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.

Tabor v. Great Western Buildings · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the claims arising under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, i.e., negligence (Claim Three) and fraudulent misrepresentation (Claim Five), and the Court dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Clark v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2025-09-30(c)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Clark’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and those claims are remanded to the District Court of Canadian County, State of Oklahoma.

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

Keyser v. King · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

Exercising supplemental jurisdiction would undermine, rather than promote, judicial economy, comity, and fairness to the parties. The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Keyser’s state law claims.

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

Bullmann v. Siemens Industry, Inc. · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state law claims once it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “Among the factors that inform this discretionary determination are convenience and fairness to the parties, the existence of any underlying issues of federal policy, comity, and considerations of judicial economy.” Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995). Here, the Court finds that the relevant factors weigh in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Richards v. Priest · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

Finally, given the absence of a viable federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims as referenced in Dkt. 11 at page six pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367()(3).

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

Villalta v. Harrell (CONSENT) · filed 2025-10-02(c)(3)

Because the Court has found that Plaintiff failed to state a § 1983 claim, the only remaining claims are three state law claims (false imprisonment, negligence, and wantonness). The Court finds that comity and judicial economy are better served by declining to decide the state law claims, and those claims are due to be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Joyce 251901 v. Stallman · filed 2025-10-07(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the Court will decline 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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

Rainey · filed 2025-10-10(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii), and the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction of his state law claims. 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.

Coleman v. Maderitz Concrete Company · filed 2025-10-11(c)(3)

Based on its review of the record, and because the case remains in its early stages, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction.

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

Michalopoulos · filed 2025-10-14(c)(3)

Additionally, dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law claims is warranted given the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over his non-cognizable federal claims.

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

Pund v. St. Francis College · filed 2025-10-16(c)(3)

The district court thus acted well within its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Arroyo · filed 2025-10-16(c)(3)

As they correctly observe, following the Court’s dismissal order only state law claims remain at issue in this case. See id. at 2; ECF No. 314 at 17. Given this, and that this case has not yet proceeded to trial—and is, at most, in the early stages of discovery as to the state law claims specifically—dismissal of Plaintiffs’ state law claims is proper, despite Plaintiffs’ contrary arguments.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal claims are subject to dismissal.

Zesiger · filed 2025-10-15(c)(3)

Where, as here, the federal claims are subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a court has discretion over whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Jones · filed 2025-10-17(c)(3)

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

Boudjelta · filed 2025-10-20(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and therefore dismisses them as well.

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

Elzein v. Ascension Genesys Hosp. · filed 2025-10-22(c)(3)

Where all federal claims have been dismissed from the case, federal courts frequently decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254–55 (6th Cir. 1996). Indeed, Dr. Elzein offers no reason on appeal why, after dismissing his other claims, the district court should not have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. That is what the district court did here, and it is not an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain related state-law claims after resolving all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Johnson v. District · filed 2025-10-24(c)(3)

Even so, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state-law claims. ... “Even if only state-law claims remain[ ] after resolution of the federal question,” a district court has “discretion . . . to retain jurisdiction.” ... When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, federal courts should consider “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” ... These factors weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction here.

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

Hinchee · filed 2025-10-28(c)(3)

In the absence of a viable federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the asserted state-law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress 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.

Widjaja · filed 2025-10-28(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims for fraud and defamation and dismisses 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.

Jones · filed 2025-10-29(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute gives the district court the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all of the federal claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... Given that this case is in its infancy, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims. The state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, including when keeping them in federal court offers no efficiency.

ADAMS · filed 2025-10-29(c)(3)

Finally, because I find that Mr. Adams’s claims under Title VII are untimely, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Adams’s PHRA claims. Without federal claims, there is no efficiency to be gained by having those claims remain in federal court.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the claims within its original jurisdiction are removed.

Wall · filed 2025-10-31(c)(3)

Further, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and grants Plaintiff’s motion to remand without opposition by Defendants.

