28 U.S.C. § 1367

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim.

ALBRIGHT · filed 2025-12-12

However, having dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, the Court declines exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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.

Hill · filed 2025-12-15(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims and therefore does not consider whether the Amended Complaint states a plausible basis for relief on those causes of action.

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

Arnold · filed 2025-12-15(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses plaintiffs’ only federal claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), it declines to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

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

Hatcher · filed 2025-12-17(c)(3)

Because summary judgment is being granted on the only federal claim, there is no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that would have to be dismissed without prejudice in any event.

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

SAUNDERS · filed 2025-12-18(c)

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

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

Woodside · filed 2025-12-18(c)(3)

With the dismissal of Woodside’s lone federal claim, the Court will use its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

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.

Martinez v. Campbell · filed 2025-12-23(c)(3)

Dismissal of Martinez’s state law claims was proper because Martinez failed to state a federal claim.

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

CHASE-KEYES · filed 2025-12-23(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 any remaining state law claims.

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

ALLEN · filed 2026-01-05(c)

However, having 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) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Eriakha · filed 2026-01-07(c)(3)

Turning to Mr. Bennard’s state breach of contract claim, in cases such as this one, where all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) grants this court discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Since the underlying federal claims are being dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Bennard’s breach of contract claim against any defendants in their individual capacities.

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

Lewis-Henry · filed 2026-01-12(c)(3)

Considering principles of fairness, judicial economy, and comity this Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim.

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

Waddle · filed 2026-01-15(c)

In the absence of any viable federal claim against Mullendore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against him.

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

Stringer · filed 2026-01-21(c)

Having dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. Accordingly, Count Eight is 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.

Fuller · filed 2026-01-23(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law defamation 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.

Hodges · filed 2026-01-26(c)(3)

Because the court has now dismissed the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Coleman · filed 2026-01-27(c)(3)

In the absence of any remaining claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, the adjudication of the state law claims is properly left, in the first instance, to the state court. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to the state-law claims, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Shalaby · filed 2026-01-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s only federal claim, the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction and defer ruling on the viability of Plaintiff’s state law claims unless and until he states an actionable federal claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of the case’s stage and the novelty of the state-law issue.

Wallman · filed 2026-02-02(c)

Based on the early stage of these proceedings, and the novelty of Wallman’s state-law claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wallman’s state-law claim.

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

PELPHREY-WEIGAND · filed 2026-02-02(c)(3)

This Court is unwilling to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over what is certainly a meaningful amount of money to Plaintiff, but what amounts to an arbitration level dispute.

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

Thompson · filed 2026-02-09(c)(3)

The court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claim, and this matter will be remanded to the Pittsylvania County Circuit Court. See 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 all federal claims.

Kawecki · filed 2026-02-17(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all federal claims and the parties have not yet engaged in discovery, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the CFEPA claims in Counts Two and Four.

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

ROBINSON · filed 2026-02-19(c)

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

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

Burst · filed 2026-02-20(c)(3)

And last, after dismissing all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims in Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Jordan · filed 2026-02-20(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state law claims alleging abuse of process.

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

Rosenberg · filed 2026-02-24(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss the remaining state-law claims without prejudice.

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

Sinclair · filed 2026-02-25(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), when district courts dismiss all the federal claims in an action, it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a related state law claim. The Court does so here and dismisses the state law claims against OEMS 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.

Waters · filed 2026-02-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear any state law claims set forth in the complaint.

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

Burks · filed 2026-02-27(c)(3)

Further, principles of comity encourage courts to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all of the federal claims are dismissed. ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims 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.

Fisher · filed 2026-02-27(c)(3)

Since the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, Ms. Fisher’s state-law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Oliver · filed 2026-03-05(c)(3)

Given the early stage of the proceedings in this case, the Court finds that consideration of the relevant factors weigh against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Lyon · filed 2026-03-07(c)(3)

In this instance, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and it declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.

