Zizka · filed 2024-08-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of plaintiffs’ federal claims at this early stage of litigation, 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 state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Williamson v. Analytics Consulting LLC. · filed 2024-08-29(c)(3)

Here, the factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction. ... The Court, therefore, will dismiss the common-law claims without prejudice, and Plaintiff may bring such claims, if not barred, in the appropriate local court.

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

Whitt v. JCI Medical Director · filed 2024-08-29(c)(3)

Although the Court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because they are related to Whitt’s federal claim, specifically the Eighth Amendment claim, now that the Court is resolving that claim, it can and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, taking account of the relevant discretionary considerations.

Beebe 243201 v. Davids · filed 2024-08-29(c)(3)

Given that Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, any intended state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Hunsperger v. Tuscarawas County, Ohio and Tuscarawas County Board of Commissioners · filed 2024-08-29(c)(3)

Generally, where all federal claims have been dismissed, federal courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701, 709 (6th Cir. 2009). There is no basis to depart from this general rule here, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hunsperger’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Brown v. Evans · filed 2024-08-29(c)(3)

However, because this court concludes that the § 1983 claims upon which subject matter jurisdiction is predicated will be dismissed, it will decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction to the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims or to review them on the merits.

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

Ryles v. Taylor (INMATE 2) · filed 2024-08-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and the state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; ... This case is DISMISSED.

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

DeHart v. Montgomery County Fiscal Court · filed 2024-08-30(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed the Estate’s federal claims early in the proceedings, the Court concludes that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Obah v. ADAPT · filed 2024-08-30(c)(3)

And having dismissed Obah’s only federal claim, the Court again declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims that Obah’s amended complaint could be construed to assert.

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

CHAMBERS v. GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS · filed 2024-08-30(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Chambers’s state claims as we have dismissed all claims over which we have 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.

Moss v. Younkin · filed 2024-08-30(c)(3)

In light of the court’s disposition of the federal claims asserted in the complaint, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims under state law and will dismiss those claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (authorizing a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction’).

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

Orr v. Cothron · filed 2024-09-03(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s purported false imprisonment claim because no federal claim has passed initial review.

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

Vilchis v. Roman's Transportation LLC · filed 2024-08-28(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Arizona state law claims, Counts Three and Four, because they are “part of the same case or controversy” as Plaintiff’s federal claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim.

Hampton v. Cagle · filed 2024-08-28(a)

The Court has federal-question jurisdiction over Hampton’s section 1983 claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and has supplemental jurisdiction over Hampton’s state-law claim of negligence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because that claim arises from a common nucleus of operative fact with her section 1983 claim.

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

Cruz v. Cuper Electric LLC · filed 2024-08-29(a)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Arizona state law claims, Counts Two and Three, because they are “part of the same case or controversy” as Plaintiff’s federal law claim.

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

Vega v. PBS Construction LLC · filed 2024-09-03(a)

The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the claims are related to Plaintiff’s FLSA claim such that they form part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state pay-frequency claim that shares a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal overtime claim.

Reyes v. Crystal Window & Door System, Ltd. · filed 2024-09-03(a)

Because plaintiffs’ pay-frequency claim turns on their compensation structure, that claim arises out of the same nucleus of operative fact as their FLSA overtime claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed on summary judgment before trial.

Aery v. Beitel · filed 2024-09-04(c)

The Court agrees that under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), because all of the federal claims in this case are subject to dismissal on summary judgment prior to trial, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any alleged violations of state law.

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

Benda v. Sadler Rentals, LLC · filed 2024-09-05(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs’ federal discrimination claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claim.

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

Spinks v. State of Maryland · filed 2024-09-09(c)(3)

In the instant case, following summary judgment on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, his only remaining claims are for negligence under Maryland common law, which do not implicate any questions of federal law. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related third-party complaint.

