28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims, but the court may decline to do so after dismissing the federal claim before trial.

Reed v. Barnes · filed 2025-03-31

Having dismissed Reed’s federal-law claim against G6 and Motel 6 Dallas, TX – South, the court determines next whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims. The court in its discretion declines to do so.

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

WINWOOD v. WHITEKO · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because it will dismiss all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Ross v. Erie Insurance Exchage · filed 2025-03-31(c)

Alternatively, this Court dismisses Counts II and III without prejudice on the basis that it declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

(PS) Coleman v. County of Sacramento · filed 2025-04-02(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of plaintiff’s federal claims, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that the “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Godstone v. Pedro · filed 2025-04-08(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s pendent state law claims.

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

Sinai v. Del-One Federal Credit Union · filed 2025-04-11(c)(3)

Accordingly, the state law claims asserted in this case cannot proceed based on diversity jurisdiction, and to the extent that the Court has the option of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, it will decline to do so.

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

Finnegan v. Head · filed 2025-04-15(c)(3)

However, even if his complaint states any plausible tort claims—a finding I do not reach—I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss a supplemental state-law claim without prejudice to filing it in state court after the federal claim is dismissed.

Saifullah v. Macomber · filed 2025-04-22(c)(3)

But to the extent that plaintiff may be able to state a claim for relief under California’s Bane Act, said claim is dismissed without prejudice to bringing it in the California courts.

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.

Chao v. 979 Second Ave LLC · filed 2025-04-24(c)(3)

Such is the case here and so the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s remaining 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.

Werner v. New York City · filed 2025-04-28(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.

Lignos-Lopez v. Servicios de Terapia Educativa Girasol, Inc. · filed 2025-04-30(c)(3)

Given the fact that no federal question remains, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims arising from Puerto Rico law.

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

Fox v. Kovacs · filed 2025-04-30(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed Fox’s federal claims against the Kovacs defendants, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against them at this time, so I dismiss them without prejudice.

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

DEESE v. POWELL · filed 2025-05-01(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claim.

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

Mawazo v. City of Buffalo · filed 2025-05-02(c)(3)

Here, the Court’s discretion is triggered under § 1367(c)(8) because Plaintiffs’ federal claims are dismissed. The Court, furthermore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in the interests of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

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

Phillips v. Angel · filed 2025-05-06(c)(3)

Because all of Phillips’ federal claims have been dismissed, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss a supplemental state-law claim without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims.

Lettieri v. New York State Police · filed 2025-05-06(c)(3)

See Valencia ex rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 305 (2d...Cir.2003); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Giordano v. City...of New York, 274 F.3d 740, 754 (2d Cir .2001) (noting that...dismissal of pendent state law claims is appropriate where all...federal claims have been dismissed and “it appears that the...state issues substantially predominate”) (internal quotation...marks omitted). Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed...without prejudice as against defendant Novara.

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

Estate of Dean Henry Hoffmann v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections · filed 2025-05-09(c)

Regardless, because the court dismissed the only federal claim against Dr. DeBlanc, it declines to take supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against her.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal law claims remain.

Morrison v. Lynn-Kopp · filed 2025-05-12(c)(3)

To the extent Morrison asserts state law claims, such as defamation, supplemental jurisdiction will not be exercised in the absence of federal law claims.

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

Quinlan v. Puls · filed 2025-05-14(c)(3)

The Court can exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the state-law claims only by extending supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. But doing so would be inappropriate, given that each of Quinlan’s federal-law claims is being summarily dismissed at the pleading stage.

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

Peters v. Joyner · filed 2025-05-20(c)(3)

To the extent that the Complaint raises a Delaware state tort negligence claim, or any other state law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

MCCALL v. NEMOURS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · filed 2025-05-20(c)

Because the Court has dismissed her federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over McCall’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or any other state law claims she seeks to assert.