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

Pickard · filed 2026-03-10(c)(3)

And because the court dismissed all other claims in the case, the court declines to exercise any supplemental jurisdiction it may have over Mr. Pickard’s claims against the SPM Defendants. 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.

Davis · filed 2026-03-10(c)(3)

Because the federal claims asserted in the complaint are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claim asserted under state law and will dismiss such 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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Schlesinger · filed 2026-03-10(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed Counts I and II, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Grant · filed 2026-03-20(c)

To the extent Grant’s vague allegations could be construed to assert a state-law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 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.

Sedwick · filed 2026-03-24(c)

Thus, upon dismissal, the Court will lose its federal question jurisdiction but will be left with the state law claims which it may consider under its supplemental jurisdiction. The Court declines to do so. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

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

Brown · filed 2026-03-24(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remands Plaintiff’s state law claims to state court.

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

Brooks · filed 2026-03-24(c)(3)

To the extent Brooks may be asserting state law claims against the defendants, this court will not exercise jurisdiction over those claims in the absence of a federal claim.

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

Norwood · filed 2026-03-26(c)(3)

Because I will dismiss the Complaint’s federal § 1983 claims, and I find that ... I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state tort law claims.

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

Bey v. American Express National Bank · filed 2026-03-26(c)(3)

However, just because the court can does not mean it will: in deference to “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350, and the fact that “state courts should be the primary deciders of questions of state-law,” Skurstenis, 139 F. Supp. 2d at 1293, the court declines to retain jurisdiction over Bey’s common law breach of contract claim.

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

ATKINS · filed 2026-03-27(c)(3)

The state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice 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.

Cash · filed 2026-03-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses them, without prejudice.

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

Briggs · filed 2026-03-30(c)

Under the circumstances, all relevant factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanding the case to state court. Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

In re Stem, Inc. Derivative Litigation · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

Because the remaining federal claim fails the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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.

Sakon · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

However, these claims all arise under state law, and the court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Chambers v. Capital One Financial Corporation · filed 2026-04-03(c)(3)

“By the same token, [courts] ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such] claim[s] . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]’” Floyd v. PNC Mortg., 216 F. Supp. 3d 63, 68 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Chambers’ remaining claims, and it will grant her Motion to Remand.

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

Doe · filed 2026-04-07(c)(3)

Because this suit is in federal court based on Federal Question jurisdiction, and there are no federal questions left, this Court dismisses Count III—a state-law claim—without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district courts to decline to exer- cise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction’).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives federal courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within their original jurisdiction.

Briscoe v. St. Louis County · filed 2026-04-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), federal courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under state law when it has dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Terry · filed 2026-04-10(c)

As noted in the Report, the Magistrate Judge declined to address any state law claims after the federal claims were dismissed. (ECF No. 16, p. 6)(“Because the court recommends summary dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal causes of action, it recommends dismissal of his state law causes of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection as to the substance of his state law claims is irrelevant and overruled. ... After a de novo review of each part of the Report to which Plaintiff specifically objected, the Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation.

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

Kosher Eats v. Welch · filed 2026-04-13(c)(3)

Regardless, the district court was within its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

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

Strong · filed 2026-04-14(c)(3)

Because the only claims against Defendants over which this Court could have original jurisdiction are subject to dismissal, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

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

Sencial · filed 2026-04-15(c)

Under the provisions of § 1367(c), and balancing the relevant factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses without prejudice Sencial’s state law claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Deputy Banks and state law claims of respondeat superior liability against Sheriff Lopinto.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims and remand them.

Gulf Coast Rental Co. L.L.C. v. City of Gulf Shores · filed 2026-04-17(c)(3)

In short, the Court concludes that its discretion under Section 1367(c) should be exercised against retention of the plaintiff’s 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.

Sullenberger · filed 2026-04-17(c)(3)

We’ll follow the Supreme Court’s admonition and decline to exercise ... our discretionary jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over the Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims here.