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

Bjurling · filed 2025-10-31(c)(3)

Given the absence of viable federal claims against Defendants, the court determines that the interests of judicial economy, comity, convenience, and fairness weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Bjurling’s state-law claims against Defendants. Therefore, the court exercises its discretion and declines supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Bjurling’s remaining state-law claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor doing so.

Feuer · filed 2025-10-31(c)(3)

Here, however, the balance of factors supports exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL 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, and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Dyson · filed 2025-11-03(c)(3)

Here, the Court dismisses all federal-law claims well before trial, so the Court dismisses the state-law claims without prejudice, “so that [they] may be considered, if at all, by the courts of Minnesota.”11 Hervey v. County of Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711, 726 (8th Cir. 2008).

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

Williams v. City of Baton Rouge · filed 2025-11-04(c)(3)

For this reason, the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’s state law claims after it dismissed his federal claims.

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

McGowan · filed 2025-11-04(c)(3)

And further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2); see also Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254-55 (6th Cir. 1996) (“When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of consideration usually will point to dismissing the state law claims . . . .”). Therefore, McGowan’s state law claims are also subject to dismissal.

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

Brown · filed 2025-11-05(c)(3)

Turning to Ms. Brown’s state law claims, 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.

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

Recoop LLC v. Outliers Inc. · filed 2025-11-11(c)(3)

In other words, a court does not lose the power to decide state-law claims when it grants judgment or otherwise dismisses the federal claims upon which supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is predicated.

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

Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio · filed 2025-11-13(c)(3)

“[A] federal court that has dismissed a plaintiff’s federal-law claims should not ordinarily reach the plaintiff’s state-law claims.” Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply, 465 F.3d 719, 728 (6th Cir. 2006); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). That is just what happened. No abuse of discretion occurred.

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

Griffin · filed 2025-11-13(c)(3)

In this case, the Court is dismissing the sole federal cause of action—Count One—with prejudice. As a result, no claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction remains. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and the remaining Counts are dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, but does not require it to decline a state-law claim resolved on federal sovereign-immunity grounds.

Springer v. Seventh Judicial District Court · filed 2025-11-07(c)(3)

“[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, however, the district court dismissed the state-law claim on a federal-law basis—immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Comity and federalism are not implicated. The dismissal by the district court was eminently proper.

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

Marquez · filed 2025-11-14(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state any viable ... federal claim against Defendants, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims at this time.

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

Arntsen · filed 2025-11-17(c)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Arnsten’s remaining state law claims, and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

B.H. · filed 2025-11-17(c)(3)

Because the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, the case is to be DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Arntsen · filed 2025-11-18(c)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Arnsten’s remaining state law claims against the state defendants, and those claims are REMANDED to Pierce County Superior Court.

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

Werner · filed 2025-11-19(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 relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after resolving all claims within its original jurisdiction.

SWANN · filed 2025-11-24(c)

Having resolved all claims within its original jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion and relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Swann'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.

Derr · filed 2025-12-03(c)(3)

To the extent they do, because all of the federal causes of action have been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Payne-Delano · filed 2025-12-03(c)(3)

Where, as here, no federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction remain in the case, the Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Fussell · filed 2025-12-05(c)(3)

In accordance with 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.” ... After considering the factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 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.

Rosencrans · filed 2025-12-08(c)(3)

Upon due consideration, the Court finds that judicial economy and convenience would not be served by retaining jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Wieland · filed 2025-12-09(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Counts 7-9, and those claims are, therefore, dismissed without prejudice.

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

Rou · filed 2025-12-10(c)(3)

As a result, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state-law medical negligence claim.

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

Soberri · filed 2025-12-11(c)(3)

And since no federal claims remain, the court relinquishes jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Anthony Soberri and Carolyn A. Soberri v. Great Lakes Law Firm, LLC · filed 2025-12-11(c)(3)

And since no federal claims remain, the court relinquishes jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law.