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

Caballero v. Lawrence Correctional Center · filed 2025-05-22(c)(3)

As Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim has been dismissed for failure to exhaust, the Court must now determine whether to retain or relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Typically, when all federal claims in a case have been dismissed prior to trial, district courts decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. ... For these reasons, the Court will not exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law negligence claim and DISMISSES the claim without prejudice.

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

Snowfly v. Reyes · filed 2025-05-27(c)(3)

Thus, because all claims over which a federal court might have original jurisdiction have been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Austin v. Corizon Health Care · filed 2025-05-27(c)

However, the Court has discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims that are joined with federal claims. ... Because the plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed, there is no good reason to expend federal judicial resources to adjudicate matters well within the competence of the state judiciary.

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

Harris 600430 v. Mahar · filed 2025-05-29(c)

The Court concludes that balancing the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Moss v. Board of Education of the Brentwood Union Free School District · filed 2025-05-30(c)(3)

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

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

Timmons v. Schreiber · filed 2025-06-02(c)(3)

Thus, because all claims over which a federal court might have original jurisdiction have been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 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.

Walker v. Abbaszadeh · filed 2025-06-03(c)(3)

Since the court has dismissed this claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Estate of Kenneth Dale Sumner v. State of CA · filed 2025-06-04(c)(3)

A district court may sua sponte decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims. Having dismissed these claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Escobedo v. Reynolds · filed 2025-06-05(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims against Mott and Calfas, the Court declines to exercise subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the DTPA against Mott and Calfas, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Goins v. Father Flanagan's Boys' Home · filed 2025-06-05(c)(3)

The Court may continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. ... The Court finds no factor that distinguishes this case from the usual case.

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

HOWARD v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2025-06-06(c)(3)

WHEREAS this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NJCRA claims against Defendants Evins and Hardaway.

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

Wynder, JR. v. Mateer · filed 2025-06-10(c)(3)

The Court has declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Lester v. Bamboo Broadway, LLC · filed 2025-06-11(c)(3)

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

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

HEAGY v. TERRA · filed 2025-06-11(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 Heagy asserts based on sex abuse.

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

Chapp v. 202 Lake Street Partners, LLC · filed 2025-06-12(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claims. Accordingly, Chapp’s state law tort claims are properly dismissed without prejudice.

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

Wiltz v. Yost · filed 2025-06-16(c)

Because the Court dismisses all of Wiltz’s federal causes of action against the Defendants relevant to this Opinion and Order, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over her state-law claims. 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, based on the balance of relevant considerations.

Brockman 189714 v. Bobay · filed 2025-06-17(c)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants 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)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Williams v. Rivello · filed 2025-06-17(c)(3)

To the extent that Williams attempts to assert state-law tort claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims because the Court has dismissed his federal claims.

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

Washington v. Livonia Public Schools · filed 2025-06-17(c)(3)

Given that no federal claims remain against LPS and Oquist, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims against them arising under state law.

After a federal claim is dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), there is a strong presumption in favor of dismissing the remaining state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction.

Fischiettie v. Futhey III · filed 2025-06-18(c)(3)

Supplemental jurisdiction is also improper because “[a]fter a 12(b)(6) dismissal, there is a strong presumption in favor of dismissing supplemental claims.” Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1255 (6th Cir. 1996).

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

Roosevelt Road Re, Ltd. v. Subin · filed 2025-06-19(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if,” as here, “it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... In considering the “traditional values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

Greene v. Keeton Property Management LLC · filed 2025-06-23(c)(3)

Absent any plausible federal claim, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Carter-Washington v. Wilmington Trust, National Association · filed 2025-06-24(c)(3)

Therefore, the court will exercise its discretion under § 1367 to remand the invasion of privacy claim to the Jefferson County Circuit Court.