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

Williams v. Houston Community College · filed 2026-04-28(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and will dismiss them without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

McAllister · filed 2026-05-08(c)(3)

Because Mr. McAllister has failed to plead any plausible constitutional claims, the Courts declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over any 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.

Delacruz v. Tanimura & Antle, Inc. · filed 2026-05-12(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Delacruz’s state law claims.

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

Richards · filed 2026-05-13(c)

Having found that Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable § 1983 claim, the Court in its broad discretion may—and, where, as here, federal claims are eliminated before trial, should—decline to exercise its jurisdiction over the state-law claim that remains. ... Applying § 1367(c), and considering the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of relinquishing federal in favor of state jurisdiction and thus the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim and dismisses the same 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.

Grant · filed 2026-05-19(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where, as here, the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Love · filed 2026-06-26(c)(3)

Because the Court does not have original jurisdiction over any of the remaining claims, the Court elects to decline supplemental jurisdiction over those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish jurisdiction over supplemental claims and dismiss them without prejudice after the federal claims are dismissed.

Deniz v. Municipality of Guaynabo · filed 2002-04-08(c)(3)

We likewise affirm the court's dismissal without prejudice of the plaintiff's supplemental claims under local law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Serapión v. Martínez, 119 F.3d 982, 993 (1st Cir. 1997) (noting the district court's "substantial discretion" in regard to relinquishing jurisdiction over supplemental claims after the dismissal of the linchpin federal claims).

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

Brennan v. Chestnut · filed 1991-11-04(c)(3)

However, the Gibbs Court stated that “pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.... [I]f the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” Id. at 726, 86 S.Ct. at 1139; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, the court will exercise its discretion under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine and decline to hear the common law fraud claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a supplemental D.C.-law claim after the federal claim is dismissed.

Neal v. District of Columbia and John Lattimore · filed 1998-02-09(c)(3)

Although it is unclear on what basis the district court originally dismissed this claim, Neal concedes that, if the district court’s dismissal of his section 1983 claim was proper, it would also have been proper for the district court to dismiss his claim under D.C. law for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We thus affirm the district court’s dismissal of this claim.

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

Hall v. Doering · filed 1998-02-25(c)(3)

That statute provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Defendants’ assumption has proven to be incorrect.

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

Hardage v. CBS Broadcasting · filed 2006-01-06(c)

Because Hardage appeals from the district court’s dis- missal of his state WLAD claims against Sparks only by argu- ing they should be reinstated if summary judgment for CBS is reversed, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this claim as well.

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

EDWARDS v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-08-26(c)

Finally, because the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims, Plaintiff’s tort claims against multiple Lindenwold police officers were dismissed. ... Thus, Plaintiff fails to cure the deficiencies set forth in the April 26 Opinion, and the claims dismissed therein are again dismissed pursuant to the same reasoning.

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

Fire & Police Pension Ass'n of Colo v. Bank of Montreal · filed 2019-03-14(c)

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

Lima v. Decker · filed 2002-10-28(c)

Because the federal claims are now dismissed and Mrs. Lima's state law claims are not well articulated or developed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to those claims.

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

Holder v. State of NH et al. · filed 2006-10-26(c)(3)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims as I have ... dismissed all claims over which I have original jurisdiction.

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

Pendermon v. Moore · filed 2019-09-27(c)(3)

Instead, the Court will ... decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims, as Pendermon fails to allege any independent basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Slidewaters LLC v. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries · filed 2020-07-14(c)

Because the Court has denied Plaintiff’s ... requested relief on its federal constitutional claims, the Court has no basis to ... exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ state law counterclaim and ... declines to do so under 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 related federal claim.

Strojnik v. VY Verasa Commercial Company LLC · filed 2020-09-15(c)(3)

As I indicated in my Order, I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Strojnik’s state-law ... claims (Counts Two, Three, and Four) now that the related ADA claim has been dismissed.