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

Farris · filed 2025-12-11(c)

Having granted summary judgment (and dismissed) the claims providing federal jurisdiction for this case, I now decline supplemental jurisdiction of the remaining state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Angelica Rizik, et al. v. Jake William Virnig, et al. · filed 2025-12-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claim, the court must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the remaining disputes are state-law claims involving events that occurred largely within the state judicial system. The case has not progressed meaningfully in federal court and the factors of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor dismissal without prejudice to allow plaintiffs to file in state court or, if plaintiffs elect to amend their federal claim, to reallege their associated state claims in the amended complaint.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Ford · filed 2025-12-16(c)(3)

The Court has reviewed the relevant factors outlined in Shanaghan and finds that they favor dismissal of all remaining state law claims.

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

Smith v. New Orleans City · filed 2025-12-22(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) grants a district court the discretion to retain or decline supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Thus, judicial economy supports dismissal of the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims; the usual practice is to do so when dismissal occurs before trial.

Williams v. Bramblett · filed 2026-01-05(c)(3)

The normal practice within the Seventh Circuit is that, if all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over any supplemental state law claims “in order to minimize federal judicial intrusion into matters of purely state law.” Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015); see also 28 U.S.C. Sec 1367(c)(3). The Court finds no basis to depart from that general presumption. Therefore, Count I is Dismissed with Prejudice. The remaining counts are Dismissed without Prejudice.

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

Carlotta · filed 2026-01-08(c)(3)

Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state law claims. ... It therefore declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction to the two state law claims that remain.

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

Peters · filed 2026-01-12(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 all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

McKay · filed 2026-01-08(c)(3)

For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s remaining federal law claims are dismissed; this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims; and the joint motion for continuance is denied as moot.

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

Griffith · filed 2026-01-16(c)(3)

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

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

Alexander · filed 2026-01-16(c)

With the RICO and Section 1983 claims dismissed, all remaining claims in the suit are based on state law. See AC ¶¶ 342–54. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

BYRNE · filed 2026-01-21(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim, so we deny Mr. Byrne leave to make his negligence claim here without prejudice to his ability to bring that claim in an appropriate state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain related state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, taking account of the case’s progress and shared evidence.

Rankin v. Thomas Concrete of South Carolina, Inc. · filed 2026-01-22(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge did not err in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after the federal claim is resolved.

Gonzalez · filed 2026-01-26(c)(3)

Because the court has concluded that the plaintiff has no federal claim, the court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Lavite v. Dunstan, 932 F.3d 1020, 1034-35 (7th Cir. 2019).

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

Doe · filed 2026-01-27(c)(3)

This Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if no live federal claims remain in a case. ... Having already determined that Mr. Williams’s federal claims must be dismissed, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over Mr. Williams’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.

Cannon · filed 2026-01-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when the relevant factors, including judicial economy, favor doing so.

Sequoia · filed 2026-01-30(c)

Here, the state law claims are not novel, the state law issues do not predominate, and the federal claims are subject to dismissal. Moreover, the Court finds that the interests of judicial economy, under the unique circumstances of this case, favor exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Duhaney · filed 2026-01-30(c)(3)

Because the federal Title VII claim is being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction to exercise as to the remaining state law 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.

ROGALSKI · filed 2026-02-03(c)(3)

Here, to the extent Plaintiff asserted a federal claim to begin with, that claim of federal malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has been dismissed. All that remains are Plaintiff’s state law claims for malicious prosecution and official oppression. The Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these 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.

Garippo · filed 2026-02-04(c)(3)

Having determined that it must dismiss Count I, the only claim for which federal subject matter jurisdiction exists, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Ward · filed 2026-02-13(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff alleges negligence claims against Defendant Davis and Defendant Ward in his individual capacity, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these claims as they are entirely state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3). The precedent federal claims have all been dismissed.

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

Sellars · filed 2026-02-25(c)(3)

And with all federal claims subject to dismissal, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of the state-law claims.

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

Zigman · filed 2026-02-25(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on the federal claims brought by Zigman for the reasons set forth above, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Zigman’s New York General Business Law claim.

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

IVY · filed 2026-03-02(c)

No circumstance in this case overcomes the presumption that the Court should relinquish jurisdiction over Mr. Ivy's state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim when the federal basis for jurisdiction has dropped away.