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

Nasrallah v. Zvibleman · filed 2025-06-24(c)(3)

Given the early stage of this case and the Court’s dismissal of the only federal claim, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

FLAMER v. MITCHELL · filed 2025-06-24(c)

However, having dismissed his federal law 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 after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

WRETMAN v. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SYSTEM · filed 2025-06-30(c)(3)

This court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims and, after considering factors such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, it now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Weller v. NYU Langone Health System · filed 2025-06-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claim, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Galvan v. City Of Chicago · filed 2025-07-01(c)(3)

And because the Court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state-law claims. 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 claim.

ALLEN v. FRANKLIN MINT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION · filed 2025-07-02(c)

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

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

Labarrere-Abreu v. Carvana Co. · filed 2025-07-07(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims and to dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice rather than remand them.

Robinson v. Statewide Wrecker Service, Inc. · filed 2025-07-09(c)(3)

When a district court has dismissed all federal claims, it has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. Harris-Billups v. Anderson, 61 F.4th 1298, 1305 (11th Cir. 2023) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). ... While a district court also has the discretion to remand the state law claims, it is not required to do so. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 352 (1988). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Robinson’s 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.

Kruesi v. Oregon Department of Corrections · filed 2025-07-09(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s sole federal claim. The only claims that remain are pendant state claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and, accordingly, 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.

Perry v. Hardy · filed 2025-07-14(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

CESPEDES v. UPPER MORELAND POLICE DEPT,ET AL. · filed 2025-07-17(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 state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Bonsell v. Muldowney · filed 2025-07-17(c)(3)

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

When no other ground under § 1367(c) is presented, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction only after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Cangrejeros de Santurce Baseball Club, LLC v. Liga de Beisbol Profesional de Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2025-07-21(c)

The authority of the District Court to dismiss the remaining Puerto Rico law claim, however, kicks in only if all federal claims have been dismissed, at least given that none of the other bases for dismissal identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) are presented on appeal as grounds for affirming that claim's dismissal.

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

Parkes v. NYU Langone Health · filed 2025-07-21(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.

Dan v. State of New York · filed 2025-07-22(c)(3)

In the present case, all claims over which the Court would have original jurisdiction have been dismissed, leaving only Plaintiff's state law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), Magistrate Judge Evangelista correctly recommends that the Court should decline 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.

Aceves v. Central Management Services · filed 2025-07-23(c)(3)

Therefore, if Plaintiff brought the retaliation claims under an unspecified Illinois state law, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those supplemental state-law claims because the federal claims have been 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.

Watson v. Gateway Properties LLP · filed 2025-07-23(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 after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

(PS) Ortiz v. Mull · filed 2025-07-25(c)(3)

Because of the deficiencies set forth above, the undersigned is dismissing with leave to amend all of plaintiff’s federal claims. The court will not at this time exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

WALKER-BORDEN v. TRIPP · filed 2025-07-31(c)

Having dismissed Mr. Walker-Borden’s federal claims, I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over Mr. Walker-Borden’s state law claim.

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

LUCIANO v. THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2025-08-04(c)(3)

In light of the fact that the Complaint fails to state a plausible federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Gaddy v. Sullivan County Jail Administrator and Medical Dept. · filed 2025-08-04(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.

Rosa v. Administration for Children's Services (ACS) · filed 2025-08-05(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) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

STEPHENS v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY · filed 2025-08-06(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor doing so after the federal claims are dismissed.

Prunty v. Obregon · filed 2025-08-12(c)(3)

... the tort of outrage, and wrongful death 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Harrison v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Inc. · filed 2025-08-13(c)(3)

Because all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it dismisses the federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

McCurdy v. Unruh · filed 2025-08-13(c)(3)

Where, as here, the federal claims are subsequently dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), a court has discretion over whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court in its discretion therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. It dismisses those claims 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.

Keen v. Keen · filed 2025-08-14(c)(3)

In the alternative, her civil RICO claim fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for which relief can be granted and is subject to dismissal on that ground, and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining non-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.

VJH Homes, LLC v. City of Cleveland · filed 2025-08-15(c)(3)

Therefore, because Plaintiff’s only remaining claims are state-law claims over which the Court has only supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction and will dismiss those 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.