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

(PC) DeBose v. Annin · filed 2020-12-21

But to the extent plaintiff’s allegations could be construed as raising state law negligence or ... failure to protect claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in light of the ... dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Elisens v. Auburn Community Hospital · filed 2021-03-17(c)(3)

Using its discretion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, because it “has dismissed all ... claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, ... 122 (2d Cir 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)); see also Cave v. E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 250 (2d Cir. 2008) (“We have already found that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over appellants’ federal claims. It would thus be clearly inappropriate for the district court to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims when there is no basis for supplemental jurisdiction.”); Karmel v. Claiborne, Inc., No. 99-CV-3608, 2002 WL 1561126, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2002) (“Where a court is reluctant to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because of one of the reasons put forth by § 1367(c), or when the interests of judicial economy, convenience, comity and fairness to litigants are not violated by refusing to entertain matters of state law, it should decline supplemental jurisdiction and allow the plaintiff to decide whether or not to pursue the matter in state court.”).

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

Bailey, Jr. v. Brooks · filed 2021-04-02(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the federal claim, it will not exercise ... jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Hill v. City of Fountain Valley · filed 2021-07-13(c)(3)

Since false arrest is a state law claim, the Court REMANDS this cause of action to California state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which ... allows this Court to decline subject matter jurisdiction after 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 after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Arizona Board of Regents v. Doe · filed 2021-08-17(c)(3)

And because there are ... no remaining federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental ... jurisdiction over ABOR’s remaining state-law claim in Count Four.

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

Escamilla v. City of Santa Ana · filed 2021-09-22(c)(3)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: ... 1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. No. 40), is accepted; ... 2. The federal constitutional and statutory claims (Claims 3-5 and 7-13) are dismissed with prejudice; 3. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law ... claims (Claims 1 and 2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and dismisses these claims without prejudice; and 4. Judgment is to be entered in accordance with these determinations.

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

Doe v. City Of Concord · filed 2022-03-14(c)(3)

For plaintiffs state law claims, counts five through nine, ... because the Court has dismissed the federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental ... jurisdiction over the state 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.

Agbor-Baiyee v. Washington State Department of Corrections · filed 2022-09-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal law claim asserted against Defendants, the ... Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Durbin v. State of Washington · filed 2023-11-13(c)(3)

Without the jurisdictional anchor of a federal § 1983 claim, the Court declines to ... exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

Brown v. Lehman · filed 2024-04-10(c)

Now that the court has granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the federal claims, the court declines to continue to exercise that jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c); Bailey v. City of Chicago, 779 F.3d 689, 696 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

Abhyanker v. HumanGood the Terraces Phoenix · filed 2024-08-29(c)(3)

With the dismissal of the federal law claim providing ... for federal question jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction ... over the state law claim.

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

Doe v. City of Hayward · filed 2024-09-06(c)(3)

The April order dismissing plaintiffs state law claims did so without prejudice. Nothing in this order or the forthcoming judgment disturbs the declination of jurisdiction over those state law claims. They survive for the state court to decide.

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

Anthony E Black, II v. County of Yavapai · filed 2026-02-13(c)(3)

The federal claims fail for the reasons set forth in this order and, absent any federal claims, ... the court chooses not 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 dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Brannon v. Boatmen's Bancshares, Inc. · filed 1997-01-17(c)(3)

As the RICO claim is no longer before the Court and it was the sole basis for this Court’s original jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction of the remaining claims and dismiss those without prejudice to refiling in state court pursuant to 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 federal claims.

Luxton v. Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2026-06-25(c)(3)

Finally, the ... district court acted within its discretion by choosing not to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after it had properly dismissed all of Dr. Luxton’s federal 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Favourite v. 55 Halley St., Inc. · filed 2019-05-23(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to re-file them in state court.