Schnupp v. Blair Pharmacy, Inc. · filed 2024-09-05(a)

In the alternative, I shall exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to the T.P. Complaint.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over claims that arise from the same facts as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

J & N Seeding, LLC v. Morris Inc. · filed 2024-09-04(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction exists over J & N’s contract claim and Morris’s counterclaim because they arise from the same facts as the Miller Act claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims against the same defendants, while retaining state law claims against other defendants.

Figel 179188 v. McNees · filed 2024-09-12(c)

Here, given that the Court will dismiss all federal claims against Defendants Betke, Keough, Morgan, Bennett, Henry, and Salinas, the balance of interests weighs against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Betke, Keough, Morgan, Bennett, Henry, and Salinas will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to raise those claims in the state courts.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law tort claims against a supervisor when they share a common nucleus of fact with federal claims against the employer.

Ellis v. Clinton County Board of Commissioners · filed 2024-09-12(a)

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that there is a common nucleus of fact between the Title VII claims against the CCSO and the related state law claims asserted against Kirk. The Court will thus exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law tort claims asserted against Kirk.

Section 1367(a) permits a court with federal question jurisdiction to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims even when joining nondiverse defendants destroys diversity jurisdiction.

Caballero v. Gateway Mortgage · filed 2024-09-11(a)

Although Plaintiff alleges state law claims against Defendant Gateway Mortgage and newly joined non-diverse defendants Michael Schroeder, Carmen Good, Linda Burrell, Paul Leake, the Court exercises its supplemental jurisdiction at this time over those state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Moreno-Livni v. Afl-Cio Housing Investment Trust · filed 2024-09-11(c)(3)

This case has not progressed in federal court past Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and the Court has developed no particular familiarity with the issues presented. ... The Court, therefore, will dismiss the DCHRA claim without prejudice, and Plaintiff may bring such claim, if not barred, in the appropriate local court.

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

Harrison v. Barnes · filed 2024-09-13(c)(3)

Here, in the absence of a plausible federal claim, the Court declines to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over any potential state law claims that may be liberally construed from the Complaint.

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

EAVES v. BENSON LINCOLN MERCURY, INC. · filed 2024-09-13(c)

Since all of the federal claims are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim and there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims against the Defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim the plaintiff has not alleged.

Schieferstein v. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLS · filed 2024-12-30

Likewise, Plaintiff’s invocation of the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, see ECF No. 1 ¶ 39, does not apply here because he fails to allege any claim under state law.

Section 1367 supplies no basis for supplemental jurisdiction when the plaintiff asserts no state law claim.

Bellas v. Kahn · filed 2025-02-25

28 U.S.C. § 1367 defines supplemental jurisdiction, but does not create a basis to exercise jurisdiction in this case as no state law claim is asserted.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim when the federal claim remains pending but is stayed because of bankruptcy.

Trustees Of The Laborers Trust Fund v. LCM Corporation · filed 2025-01-02(a)

The court has jurisdiction over Count I of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Count I arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Consequently, the court has jurisdiction over Count III under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because Counts I and III are “so related . . . that they form part of the same case or controversy,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), namely LCM’s nonpayment of certain funds to Plaintiffs. Though Count I is brought only against LCM, and this case is currently stayed against LCM on account of LCM’s bankruptcy filing (see ECF No. 12), Count I remains a live and active claim in this case. The stay does not extinguish Count I or deprive the court of supplemental jurisdiction over claims related to it.

After declining supplemental jurisdiction, a district court may dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice or remand them to state court.

Harrell v. Lira · filed 2025-01-21(c)

The district court had discretion to choose between dismissal without prejudice and remand.

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.

Parfaite v. Lippincott · filed 2025-01-22(c)(3)

Accordingly, because we conclude that the defendant is entitled to summary judgment or dismissal as to the federal claims, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Parfaite’s state-law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline to address state-law claims when the complaint fails to plead a federal cause of action.

Lopez v. Iaela-Tokugawa · filed 2025-01-22(c)(3)

The Court will once again not weigh in on the state law issues raised in the amended complaint given the failure to plead a federal cause of action.