L.H. v. Wentzville R-IV School District · filed 2025-08-15(c)(3)

Considering the nature of the remaining state-law claims and the lack of factors distinguishing this case from other cases where courts dismiss federal claims before trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Henry’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Kluver v. Perpetua · filed 2025-08-18(c)

Regardless, once the only potential federal claims are dismissed, this Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Here, all federal claims in the Amended Complaint will be dismissed. Accordingly, any state law claims for medical negligence or medical malpractice will be dismissed without prejudice, as this Court declines to extend jurisdiction over same should Mr. Kluver intend to bring them here.

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

Cole v. Via Path/GTL · filed 2025-08-19

Last, to the extent that the complaint raises a Delaware state law-based breach of contract claim, or any other state law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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 them.

Kirk 327286 v. Przybylski · filed 2025-08-19(c)

Here, Plaintiff's federal claims against Defendants 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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claims.

RUTH v. THE HOME DEPOT · filed 2025-08-20(c)

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

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

Simpara v. New York District Authority · filed 2025-08-20(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) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Moretti v. Luxury Cars of Westchester LLC · filed 2025-08-20(c)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 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 the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Samodovitz v. Troutman · filed 2025-08-21(c)(3)

Further, insofar as plaintiff’s pleadings might be construed to assert a claim based upon state law, supplemental jurisdiction over that claim is denied. 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 dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

R.W. v. C.L. · filed 2025-08-22(c)(3)

However, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where, as here, all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... As neither the parties nor the Court have identified any such considerations, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses these claims without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to refile them in state court.

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

Hormeku v. DS 30 Morningside Master Tenant, LLC · filed 2025-08-22(c)(3)

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

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

Aspasia Films LLC v. Quantum Capital · filed 2025-08-25(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff Aspasia Films LLC’s claims and having dismissed Plaintiff Lyons’s federal law claims, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Lyons’ state law claims and dismisses this case.

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

White v. O'Malley · filed 2025-08-25(c)(3)

Where a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it is appropriate for the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As Plaintiff fails to state a claim under § 1983 or § 1985 upon which relief may be granted, his remaining state law claims must be 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.

Thomas/Smith v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc · filed 2025-08-27(c)(3)

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

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

Peterkin v. Suffolk County Correctional Dept. · filed 2025-08-28(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)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gordon v. Gordon · filed 2025-08-28(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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

Falls v. Keenan · filed 2025-08-28(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) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the claims supporting federal jurisdiction are dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

PAPPAGALLO v. Redco Corp. f/k/a Crane Co. · filed 2025-08-29(c)

Under the principles of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims of commercial vessel exposure.

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

Roderick · filed 2025-09-04(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.

Gonzalez · filed 2025-09-04(c)(3)

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

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

Ordonez v. Taylorsville City Police Department · filed 2025-09-05(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed all claims over which it has federal jurisdiction, the court ... declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Ordonez’s state law claims against Mr. Watters. 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.

Cymbler v. New York State · filed 2025-09-09(c)(3)

“[A] district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). The Court dismisses all the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state law claims alleging violations of the New York State constitution ... and concert of action (id. ¶¶ 432–50 (Twenty-Sixth Cause of Action); ¶¶ 451–72 (Twenty- Seventh Cause of Action)).

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

Ybarra v. Centurion Health of Indiana LLC · filed 2025-09-10(c)(3)

Section 1367 provides that a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim where the court has dismissed all the claims within its original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because neither party requests that this court retain jurisdiction over this claim, and the court sees no reason to retain jurisdiction, the court declines to retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Shields v. Port Arthur Independent School District · filed 2025-09-10(c)(3)

Thus, because this court has determined that all of Shields’s federal claims should be dismissed, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

Fletcher v. Cartwright · filed 2025-09-11(c)(3)

Upon consideration of the § 1367 factors and the “traditional rationales for pendent jurisdiction, including judicial economy and convenience,” see Palmer, 22 F.3d at 1569, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fletcher’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.