Cooke · filed 2026-03-02(c)

As the basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction has dropped away, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Rockette · filed 2026-03-03(c)(3)

With the federal claims dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rockette’s state-law claims. Therefore, the claims for breach of contract, fraud on the court, and abuse of process are DISMISSED 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.

Caine · filed 2026-03-10(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, all of which arise under state law.

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

Wright · filed 2026-03-13(c)

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). ... Accordingly, I decline to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim and will dismiss it, thereby closing this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits, but does not require, a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Wrenn · filed 2026-03-13(c)(3)

Although Wrenn fails to show diversity jurisdiction, the Court chooses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. ... And although “the district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it is not required to do so.

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

Williams v. City of Valley · filed 2026-03-16(c)

Because the Court has determined that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim—the only claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction—is due to be dismissed with prejudice, the Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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 federal jurisdiction.

Gentry · filed 2026-03-17(c)(3)

But a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction. ... DocketSearcher’s federal claim is dismissed, and the remaining state-law claims do not implicate significant federal interests to warrant the exercise of federal jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, DocketSearcher’s negligence and punitive damages claims are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ray · filed 2026-03-19(c)(3)

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

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

Hampton · filed 2026-03-23(c)(3)

There being no remaining claims against Neal arising under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Neal for malicious prosecution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225, 245 (2007).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the case is still at the pleading stage.

Densley · filed 2026-03-24(c)

This case has not advanced beyond the pleading stage, and the court has not yet addressed the state-law claims. Because this litigation is in its early stages and because issues of state law are best left to the state courts absent a compelling reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the ... court dismisses the state-law claims without prejudice so that the Densleys can assert them in state court if they so choose.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when considerations such as judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity favor retention.

Garnow · filed 2026-03-26(c)(3)

Thus, the Court exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for battery and assault against the Officer Defendants and reaches the merits of those claims.

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

Neilson · filed 2026-03-28(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment to the Defendants on Neilson’s First Amendment retaliation claim, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over her state law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when its investment of judicial resources justifies doing so.

Rushing · filed 2026-03-30(c)

This Court has already determined that the extensive judicial resources invested in this case justify exercising jurisdiction over the state law claims, even though all federal law claims have been dismissed.

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

Yeoman · filed 2026-03-30(c)(3)

For the reasons explained above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the malicious prosecution claims and the Monell claim; the Court dismisses these claims with prejudice. Additionally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law negligent supervision claim, and thus will dismiss this claim without prejudice.

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

MUJEZINOVIC · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

In sum, the application of the Carnegie-Mellon factors, coupled with the presumption of relinquishment, leads to the conclusion that Plaintiffs' state law claims should be dismissed so that they may be refiled in state court and resolved by an Indiana state court. The Court therefore relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

Womble · filed 2026-04-09(c)(3)

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

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

D'Amico · filed 2026-04-10(c)(3)

Assuming, arguendo, that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I and III in the first instance, the Court declines to exercise that jurisdiction after dismissing Count II (the only federal question claim alleged).

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

Sencial · filed 2026-04-14(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 intentional tort claims against Dr. Nowlin, Dr. Alexander-Sallier, Nurse McKinley, and related respondeat superior claims against CorrectHealth.

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

Sanders · filed 2026-04-15(c)(3)

After considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court finds, on balance, that these factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Thompson · filed 2026-04-17(c)(3)

Here, as explained above, Thompson has not shown a manifest error of law or fact in this Court’s decision that Thompson’s ERISA claim based on the SCA failed and that supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims should not then be exercised.

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

Ball v. James Bachman, et al. · filed 2026-04-20(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bonaventura · filed 2026-04-29(c)(3)

I agree with the Parties and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count III.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not warrant retaining them.

Cahail · filed 2026-05-01(c)(3)

But the supplemental jurisdiction statute should only be invoked when otherwise proper federal claims remain or despite the lack of such claims, “judicial economy, convenience, or fairness” would be served by retaining jurisdiction. ... No federal claims remain and the court has determined that circumstances warranting retention of jurisdiction are not present here.