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

Yates v. the Money Source, Inc. · filed 2025-01-28(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. See Dyack v. Northern Mariana Islands, 317 F.3d 1030, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) permits the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where the district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Taylor v. Wagner · filed 2025-01-28(c)(3)

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

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

Moore v. City of New York · filed 2025-01-29(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Leon v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC · filed 2025-01-31(c)(3)

Additionally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Thompson v. Vintage Stock, Inc. · filed 2025-02-03(c)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims and finds no reason to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Thompsons’ Missouri do-not-call-list claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim and remands it to state court.

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

POOLE v. NEW REZ LLC · filed 2025-02-05(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims because her federal claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Groulx v. CSL Limited · filed 2025-02-05

Judge Morris recommended dismissing both claims, without prejudice, because (1) Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and (2) this Court should not otherwise exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 7, is ADOPTED. ... All federal claims are dismissed with prejudice and all state claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Cantillo v. Dept. of Corrections · filed 2025-02-05(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.

Mills v. Precythe · filed 2025-02-06(c)(3)

However, like the potential state-law claim against Nurse Roe above, the Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Henck v. Chase Nissan LLC · filed 2025-02-08(c)(3)

In the absence of federal diversity jurisdiction, and because there are no facially plausible federal claims against the defendants, the Court declines at this early stage of the litigation to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Henck’s state common law and state statutory law claims.

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

Puckett v. Kirk · filed 2025-02-11(c)(3)

As to Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Kahlon v. County of Nassau · filed 2025-02-12(c)(3)

Yet concluding that there are no remaining federal claims is not the end of the inquiry; otherwise, § 1367(c)(3) would not be discretionary at all. I must go on to assess the Gibbs factors.

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

Henderson v. Kent, County of · filed 2025-02-20(c)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Kent County, Vital Core Health Strategies, Inmate John Doe, Nurses Jane Does #2–3, and Sergeant John Doe #4 will be dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants. Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Deputies John Does #1–3, Captain Lyons, Lieutenant Pavlovic, Physician Jane Doe #1, and Physician John Doe #5, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants.

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

Lisenby v. OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS · filed 2025-02-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed the lone federal claim for failure to state a claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining State law claims under the Pennsylvania and Florida Whistleblower Acts. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

GILES v. THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2025-02-27(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 after it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Spone v. Reiss · filed 2025-03-03(c)(3)

Because Spone’s remaining arguments depend on her having successfully stated a claim in Counts One and Two, and because she did not, her arguments also fail as to her Monell claim and her state law claims. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978) (municipal liability under Monell requires an “action that [has been] alleged to be unconstitutional”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (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) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses the related federal claims.

Walsh 441121 v. Howard · filed 2025-03-03(c)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Shunk, Beaulieu, Voorhees, Howard, Storey, and Batho will be dismissed on screening,the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims against these Defendants.

Section 1367 gives a court no discretion to retain state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Davis v. Kula Kai View Estates, Community Association · filed 2025-03-05

The Court notes that, with the dismissal of the Federal Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, there is no “discretion” to retain “supplemental jurisdiction” of the State Claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.

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.

Cecere v. Canisius University · filed 2025-03-05(c)(3)

Given the early stage of the proceedings, the fact that the remaining causes of action involve quintessential areas of state law such as breach of contract, negligence, and their interplay with Article 78 proceedings, and the fact that this action originated in state court, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and to remand Plaintiff’s remaining state law causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; it need not wait for a dismissal with prejudice.

In Re Stem, Inc. Derivative Litigation · filed 2025-03-24(c)(3)

Therefore, if a district court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, its only course is to dismiss the related state law claims without prejudice, not retain such claims until the original federal claim is dismissed with prejudice, as Plaintiffs would have the Court do.

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

Holtzclaw v. Morgan · filed 2025-03-24(c)(3)

Further, as all claims over which this Court would have original jurisdiction are subject to dismissal, supplemental jurisdiction is inappropriate here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Macias v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2025-03-26(c)

Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed with prejudice, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Cull v. United States · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)

Since the Court has concluded that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' FTCA claims against the United States, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims against Defendant Beckon and dismisses those claims without prejudice.