Fair Isaac Corporation v. Gurobi Optimization, LLC · filed 2025-09-12(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over claims if it “dismiss[es] all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As I dismiss Count I—FICO’s federal DISA claim—I decline to exercise jurisdiction over FICO’s state law tortious interference claims.

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

COX v. PHILLY CAR KINGS · filed 2025-09-12(c)

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

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

Sposato · filed 2025-09-12(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Infante v. Wagner Holding Trust · filed 2025-09-16(c)(3)

ORDERED that the suit is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 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.

RSN Associates LLC v. Ajjarapu · filed 2025-09-16(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... At this point, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII, and dismisses these remaining counts without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed before trial, based on the circumstances of the case.

Ulery v. Rafferty,MD · filed 2025-09-17(c)

When a case has been removed to federal court and the federal claim is disposed of before trial, it is within this Court’s discretion to decide whether to keep the remaining state-law claims or remand them. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the early stage of the present litigation and the fact that Ms. Ulery’s claims against Ms. Lyons are traditional state-law claims related to medical malpractice, the Court will decline jurisdiction over the claims against Ms. Lyons and remand them to the state court where Ms. Ulery originally brought them.

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

Morris v. Lincare, Inc. · filed 2025-09-17(c)(3)

Upon careful consideration, as this action is not currently scheduled for trial, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Agosto v. Nassau County Corr. Cntr. · filed 2025-09-22(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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Harris · filed 2025-09-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed the 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.

Ogando v. Napolitano · filed 2025-09-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s claims arising under federal laws, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Hallowanger v. Borbonus · filed 2025-09-24(c)(3)

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

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

Stokes · filed 2025-09-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims of 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.

Best · filed 2025-09-24(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after the claims that conferred federal jurisdiction are dismissed.

Katsigiannis v. M.H. Parsons & Sons Lumbar Company, Inc. · filed 2025-09-26(c)(3)

Once the claims that conferred federal jurisdiction are dismissed, the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Especially where he has filed a motion to remand the case, it is appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Katsigiannis’s state claim in this case and to remand the case to Merrimack County Superior Court.

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

BALLARD v. DAVIS · filed 2025-09-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction as to those claims over which it has supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Because the Court is dismissing the § 1983 claims against the defendants—the claims over which it has original jurisdiction—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ballard’s state law claim for negligence.

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

Brookins v. Sterling National Bank · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, and there being no basis for diversity jurisdiction, the Court declines in its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law fraud claims that may not be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

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

McDaniel v. Campbell · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)

As such, the court has the authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claim and remand it to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (granting the court the authority to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction). Having reviewed the factors set forth in Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995), the court finds remanding the SCTCA claim appropriate here as South Carolina state courts have more knowledge and experience in adjudicating SCTCA claims, and the State of South Carolina has an interest in resolving Plaintiff’s claim under state law.

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

ALLEN-MURPHY v. MURPHY · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the federal claim, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law claim.

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

Metoyer v. Washtenaw County Road Commission · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)

Because Metoyer has failed to state a federal cause of action against the Road Commission, the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims in Count III alleged against the Road Commission. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Crawford v. Milner · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)

Because the Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” and the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s claim under the FHA, these three claims are also dismissed. 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.

Johnston v. Mesmer · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

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

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.

Burnett v. The County of Suffolk · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

Because plaintiff’s two federal claims are now dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law breach of contract claim.

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

CDDM Corporation v. Lansing, City of · filed 2025-10-02(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court will dismiss CDDM’s federal claims, and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a defendant whose federal claims have been dismissed while retaining state-law claims against a defendant whose federal claim remains.

Hites 667768 v. Phillips · filed 2025-10-06(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction as to Defendant Teelander. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims against Defendant Teelander will be dismissed without prejudice. However, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Phillips.