Section 1367(b) does not bar supplemental jurisdiction over a nondiverse intervenor properly aligned as a defendant in a diversity action.

Sherbino v. Allstate Assurance Company · filed 2025-03-25(b)

Notably, § 1367(b) provides exceptions precluding district courts from exercising supplemental jurisdiction in some instances. ... The Court, however, concludes Intervenors are more properly aligned as defendants, and is therefore satisfied it retains supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy and fairness favor retaining them.

Boyd v. Kirkpatrick · filed 2025-05-14(c)(2)-(4)

Here, although this Court has dismissed all pending claims over which it had original jurisdiction and state-law claims now predominate, in the interest of judicial economy and fairness, the Court will retain jurisdiction over Boyd’s state-law claims for now while the magistrate judge considers Boyd’s motion for leave to file another amended complaint that seeks to raise a different constitutional claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2)-(4).

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

O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC v. City of Harvey · filed 2025-05-14(c)(3)

Because O’Reilly’s federal claims are dismissed, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over its 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.

APPELGREN v. ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT VII, LLC · filed 2025-05-19(c)(3)

Because they both must be dismissed, and the remaining claims arise under state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decide a related state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims before trial when there is good reason to retain it, including when its resolution is clear.

Ramirez, Rudy v. Delmer, Wendy · filed 2025-05-21(c)(3)

The general rule is that district courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims when all the federal claims are dismissed before trial. But a district court has discretion to decide the state law claims “for good reasons,” Whitely v. Moravec, 635 F.3d 308, 311 (7th Cir. 2011), including if the resolution of the state law claims is clear. Cortezano v. Salin Bank & Trust Co., 680 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2012). In this case, the undisputed facts make it clear that Ramirez cannot prevail on his medical negligence claim because Demler wasn’t the medical provider who discontinued his gabapentin. So I will grant Demler’s motion for summary judgment on this claim.

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

Washington v. Pfizer & Co., Inc. · filed 2025-05-21(c)(3)

The court dismisses Defendants DK Security Company and Next 150 Company from the action with prejudice, dismisses Plaintiff’s Title VII claim with prejudice, and dismisses the state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Pinkard v. County of Suffolk · filed 2025-05-21(c)(3)

The Court ultimately finds, given all the Cohill factors and circumstances here, that it is appropriate to decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims.

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

Adams v. Trump Administration · filed 2025-05-22(c)

The court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s Section 1983 and Bivens claims, and without a federal claim, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

DIGIACOBBE v. BROTHERS · filed 2025-05-22(c)(3)

No attempt was made to serve Brothers, any claims against him are not within this court’s jurisdiction, and supplemental jurisdiction must be declined.

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

Trisvan v. Nestle Purina Pet Care Company · filed 2025-05-22(c)(3)

Because Trisvan fails to state a claim under federal law, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Naseri v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 2025-05-29(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and REMANDS Plaintiff's non-federal claims to San Francisco Superior Court.

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

Trisvan v. Target · filed 2025-06-06(c)(3)

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal claims if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Trisvan’s federal claims have been dismissed. ... So, Trisvan’s non-federal claim is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal claims are resolved before trial.

The Estate of Anthony Mouradian v. Jackson County · filed 2025-06-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims. ... Therefore, the court will relinquish jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining supplemental state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Mauzy v. Mauzy · filed 2025-06-12(c)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Petty v. Garden City 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.

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

Durbin, Sr. v. Wolfe · filed 2025-06-18(c)(3)

In the absence of viable claims that come within federal question jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Durbin’s negligence claims which are governed by State law.

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

Lin v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. · filed 2025-06-20(c)(3)

Because there are no longer any Title VII claims in the case providing federal jurisdiction, I will relinquish jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

(PS) Sparks v. City of Turlock · filed 2025-06-23(c)(3)

Since plaintiff has not stated a federal claim, the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims and dismiss those claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain a related state claim after disposing of all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering convenience, fairness, federal policy, comity, and judicial economy.