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

Miller v. County of Hamilton · filed 2026-05-04(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants as to Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining State-law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain state-law claims after the federal claim falls away when judicial economy favors resolving them.

Wheeling · filed 2026-05-05(c)(3)

Here, the underlying facts of Wheeling’s FMLA and state law claims are intertwined, providing substantial similarity between the predicate facts of the federal and state law claims. Further, discovery has closed and a substantial amount of time and resources have been expended in this case. Because the interests in judicial economy outweigh the benefit of having a Kentucky state court decide the remaining claims, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and remand them after weighing statutory and common law factors.

Thomas · filed 2026-05-08(c)(3)

Given these circumstances and having determined that Plaintiff’s Monell and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim, the Court finds that both the statutory factors and common law factors disfavor the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in this case. Therefore, the remaining state law claim(s) are remanded to the Circuit Court of Bolivar County for further proceedings.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally calls for relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are resolved before trial, unless judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity warrant retaining them.

2700 Winter, LLC v. Paine · filed 2026-05-11(c)(3)

Generally, federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015). In unusual cases, the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity will warrant the exercise of jurisdiction. See Wright v. Assoc. Ins. Cos. Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir. 1994). This is not such a case.

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

Tahirkheli · filed 2026-05-14(c)(3)

The Court sees no compelling reason not to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction overs Counts II and III and dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

Mable · filed 2026-05-14(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s federal claims, 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 a state law claim after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Andrew · filed 2026-05-21(c)(3)

As such the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state Due Process 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.

McBee · filed 2026-06-08(c)(3)

Additionally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under the Arkansas Constitution because her federal § 1983 claims fail as a matter of law.

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.

DT · filed 2026-06-10(c)(3)

However, the court may decline to exercise that jurisdiction if it has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, no party argues the Court should retain jurisdiction should the federal claims fail, and there do not appear to be any compelling reasons to do so. The Court will therefore dismiss the remaining negligence claims of Plaintiffs #1–13 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.

RealtyLink LLC v. City of Lebanon · filed 2026-06-10(c)(3)

A district court "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." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... For these reasons, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice.

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

Navarro · filed 2026-06-17(c)(3)

Without a viable federal claim pending, the court declines to exercise any supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), such as Navarro’s contention that Virginia Code § 53.1-32.1 was violated, that VDOC breached the contract between it and the USVI, or that VDOC violated its own regulations.

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

Park v. Bank-Fund Staff Federal Credit Union · filed 2026-06-23(c)(3)

When a court dismisses “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over any remaining state law claims. ... Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Park’s state law claims, it will dismiss those claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, including when the state-law claims can be decided clearly.

DOUGLAS · filed 2026-06-24(c)(3)

The Court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state-law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed. ... "[J]udicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity may point to federal retention of state-law claims ... when it is absolutely clear how the pendent claims can be decided." ... That is the case here.

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

Stafford v. Sugarcreek Twp., Ohio · filed 2026-06-29(c)(3)

Once the district court had dismissed Stafford’s federal claims, it could properly decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Garner v. Green · filed 2022-06-17(c)(3)

Consistent with precedent, the Court declines to exercise supplemental ...jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, after reassessing whether to exercise that discretion.

Philibotte v. Nisource Corporate Services Co. · filed 2015-07-16(c)(3)

Although the "balance of competing factors ordinarily will weigh strongly in favor of declining jurisdiction over state law claims where[, as here,] the foundational federal claims have been dismissed at an early stage in the litigation," the parties do not challenge the district court's decision to exercise this discretionary jurisdiction (assuming diversity jurisdiction was unavailable), and this case can be narrowly decided to avoid concerns of comity.

Section 1367 permits a court to decide remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity support doing so.

Best Auto Repair Shop, Inc. v. Universal Insurance Group · filed 2017-11-16(c)(3)

As described in our recent opinion in Wilber v. Curtis, 872 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2017), when all federal claims have been dismissed, it is an abuse of discretion for a district court to retain jurisdiction over the remaining pendent state law claims if doing so would not serve "the interests of fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity." ... We thus proceed to the merits.