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

MCCARY v. WELLPATH, L.L.C. · filed 2025-10-07(c)

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

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

Piens v. Reckard · filed 2025-10-08(c)(3)

Here, because Piens’s RICO claims, the only claims over which a federal court might have original jurisdiction, have been dismissed, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 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.

CHASE-KEYES v. SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2025-10-09(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Chase-Keyes’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over the remaining state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and trespass.

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.

North Pearl Street, a Limited Partnership v. City of Tacoma · filed 2025-10-10(c)(3)

Without Article III standing, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Pearl Street’s federal claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Pearl Street’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Thomas · filed 2025-10-10(c)

Insofar as the complaint might be liberally construed as doing so, because the Court dismisses herein all of the federal claims of which it had original jurisdiction, the Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of such 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.

Wynder · filed 2025-10-10(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

RIDDICK · filed 2025-10-14(c)

Because Riddick’s federal claims will all be dismissed, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

Norwick · filed 2025-10-15(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Mr. Norwick’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.

Smith v. Society of St. Vincent DePaul · filed 2025-10-20(c)(3)

In as much as Plaintiff attempts to sue Defendant for medical malpractice or negligence, these are Kentucky state-law claims, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Roigk · filed 2025-10-21(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) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims, even if it has preliminarily analyzed the remaining claim’s merits.

Pheenix USH LLC v. District Department of Transportation · filed 2025-10-24(c)(3)

However, a district court’s preliminary analysis of the merits does not foreclose it from later declining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Nieman · filed 2025-10-28(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim is dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

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

Safe Choice, LLC v. City of Cleveland · filed 2025-10-30(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once they have dismissed all claims over which they had original jurisdiction.

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

Maxwell · filed 2025-10-30(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 remaining claims after dismissing the claims supporting federal jurisdiction.

Afifi · filed 2025-11-03(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining claims.

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

WILSON · filed 2025-11-04(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has not alleged an actionable federal claim, because the case has not proceeded beyond the initial phase of litigation, and because there are no other apparent circumstances favoring resolution of the state law claims within this forum, the balance of the interests in comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weighs against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Smith, Prescott, PJMLG, Jamieson, and Murphy.

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

May Flower International, Inc. v. Amoy Food Limited · filed 2025-11-05(c)(3)

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) vests district courts with supplemental jurisdiction “over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) enables district courts to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where they have “dismissed all claims over which [they have] original jurisdiction.” Because this Court has dismissed the RICO claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common-law fraud claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no claim remains within its original jurisdiction.

Ezell · filed 2025-11-07(c)(3)

With no claim remaining to which the Court has original jurisdiction, 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

QASSIS · filed 2025-11-10(c)(3)

This Court has dismissed all claims over which it had federal jurisdiction. Only Plaintiffs’ state law claims—breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the NJLAD—remain. This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining 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 judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Dillard · filed 2025-11-13(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Hamilton · filed 2025-11-19(c)(3)

Here, 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—for example, a legal malpractice or breach of contract claim against Tuohey. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims in Hamilton’s Complaint.

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

Firsov · filed 2025-11-20(c)(3)

The federal claim for violation of the Montreal Convention is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, and the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Russell · filed 2025-11-24(c)(3)

Here, where the court has dismissed Austin’s only federal claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims and dismisses them.

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

MURRAY · filed 2025-11-24(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Murray’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any remaining state law claims he intended to pursue against Councilmembers Brooks and Gaultier.

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

Hamilton · filed 2025-11-25(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims in Hamilton’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.

Bristol Oak Properties, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2025-11-26(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law theories asserted by Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint. The decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is within the discretion of the court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Brennen · filed 2025-11-26(c)(3)

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

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

Robertson · filed 2025-12-01(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) calls for declining supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the sole claim within the court’s original jurisdiction is dismissed.

HODGES · filed 2025-12-01(c)(3)

Because this Court has already dismissed the sole claim over which it has original jurisdiction, however, this Court must decline to supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

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

Fromageot · filed 2025-12-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims in this action, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims Madeline brings in her individual capacity.