Love v. Wayfair LLC · filed 2025-07-08(c)(3)

Here, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Love’s state claim, considering the “convenience and fairness to the parties, the existence of any underlying issues of federal policy, comity, and considerations of judicial economy,” as prescribed in Shanaghan.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, especially early in the case.

Siddiqui v. Keating · filed 2025-07-08(c)(3)

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, especially at early stages, federal courts generally relinquish jurisdiction over any remaining supplemental state law claims. ... Siddiqui’s tortious interference claim is 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.

Maltese v. Teachers Federal Credit Union · filed 2025-07-08(c)(3)

Plaintiff does not provide a persuasive reason to depart from the usual practice of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once federal claims are dismissed. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims.

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

Callaway v. Okmulgee School District 1 · filed 2025-07-11(c)(3)

After considering the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Spearman v. Marcel Lake Estates Property Owners Association · filed 2025-07-11(c)(3)

Rather, because Spearman’s federal claims are not viable, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs PHRA claims in her second amended complaint and dismiss those state law claims without prejudice. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction... 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.

Hodge v. Rykers Islands · filed 2025-07-11(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, 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.

French v. YesCare Health Corp · filed 2025-07-14(c)(3)

In the absence of viable claims that come within federal question jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over French’s negligence claims which are governed by State law.

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

LLOYD-ADAMS v. KELSCH · filed 2025-07-14(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim—its source of original jurisdiction. Considering judicial economy, fairness, and comity, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Therefore, those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Saitta v. Greystar · filed 2025-07-14(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of federal law, the Court exercises its discretion to GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s pendent state law claims without prejudice.

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

Horton v. Schenectady County · filed 2025-07-17(c)

However, if a court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction here. Plaintiff’s pendent state law claims against all Defendants are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Norrell v. Phenix City Public Transportation (MAG+) · filed 2025-07-17(c)(3)

And because that is the sole federal claim, dismissal of the Amended Complaint is warranted since the Court elects not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Norrell’s 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.

Lingard v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Inc. · filed 2025-07-17(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ common law fraud claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after resolving all federal claims; comity can outweigh judicial economy when no discovery has occurred.

Hunter v. Alan Gold's Discotheque · filed 2025-07-18(c)(3)

Considering that no discovery has been conducted in this matter, the Court finds that the interest of comity outweighs the interest of judicial economy. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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.

DIAZ v. Montefiore Moses Division Hospital Emergency Department · 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Brooks v. Diserens · filed 2025-07-31(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim…if [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

Murzike v. Mosely · filed 2025-08-11(c)(3)

Upon consideration of the § 1367 factors and the “traditional rationales for pendent jurisdiction, including judicial economy and convenience,” see Palmer, 22 F.8d at 1569, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Murzike’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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

Solomon v. NY Office of the Professions · filed 2025-08-11(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Fuller-Ragland 441145 v. Lewis · filed 2025-08-12(c)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Lewis will be dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Lewis.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to retain state law claims after related federal claims are dismissed when doing so avoids piecemeal litigation.

Norman v. Horton · filed 2025-08-13(c)(3)

The Estate cites no authority to support this request other than the Court’s discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once related federal claims have been dismissed. Exercising that discretion here, the Court declines to modify its judgment as the Estate requests. Doing so would permit, and potentially encourage, piecemeal litigation.

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

Hall-Easley v. Clarksville Operating Group LLC · filed 2025-08-17(c)

The only other way the Court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Hall-Easley’s remaining negligence claims is through supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Based on this presumption, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hall-Easley’s remaining state-law claims in this case.

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

Gordon v. Smith · filed 2025-08-19(c)(3)

The court has discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over these claims even after dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” in such circumstances (emphasis added)).

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

Hodges v. Strada · filed 2025-08-27(c)(3)

To the extent the Complaint can be construed to allege independent state law claims for medical malpractice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims because Plaintiffs other two claims must be dismissed, as discussed in this order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Famous v. Jezwinski · filed 2025-08-29(c)

As noted above, Plaintiff has alleged a state-law negligence claim against Defendants, the intricacies of which need not be elaborated on because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. See Al's Serv. Ctr. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 720, 727 (7th Cir. 2010) (“When all federal claims in a suit in federal court are dismissed before trial, the presumption is that the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over any supplemental state-law claims.”). As such, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim, which will be dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Overstreet v. Ontonagon, County of · filed 2025-08-29(c)

As the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims, the balance of the relevant considerations would therefore weigh against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. As such, the undersigned respectfully declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Phibonaccii v. LA Apt.1 LLC · filed 2025-08-29(c)(3)

Absent a viable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Dawson v. Sag Harbor Launderette, Inc. · filed 2025-09-04(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiff’s federal-law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims. A “district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all federal claims.

Stephens v. Collins · filed 2025-09-05(c)

For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Bosan v. University Place Senior Living SE LP · filed 2025-09-08(c)

Even so, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here. After all, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 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.

Gaston v. City of Leesburg · filed 2025-09-12(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 other claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Grounds 5–8 until subject matter jurisdiction can be established.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Coyle v. Harr · filed 2025-09-16(c)(3)

Here, the Court exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

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

HECKE v. COMMISSIONER OF INDIANA POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2025-09-16(c)

With Mr. Hecke's constitutional claim staged for dismissal, the Court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims. ... Having resolved all claims within its original jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion and relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Hecke'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.

Greenberg · filed 2025-09-16(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims under Title VII, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law NYSHRL claims.

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

Asemota · filed 2025-09-16(c)(3)

As to Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim where all claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the balance of factors weighs in favor of declining jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will not evaluate the NYSHRL claims.

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

Roach v. The City of New York · filed 2025-09-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining non-federal claims.

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

Otero v. Government of the District of Columbia · filed 2025-09-22(c)(3)

As such, the Court will dismiss without prejudice Mr. Otero’s state-law claims so that a D.C. court may consider them in the first instance.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor resolving them.

Myers v. Harry · filed 2025-09-22(c)(3)

The Court recognizes that due to the dismissal of Myers’s federal claims, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution. ... In this case, the Court finds that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties, warrants the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Myers’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.

Ogidi-Ghigbaje · filed 2025-09-22(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.

DOWNING v. HOWARD · filed 2025-09-23(c)(3)

Recognizing this hard-and-fast rule, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for theft by conversion in accordance with the discretion afforded to it by § 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.

The Blue Note, Inc. v. The City of Chicago · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Blue Note’s pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal claim remains and the relevant factors favor retention.

Burley v. Chapman · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

Even in the absence of any federal claim, most of the relevant factors weigh in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction in this particular case.

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

Mazzie v. Admar Supply Co., Inc. · filed 2025-09-26(c)

Having disposed of Mazzie’s claims under the ADA, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining NYSHRL claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims; the usual presumption favors relinquishing jurisdiction when dismissal occurs before trial.

Gatlin v. Ridgeland School District 122 · filed 2025-09-28(c)(3)

The circumstances here do not rebut the presumption in favor of relinquishing federal jurisdiction. The matter is still in its early stages and there are no pressing statute of limitations issues. In addition, the viability of Gatlin’s state-law claims turns on matters related to Defendants’ claim of immunity under the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq., and it is not absolutely clear whether the state-law claims must be dismissed on that basis. Consequently, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims when substantial judicial resources have been committed and the state claim is clear to decide.

HOLMES v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)

Here, although the statute of limitations is not a factor, the case has been pending for a lengthy time, discovery is closed, dispositive motions have been adjudicated, and it is clear how the pendent claim should be decided. Accordingly, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Brown v. City of Hampton, Virginia · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)

Having considered all of these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).