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.

Morrow · filed 2026-01-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims alleged in the Amended Complaint for the reasons set forth above, the Court declines to ... exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

Pitzen v. McCarville · filed 2026-04-28(c)(3)

Because both Pitzen and McCarville are citizens of Wisconsin, there is no basis for jurisdiction based on diversity; and with no federal question remaining, the court is without any basis to exercise jurisdiction, save supplemental, which the court is discouraged to maintain under ordinary circumstances.

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

Saldivar v. Sayre · filed 2013-02-14(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Saldivar’s state law claims after dismissing his ... federal claims.

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

Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah · filed 2017-11-01(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once all the federal claims have dropped out of the case. ... Nothing in this case suggests that the presumption should be ignored. Accordingly, Plaintiff's state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Thousand Island Park Corp. v. Welser · filed 2018-06-14(c)(3)

TIPC is free to pursue its claim of $4,960.13 in damages arising from Welser's alleged breach of the Agreement in an appropriate state forum. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... 4. TIPC's remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Johnson v. Hub's Coffee LLC · filed 2021-10-12(c)(3)

This Court similarly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in this case because “it would not further the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.” Jd. (citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating ... that district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

G.F. v. Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital · filed 2023-12-29(c)(3)

Distinguishing Plaintiff's ... claims against the United States extinguishes the only viable basis for federal jurisdiction and there is no reasonable basis for exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims against the other named defendants.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss remaining state-law claims and counterclaims without prejudice after all federal claims are eliminated before trial.

Chamblin v. Soltani · filed 1995-06-08(c)(3)

As a conseguence of today's ruling, plaintiff's federal claims are extinguished in their entirety and his state-law claims have lost their jurisdictional footing. Soltani's counterclaims, with respect to this federal forum, are placed in a similarly dubious position. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (1993). ... This prudential course is as appropriate now as ever, and thus both (1) plaintiff's state-law claims against Soltani and (2) Soltani's counterclaims against plaintiff for assault and battery against plaintiff are herewith dismissed without prejudice.

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

Ortiz-Rivera v. Astra Zeneca LP · filed 2010-01-25(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s claims under federal law, it did not err in dismissing without prejudice her claims under Puerto Rico law as well.

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

Renowitzky v. Stonebrae Club Partners, LLC · filed 2021-01-12(c)(3)

As defendants also point out, however, the court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims upon finding the ADA claims moot. ... Under all these circumstances, discretion calls for dismissal of the state law claims, without prejudice.

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

Longstreet v. Wells · filed 2022-07-11(c)(3)

To the extent Longstreet is trying to assert an invasion of privacy claim under Nevada common law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and ... dismisses the claim without prejudice.

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

Lowry · filed 2026-02-12(c)(3)

Regardless, because the case has not progressed past screening, the Court ... would decline to use its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. ... Accordingly, ... the Court will dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.

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

Middlebrooks v. Kasmar · filed 2026-02-27(c)(3)

A court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c)(3).

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

White v. Four Peaks Brewing Company · filed 2025-05-15(c)(iii)

Accordingly, the Court declines to ... exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims and will dismiss this action in its entirety. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(iii); Avelar, 364 F. App’x at 359.

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

Lee v. Morial · filed 2002-04-29(c)

Instead, after dismissing the federal claims, it refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Lee has not advanced a reason to classify that decision as an abuse of discretion. We cannot think of a relevant factor that would counsel in favor of retaining jurisdiction, so we affirm.

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

Spencer v. Landrith · filed 2009-02-26(c)(3)

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has the discretion to 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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Daghlawi v. Hung · filed 2020-01-15(c)(3)

The Court has considered the factors and finds that they favor remand. ... Therefore, for reasons of comity ... as well as judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, the Court will decline to exercise ... jurisdiction over the pendant state-law claims and will remand this matter to the state court.

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

Peterson v. Port of Benton County · filed 2020-03-12(c)(3)

On balance, values of judicial economy, comity, fairness, and convenience weigh in favor of allowing the state court to resolve the breach of contract claims. ... This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the parties’ breach ... of contract claims.

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

Johnson v. Goodwill Of Silicon Valley · filed 2022-08-03(c)(3)

The Court similarly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act ... claim in this case, where the ADA claim is moot, because it would not further the interest of ... “economy, convenience, fairness and comity.”

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain state law claims after dismissing the federal claim, but the court must consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the extent of pretrial proceedings.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,059 · filed 1996-02-26(c)

A district court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once the federal question has been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The court abused its discretion by failing to conduct the appropriate death knell analysis to determine if it should retain jurisdiction over the pendent state claims despite having previously dismissed the federal cause of action.

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

Hanson v. Hancock County Memorial Hospital · filed 1996-08-15(c)(3)

Thus, on balance, the court will, in its discretion, maintain jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, both to render a ruling on the Hospital’s summary judgment motion and, if necessary, through trial.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that Congress has channeled through an exclusive review scheme.

Lemelson v. Securities Exchange Commission · filed 2025-05-27

He argues that even if the statutory scheme precludes district court jurisdiction over this claim, the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the claim arises from the same nucleus of operative facts as his remaining claims. ... And the case law suggests there is no such work-around to preclusion. ... The Court therefore declines to create such a carve-out.

Section 1367(c) and (d) do not authorize or require a court to request a federal agency investigation based on a plaintiff’s allegations.

Shin v. Sun Poultry Services Inc. · filed 2025-06-02(c), (d)

This statute does not authorize or require the Court to request that federal agencies investigate a defendant based on allegations in a plaintiff’s complaint Kwang Yong Shin’s motions requesting government intervention (Doc. Nos. 7, 14, 31, 34) will therefore be denied.

Section 1367(d) tolls the limitations period for a supplemental state-law claim when the federal district court dismisses the action on forum non conveniens grounds.

Nathanson v. Tortoise Capital Advisors · filed 2025-08-28(d)

Just as courts have concluded that the tolling provision applies when a federal district court dismisses an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we conclude that the tolling provision should also apply when the district court dismisses an action on the ground of forum non conveniens.

An objection to the discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) is waived if it is not raised in the district court.

McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. · filed 2014-10-07(c)

Then Outland tried to obtain reversal by arguing a new non-jurisdictional is- sue—the exercise of discretion under § 1367(c). ... That issue had been waived by Outland’s failure to raise it before the district court.

Section 1367(a) permits claims based on conduct before a federal action’s settlement to be raised in that action when supplemental jurisdiction applies.

Webster v. Forest Green Apt. Corp. · filed 2019-07-10(a)

The plaintiff could have raised the causes of action that are based upon conduct that occurred up to and including the date of execution of the settlement agreement and release which he now asserts in the federal action (see 28 USC § 1367[a]).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over appropriate state claims but does not give federal courts jurisdiction to hear state criminal matters.

Helburn v. Ramirez · filed 2020-03-02

However, although a federal district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims where appropriate, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear state criminal matters.

Section 1367 does not apply to an action filed in February 1990.

Denton v. Critikon, Inc. · filed 1991-06-27

The new amendment, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, is not applicable.

Section 1367(b)'s restriction on supplemental jurisdiction over claims involving additional parties applies when original jurisdiction is based solely on diversity, not when a federal claim establishes federal-question jurisdiction.

Gross v. Cohen Dufour & Associates · filed 1993-09-09(b)

Section 1367(b) states that a district court does not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over additional parties when original jurisdiction has been founded solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Because plaintiffs asserted a federal RICO claim against the district court defendants, and thus established federal question jurisdiction, Section 1367(b) is inapplicable.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances when exercising it would displace a state court’s role in providing a common law remedy.

J. Aron & Co. v. Chown · filed 1995-08-03(c)(4)

Likewise, exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in this case, assuming that it were within the Court’s power, would deprive the New York Supreme Court of jurisdiction to administer a common law remedy in Chown. Accordingly, even if supplemental jurisdiction could be exercised over Chown, exceptional circumstances exist that would lead the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction.