28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367 provides no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the court has no claim within its original jurisdiction.

Deo v. Baron · filed 2025-12-22

Because this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the sole New York law declaratory relief claim concerning the ownership of Sunrise and Northshore in the Amended Complaint under the mirror image doctrine, there is no basis for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to retain jurisdiction over state-law claims at the pre-answer stage when federal claims survive.

Hillman · filed 2026-01-06(a)

As a threshold matter, given that plaintiff’s excessive force and failure to intervene as to excessive force claims survive at this pre-answer stage, the Court retains subject matter jurisdiction over these claims at this stage. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Cellustar Corp. v. Sprint Solutions Inc. · filed 2026-05-11(c)

In light of the foregoing, and having considered the statutory factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court finds that judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367 codifies supplemental jurisdiction based on factual interdependence but does not codify ancillary jurisdiction to enforce federal judgments.

Epperson v. Entertainment Express, Inc. · filed 2001-03-07

Moreover, as the Peacock Court noted, when Congress codified much of the common law of ancillary jurisdiction as part of “supplemental jurisdiction” in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, it included the branch of ancillary jurisdiction premised on factual interdependence, but did not codify enforcement jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain related state-law claims when a federal claim remains and the court finds no compelling reason to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Adams v. Landry · filed 2022-11-14(c)

Having amended her complaint, Adams now alleges sufficient facts to state a section 1983 claim against Landry so that the Court may retain jurisdiction over her federal claim and related state claims. Further, there are no compelling reasons for declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over a later state law indemnity claim when no factually intertwined issues remain.

Hudson v. Coleman · filed 2003-10-14

The first category of ancillary jurisdiction identified above has largely been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Accordingly, there are no factually intertwined issues to resolve and neither the convenience of the litigants nor considerations of judicial economy justify the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law indemnity claim.

Section 1367(b) does not bar supplemental jurisdiction over related non-class derivative claims in a removed case anchored by CAFA jurisdiction, despite the absence of complete diversity.

F5 Capital v. Pappas · filed 2017-04-26(b)

Although it appears from a superficial reading of the statute that § 1367(b) would preclude the district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction here, we conclude that the district court properly adjudicated the non-class, derivative state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize removal based on claims related to a separate federal action.

Howell v. Garden of Eden · filed 2020-09-03(a)

Section 1367 does not provide for removal based on claims related to a separate action.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over claims in a removed action based solely on a related federal claim pending in a separate action.

S.J. Amoroso Construction Inc v. Boneso Brothers Construction Inc · filed 2022-07-13(a)

However, supplemental jurisdiction is limited to claims within a “civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not allow claims in one action to gain supplemental jurisdiction from claims in a separate action within the court’s original jurisdiction.

HARRISON v. KATSANOS · filed 2023-11-29(a)

The Court is not aware of, nor has Mr. Katsanos cited, any authority for the proposition that claims asserted in one action can come within the supplemental jurisdiction of a district court by bootstrapping claims asserted in another action that come within the original jurisdiction of the district court. Indeed, the case law suggests the opposite proposition.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a claim based on a federal claim in a separate action.

Talmadge Fitzpatrick PLLC v. Singh · filed 2024-11-01(a)

First, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction based on a claim in a separate action.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over claims pending in a separate state court action.

Buttars · filed 2026-06-12(a)

Here, the claims that Buttars seeks to invoke supplemental jurisdiction over are raised in a separately filed action pending in another jurisdiction over which this Court has no jurisdiction. There is no avenue for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in the separate PRA action.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related claims but does not create an actionable claim.

Winstead v. J.C. Penney Company, Incorporated, Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association · filed 1991-05-30(a)

It is not a device for creating actionable claims. The new statute codifying under the name of supplemental jurisdiction the doctrine of ancillary (including pendent) jurisdiction helps make this transparent by stating that “the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the [original] action,” etc. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (emphasis added).

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state conversion claim concerning the foreclosure and sale of a detainee’s home alongside federal claims concerning his pretrial confinement.

Ferguson v. Cape Girardeau Cty. · filed 1996-07-08

Although we concur with the district court as to the lack of supplemental jurisdiction, as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1994), the question of diversity jurisdiction is more difficult given that the plaintiff has asserted diversity of citizenship.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over all claims in a case involving a foreign sovereign when the claims form part of the same case or controversy.

In re Air Crash Disaster Near Roselawn, Indiana On October 31, 1994 · filed 1996-09-19(a)

On these facts, § 1367(a) provides that a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over all claims in a case involving a foreign sovereign.

Section 1367(a) grants jurisdiction over related claims but does not create a substantive right to relief for emotional distress.

Kun v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner · filed 1996-12-19(a)

First, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) gives district courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims related to those claims over which the 'court has original jurisdiction. This statutory provision does not afford a party the substantive right to be free from emotional distress.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over cross-claims between defendants when the court has diversity jurisdiction over the primary claim.

Martineau v. ARCO Chemical Co. · filed 1998-08-24(a)

Because this Court has diversity subject-matter jurisdiction, over the primary claim asserted by Plaintiff against ARCO, the Court has ancillary jurisdiction over ARCO’s and Sweeney’s cross-claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not authorize a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after entering default judgment for the plaintiff on the federal claim, because that claim has not been dismissed.

Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Desert Valley Landscape &… · filed 2003-06-23(c)(3)

The simple fact that there was nothing left to litigate on the merits of that claim does not mean that claim was dismissed. As the federal claim here was not dismissed, the exercise of discretion was not authorized by § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental claims after it dismisses the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, including when the dismissal rests on a nonjurisdictional limitations defense.

Harris v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 1997-10-10(c)(3)

When the District Court has dismissed claims properly before it, it retains discretion to decide whether or not to dismiss other claims as to which it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of a supplemental state fraud claim after the federal claims are dismissed as time-barred.

Pokuta v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 142 · filed 2001-03-30(c)(3)

Because Pokuta’s federal claims are time-barred, her fraudulent misrepresentation claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over nonarbitrable claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been referred to arbitration.

ESAB Group, Incorporated v. Zurich Insurance PLC · filed 2012-07-09(c)

And when those claims falling within a court’s original jurisdiction are no longer in the case—here, because they have been referred to arbitration—the court has authority under § 1367(c) to decline to exercise such supple- mental jurisdiction and inherent authority to remand the remaining claims to state court.

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

Finke v. Kirtland Community College Board of Trustees · filed 2005-02-23(c)(3)

To the extent that the third-party complaint may be read to plead such claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them since the main claim for contribution under the FLSA is dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse third-party claim after disposing of the claim within its original jurisdiction.

Windsor Mt. Joy Mutual Insurance v. Pozzi · filed 1993-10-06(c)(3)

In view of our judgment disposing of the claim founded upon our admiralty jurisdiction, we shall decline to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction over the non-diverse third-party claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) and (3).

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

Hepler v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. · filed 2014-10-03(c)(3)

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ FLSA claim is dismissed as moot; and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the main federal claim becomes moot.

Mendez-Soto v. Rodriguez · filed 2006-05-09(c)(3)

The magistrate judge and the district judge both reasonably construed the complaint as asserting a claim under Puerto Rico law, which was then properly dismissed when the main federal claim became moot. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when there are no colorable federal claims.

Agusto v. MGM Resorts · filed 2020-01-09(a)

Having reviewed the R&R (ECF No. 8), IFP application (ECF No. 1), and Complaint (ECF No. 1-1), the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin and adopts the R&R in full. ... Absent any colorable federal claims, Judge Baldwin recommended that this Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not give a court supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it denies leave to proceed on all federal claims.

Bradley, Brandon v. Mahoney, David · filed 2020-05-15(a)

... because I am denying her leave to proceed on all of her federal claims, I lack supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). So I cannot give her leave to proceed on any negligence claims.

When a complaint states no cognizable federal claim, a court may decline to address its state-law claims under § 1367.

Bonnette v. Dick · filed 2020-06-22(a)

Although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In the absence of any cognizable federal claims, the Court declines to screen or otherwise address any purported state law claims.

Section 1367 requires related federal claims pending before the court for it to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Juarez v. Kenosha County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-10-08

This federal court may exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims only if those state-law claims are related to federal claims pending before the court. See 28 U.S.C. §1367. Because there are no valid federal claims pending before the court, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state- law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not support supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal question claim survives.

Abney v. Dolgencorp, LLC · filed 2022-01-24(a)

Even if he had not effectively dropped these claims, the Court would not have jurisdiction over them. Because none of [Plaintiff’s] other, federal question claims survived, the district court lack[s] supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims supporting that jurisdiction survive summary judgment.

Automated Management Systems, Inc. v. Rappaport Hertz Cherson Rosenthal, P.C. · filed 2022-03-31

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied; accordingly, the predicate for the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367 remains present. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s state law claims for lack of jurisdiction is therefore denied.

Section 1367 permits a court to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain pending.

CHHJ Franchising LLC v. Spaulding · filed 2024-01-22

Because the Court did not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims arising under federal law, it may continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 does not allow a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim first pleaded after the federal claim becomes moot.

Hernandez v. El Pasoans Fighting Hunger · filed 2024-03-07

Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, ... the Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claim; now that Plaintiff’s claim is moot, he may not use his Second Proposed Amended Complaint to, for the first time, plead a state tort claim as a means of keeping this action alive.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize jurisdiction over state-law claims left after an amended complaint withdraws all federal claims.

Rogers v. City of Seattle · filed 2025-10-06(a)

The Court thus lacks jurisdiction over Rogers’ remaining (purely state law) claims because “[o]nce the plaintiff has ditched all claims involving federal questions, the leftover state claims are supplemental to nothing—and § 1367(a) does not authorize a federal court to resolve them.” Id. at 34; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (conferring supplemental jurisdiction only in civil actions “of which the district courts have original jurisdiction”).

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.

Johnson v. Independent School District No. 47 · filed 2002-04-04(c)(3)

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted on plaintiffs Title IX claim. The Court declines to exercise its discretion to accept jurisdiction over the supplemental claims, and opts to dismiss them, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ludlow v. Northwestern University · filed 2015-08-28(c)

With dismissal of the Title IX claim, however, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims unless diversity jurisdiction exists.

Section 1367(c) permits dismissal of supplemental state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Puglisi v. Underhill Park Taxpayer Assoc. · filed 1996-11-12(c)

Since plaintiffs Civil Rights claims and Fair Housing Act claims are dismissed, plaintiffs state law claim is dismissed as well, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Rodriguez v. 551 West 157th Street Owners Corp. · filed 1998-01-27(c)(3)

For these reasons, plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims must be dismissed. Further,, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e); Morse v. Univ. of Vermont, 973 F.2d 122, 127 (2d Cir.1992).

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

Corwin v. B'NAI B'RITH SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING CITIZEN HOUSING, INC. · filed 2007-06-13(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs’ federal claims will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining supplemental state law claims raised under the Delaware Fair Housing Act.

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.

Fidelity Mortgage Corp. v. Seattle Times Co. · filed 2004-01-22(c)(3)

Having found that Fidelity lacks standing to sue any and all of the defendants under the TILA, the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

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

Heil v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2008-10-09(c)(3)

Because the district court dismissed the TILA claim over which it had original jurisdiction, § 1367 permitted the court to also dismiss the supplemental state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claim is dismissed as time-barred.

Handley v. Chase Bank USA NA · filed 2010-07-15(c)(3)

We conclude that the District Court, having determined that Handley’s claim under the TILA was time-barred, and having considered that she does not contest the sum she owes to Citigroup, did not err in declining to exercise jurisdiction over her state law claims.

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

Bond v. Sterling, Inc. · filed 1999-11-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal cause of action under the FMLA, 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 resolving all federal claims on summary judgment, particularly when the state-law issues lack guidance from state courts.

Wells v. LF Noll, Inc · filed 2019-10-30(c)(3)

Having granted defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on each of plaintiffs’ FDCPA claims, the Court declines to exercise pendant jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ IDCPA claims.

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

Anderson v. National Grid, PLC · filed 2015-03-25(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims given the absence of any federal claims that survive summary judgment.

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

Dunfee v. Finchum · filed 2015-09-21(c)(3)

... pursuant to § 1367(c), and in the exercise of its discretion and in the interests of comity, the Court will decline to exercise continuing “pendent” or supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law claims.

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

Jon Jon's Inc. v. City of Warren · filed 2016-02-16(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment for the City on all federal claims, this court declines to exercise, supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims 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 granting summary judgment on all federal claims.

Chavez v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2016-04-18(c)(3)

Finally, after correctly granting summary judgment to the defendants on all of Chavez’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims and dismissing them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Parra v. PacifiCare of Ariz., Inc., 715 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, and the presumption favoring that choice can apply at summary judgment.

Larson v. City of Algood · filed 2019-07-03(c)(3)

While this ruling was made in the context of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the same presumption can apply where, has here, the case has proceeded to the summary judgment phase.

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

Washington, James v. Schueler, R. · filed 2019-10-02(c)(3)

In this instance, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims against Anderson and Gohde because J am granting summary judgment to defendants on all of the federal claims.

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

Allen v. Ambu-Stat, LLC · filed 2020-01-16(c)(3)

We affirm the district court’s discretionary decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Allen’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Milan Express, Inc. v. Averitt Express, Inc., 208 F.3d 975, 980–81 (11th Cir. 2000).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial, including on summary judgment.

Brannon v. Delta Airlines, Inc. · filed 2020-01-22(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims. ... When a plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed before trial, including on a motion for summary judgment, it is often appropriate to dismiss the state claims as well.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after granting summary judgment on all federal claims.

Gizzie v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2020-02-07(c)(3)

Because Gizzie has not defended or supported his state-law claims in response to this summary-judgment motion, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. So I dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice to Gizzie’s ability to refile them in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of the sole federal claim at summary judgment when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not favor retaining the state law claims.

Garcia v. Marc Tetro, Inc. · filed 2020-03-02(c)(3)

The Court therefore concludes that exercising supplemental jurisdiction would not promote the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... The remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 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 summary judgment disposes of the federal claims.

Miles 237011 v. Ionia Correctional Facility · filed 2020-03-18(c)(3)

For these as well as the other reasons the Report and Recommendation details, summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiff’s federal claims is appropriate, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice after disposing of all federal claims on summary judgment.

Thompson v. General Linen Supply Company · filed 2020-04-13(c)(3)

The Court will follow that “usual course” here. Thompson’s remaining state- law claims are best decided by the state courts. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and will dismiss Thompson’s non-federal claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) warrants declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when summary judgment resolves all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction and no affirmative justification supports retaining jurisdiction.

HTA-SCW WEBB MEDICAL A LLC v. ROSKAMP MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC · filed 2020-04-15(c)(3)

As discussed, this Court is granting the RICO Defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C § 1367(c)(3) and the Third Circuit’s directive, and because there is no affirmative justification to do otherwise, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Occupy Buffalo v. City of Buffalo · filed 2020-05-12(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on Occupy’s First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Occupy’s claims based on the same events arising under the New York Constitution and New York law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after granting summary judgment on all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Gonzalez v. County of Fresno · filed 2020-07-21(c)(3)

Considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, and because summary judgment has been granted on all of Plaintiffs' federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction and remanding remaining state-law claims after dismissal of the sole federal claim when litigation is at an early stage and the court has taken no substantive action on the state-law claims.

Smith v. Caesars Entertainment · filed 2019-11-01(c)(3)

Here, had the Court not provided Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her First Amended Complaint, it would have discretionarily declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remanded them to Nevada state court. This case is in the early stages of litigation, and the Court has not taken substantive action on Plaintiff’s state-law claims. Thus, the likelihood of duplicative action or prejudice upon remand would be minimal. ... Consequently, if Plaintiff elects not to amend her federal claim within fourteen days from this Order, the Court will dismiss the federal claim with prejudice and remand all remaining state-law claims to the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand the remaining state law claims when the sole federal claim is dismissed at an early stage of litigation.

Thomas v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc. · filed 2020-01-06(c)(3)

Like Carnegie, the single federal claim in this case has been dismissed at an early stage of litigation. As such, this Court also has a “powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction” over the instant action.

After dismissing all federal claims before trial, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remand them after weighing the relevant factors.

Downs v. Kentucky State University · filed 2020-01-17(c)(3)

Having already dismissed the claims arising under federal law, this Court has “broad discretion” in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Having weighed the relevant factors, while bearing in mind the broader interest in “‘avoiding needless state law decisions,” this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court on remand to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim and leave it for state court.

Tabares v. City of Huntington Beach · filed 2021-02-17(c)(3)

The district court is “free on remand to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim[] and allow plaintiff[] to bring [it] in state court.” Depot, Inc. v. Caring for Montanans, Inc., 915 F.3d 643, 668–69 (9th Cir. 2019); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Remaining state-law claims dismissed pursuant to § 1367 after resolution of the federal claim should be dismissed without prejudice.

McLaughlin v. Tiverton Town Council · filed 2021-02-08

Finally, we vacate the judgment of dismissal with prejudice as to the remaining state law claims (conversion, trespass, and abuse of process) and direct that said counts be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 on remand.

After all federal claims are dismissed, an appellate court may on its own initiative vacate a state-law merits dismissal and direct dismissal without prejudice when comity counsels against deciding a substantial state-law issue.

Zell v. Ricci · filed 2020-04-20(c)(3)

So the fact that Zell did not ask us to consider comity, fairness, or judicial economy does not prevent us from undertaking this approach. As our just-discussed case law makes clear, we can, under certain circumstances, vacate a state-law claims merits-dismissal and direct dismissal without prejudice if we think comity concerns counsel against wading into a substantial state-law issue on appeal.

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

Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2022-01-08(c)(3)

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

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

Davidson v. Stringer · filed 2022-01-10(c)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent plaintiff's complaint contains state law claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over those claims. 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 claim.

White v. Smith · filed 2022-01-11(c)

For the reasons stated, the court will grant Dr. Young’s motion to dismiss. To the extent White’s complaint could be construed as asserting any state-law claims against Dr. Young, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims. 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.

Adams v. Kake Tribal Corporation · filed 2022-01-18(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff intended to assert any such claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims after dismissing the federal claims.

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

CRUZ v. WARREN · filed 2022-01-18(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s potential state law claims, including any claims for negligence or medical malpractice.

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

Swinson v. The City of New York · filed 2022-01-14(c)(3)

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

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

Burton v. City and County of Hawaii · filed 2022-01-31(c)

Although the Court has granted summary judgment on all federal claims, this case presents one of the rare examples where considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Anderson v. Southern Health Partners, Inc. · filed 2022-01-31(c)(3)

The court recognizes that it may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction “if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, however, the state law claim was based on the same facts as the federal claims, and the court finds it proper to proceed as requested by Plaintiff to exercise its pendent jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves a court discretion to resolve a remaining state law claim after dismissing all federal claims.

McDaniel v. Department of Correction · filed 2022-02-11(c)(3)

Where, as here, a federal court dismisses all federal claims, the court may exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice. ... Conversely, the Court may exercise its discretion to resolve the state court claims. ... Given the lack of merit to McDaniel’s claims, and that the state law negligence claim can be disposed of for some of the same reasons as the § 1983 claims, the Court recommends resolving the state law claim as set forth above.

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

Paulk v. Bradshaw · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff raises supplemental state law claims of medical negligence against Defendants, those claims must also be dismissed. Plaintiff has yet to state a cognizable federal claim, thus, he has not alleged an adequate basis for such supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain and decide state law claims after dismissing the claims supporting original jurisdiction when the parties have not requested relinquishment and the state claims’ defects are clear.

Bey v. City Of Chicago · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

This presumption is reflected in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which pro- vides for the discretionary relinquishment of jurisdiction over state claims when the claims providing original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... In any event, given the absence of a request for relinquishment and, more importantly, the clarity of the defects in the state law claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to address the state claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy and convenience favor retention.

Beaver v. County of Butte · filed 2022-04-21(c)

Here, these factors weigh in favor of retention inasmuch as this case has now been pending in this court for over two years, and the court has already adjudicated prior motions. Accordingly, to remand the remaining claims to state court would be a poor use of judicial resources and inconvenient to the parties who have spent considerable time litigating in this court. The court will therefore retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after the court dismisses the federal claims.

SAS Associates 1, LLC v. City Council for the City of Chesapeake, Virginia · filed 2022-05-25(a)

Since the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal law claims in Count I and Count III,!" it lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ state law claim in Count II. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); see also United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (“It has consistently been recognized that pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right . . . Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of state-law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Talley v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · filed 2022-05-27(c)(3)

As the District Court stated in its memorandum that it intended to dismiss Talley’s state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), we will modify the District Court’s order to do so.

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

Earley v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development · filed 2022-07-07(c)(3)

With no independent jurisdictional grounds to consider Plaintiff’s claims against Erie and having dismissed all other claims brought by Plaintiff against Erie’s co-defendants, this court exercises its wide latitude to dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Erie anchored by state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims after dismissal of the sole federal claim if no viable federal claim is pleaded on amendment.

Daroya v. Daroya-Lushina · filed 2022-08-16(c)(3)

Here, Plaintiff’s second through fifth causes of action are state law claims within the Court’s discretionary supplemental jurisdiction. Because Plaintiff’s only federal claim is subject to dismissal, the Court declines to address the Motion’s arguments as to Plaintiff’s conversion claim. If Plaintiff does not amend the FAC to properly state a federal claim for relief, the Court will dismiss the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(d) tolls limitations for supplemental state claims first filed in federal court while they are pending and for 30 days after dismissal; it does not apply to claims initially filed in state court.

Ball Up v. Singer CA2/3 · filed 2022-08-26(d)

That section is a specific tolling statute concerning when supplemental state claims must be filed upon dismissal by the district court. Under that statute, the limitations for a state claim first filed in federal court is “tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed.” (28 U.S.C. § 1367(d); Artis v. District of Columbia (2018) 138 S.Ct. 594.) That statute has no application here.

Section 1367(d) does not toll the limitations period when the federal court dismisses claims under the Barton doctrine rather than declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Prosser v. Carroll · filed 2022-08-26(d)

Section 1367(d) tolls the statute of limitations until 30 days after a state-law claim is dismissed by a federal court exercising supplemental jurisdiction. ... The Court concludes that section 1367(d) is not applicable in this case. ... Instead, the District Court dismissed all the claims in the Complaint and Amended Complaint under the Barton doctrine because the Plaintiffs had not obtained authority to sue the Defendants from the Bankruptcy Court which had appointed them.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims through summary judgment when convenience and expediency favor resolving them.

Crowe v. Steward · filed 2022-09-16(c)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) provides four scenarios under which a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The statute is permissive. The discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction extends to the summary judgment stage. ... Expediency and convenience both favor supplemental jurisdiction in this case and, therefore, the Court considers Crowe’s two state law tort claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Fund Recovery Services, LLC. v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

Because it has become clear at this point ... that plaintiff cannot assert a viable RICO claim—the claim that provides the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction—the Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing plaintiff's civil RICO claims with prejudice and dismissing plaintiffs state-law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, in its discretion.

Liu v. County of Kauai · filed 2022-12-29(c)

Although the Court dismisses the federal claims, the Court, in its discretion, will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because Liu is proceeding pro se and many of the federal claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of state-law claims without reaching their merits after the court dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bryant v. Sioux Falls Police Department · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

That Bryant’s state-law claims of defamation of character and intentional infliction of emotional distress are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without considering the merits of the claims, because the court dismissed all actions under which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss state-law claims without reaching their merits after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Craig v. State of South Dakota · filed 2023-08-29(c)(3)

That Craig’s state-law claims of slander, medical malpractice, and false imprisonment are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without considering the merits of the claims, because the court dismissed all actions under which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits dismissal without prejudice of state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

United States of America v. Rakine · filed 2023-09-06

Defendants request dismissal of Makki’s state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. See Mot. at 19–20. The Court agrees that this approach is proper, and it dismisses without prejudice Makki’s Michigan Medicaid False Claims Act claim and unjust enrichment claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; ordinarily those state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice when no exception warrants retaining them.

Austin v. Auto Handling Corporation · filed 2023-09-12(c)(3)

Because that disposition leads to the dismissal of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court must address whether to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claims and rule on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment related to those claims. ... In sum, the Court finds that none of the exceptions to the “usual practice” applies here. As a result, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice on Plaintiff’s state-law claims and dismisses those claims with leave to refile in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to exercise discretion to dismiss state law claims when no cognizable federal claims remain.

Dettmering v. VBit Technologies Corp. · filed 2023-09-25(c)(3)

I also agree that in the absence of cognizable federal claims, I should exercise my discretion and dismiss the remaining state law counts under § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to retain state law claims after dismissing all claims within original jurisdiction.

Cervini v. Cisneros · filed 2023-10-18(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute gives district courts discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims when it has dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits state law claims to proceed alongside federal claims in some circumstances, but a court may dismiss them when no federal claims survive screening.

Hablutzel v. Illinois · filed 2023-12-07

State law claims can proceed alongside federal claims under certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, no federal claims survive screening here, so the state law claims shall also be dismissed. Id.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of remaining state-law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Red Bear v. Correctional Medical Mgmt, LLC · filed 2023-12-29(c)(3)

9. That Red Bear’s state-law claims of libel and negligence are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without considering the merits of the claims, because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

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

McCall v. United States Marshal Service · filed 2024-01-04(c)(3)

To the extent Mr. McCall asserts state-law claims against the defendants, the Court will dismiss those claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to dismiss a state-law negligence claim without prejudice when no federal claim remains.

Thomas v. McDermott · filed 2024-04-16(c)

Although Plaintiff makes clear that he wishes to pursue a negligence claim against Defendants, in the absence of a federal claim, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

A court may dismiss remaining state-law claims under § 1367 after dismissing all federal claims, when diversity jurisdiction is absent.

Goldman v. Brain Tunnelgenix Technologies Corp. · filed 2024-06-13

Counts II and III of the Complaint are state law claims that this Court no longer has jurisdiction over as Count I, Violations of the Securities Act, has been dismissed. ... Accordingly, Counts II and III remaining in the Complaint are due to be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state-law claims after disposing of all federal claims.

Lela v. Dart · filed 2024-07-08(c)(3)

The Court therefore dismisses any remaining state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to dismiss a supplemental state law claim without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims.

Lay v. Storm Smart Building Systems, Inc. · filed 2024-07-19(c)(3)

The Court lacks original jurisdiction over this Florida state claim and requires supplemental jurisdiction for the claim to survive in federal court. ... Therefore, since the federal claims have been dismissed, Plaintiff’s Fla. Stat. § 440.205 claim is dismissed without prejudice.

Supplemental jurisdiction over state claims depends on a plausibly pleaded federal claim, and a court may decline it after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Feroz v. Commex Corporation · filed 2024-07-31(a), (c)(3)

The court’s supplemental jurisdiction over any state claim depends on the plaintiff’s pleading plausible federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)(3) (court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim, but an asserted independent basis of original jurisdiction must be addressed before dismissing those state-law claims.

Divine v. Securix, LLC · filed 2024-09-19(c)(3)

As discussed supra, when a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over state-law claims is premised on pendent jurisdiction, it has discretion to dismiss state-law claims after dismissing the claim over which it had original federal jurisdiction. See § 1367(c). ... But here, Plaintiffs have also pled that the Court has original jurisdiction under CAFA. Because Defendant has not addressed this issue or the merits of Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, the remainder of the Motion to Dismiss will be denied without prejudice, with leave to reassert.

Section 1367(c) leaves a court without jurisdiction over state tort claims when the asserted Section 1983 claim fails.

Oil Spill Response Vessels, LLC v. City of Kodiak · filed 2024-10-16(c)

Without a valid Section 1983 claim, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state tort claims.

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

Peet v. Sikeston, City of · filed 2024-12-12(c)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent plaintiff is seeking relief under Missouri state law, those claims are subject to dismissal, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

RAMIREZ v. SMART FOODS INC. · filed 2024-12-23(c)(3)

Because the only claim over which this Court had original jurisdiction has been dismissed, Plaintiff’s state law claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367 generally calls for dismissal of remaining state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Weatherspoon v. City of Murfreesboro · filed 2025-01-23(c)(3)

However, “[i]f the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims generally should be dismissed as well.” Id. (citing Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701, 709 (6th Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s TGTLA claim will be dismissed without prejudice to her ability to pursue it in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to dismiss state law claims after it has disposed of the federal claims.

Wilkins v. Barber · filed 2025-03-04(c)(3)

The district court had the discretion to dismiss the state law claims, as it had disposed of the federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hernandez v. Pouncey · filed 2025-03-25(c)(3)

Additionally, Hernandez’s state-law claims are due to be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Welch, Colby v. Sukowaty, Laura · filed 2025-04-23(c)(3)

Now that I am dismissing the federal claims, I will dismiss the state-law claims under § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits dismissal of state law claims without prejudice when no federal claims remain.

Damond v. City of Alexandria · filed 2025-04-29

And because Damond has no federal claims, the district court properly dismissed his state law claims without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss related state law claims after dismissing all claims that independently support federal jurisdiction.

Hartfield v. Lozar · filed 2025-06-05(c)(3)

Because the Court has determined that Plaintiff’s pleading does not state a plausible violation of a federal right, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims for civil conspiracy, respondeat superior, and IIED. See Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S. Ct. 594, 597-98 (2018) (“When district courts dismiss all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, they ordinarily dismiss as well all related state claims.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

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

Ratfield v. United States Drug Testing Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2025-06-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed the RICO claims, the district court re- linquished supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... In any event, the district court acted in accordance with long-standing practice and did not err.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Warden Cool after the federal claims against him are dismissed.

Fitts · filed 2025-11-04

In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Warden Cool because “[w]ith any federal anchor gone, supplemental jurisdiction over the residual state claims disappears as well.” ... Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Order and Report and Recommendation.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to dismiss related state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed before trial.

MPC · filed 2026-01-28(c)(3)

The Seventh Circuit has instructed that district courts should generally dismiss all pendant state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Davis v. Cook Cnty., 534 F.3d 650, 654 (7th Cir. 2008). The Court will follow this approach and dismiss all Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, as there is no longer a basis to maintain subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims when no federal cause of action remains.

Amres Corp v. Nextres LLC · filed 2026-02-17(c)(3)

Without a federal cause of action, the District Court was entitled to dismiss the remaining state law claims because they were reliant on supplemental jurisdiction, a ruling which we will also affirm. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Somers · filed 2026-02-18(c)(3)

Without any independent basis for jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss those claims too. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); see also Davis v. Cook Cnty., 534 F.3d 650, 654 (7th Cir. 2008).

When federal claims are dismissed before trial, remaining state-law claims generally should be dismissed without prejudice under § 1367.

Neisen v. Renfro · filed 2025-01-23(c)(3)

“Because there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties, the only basis for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over [Plaintiff’s] remaining state-law claims would be under the supplemental-jurisdiction provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367.” Weser v. Goodson, 965 F.3d 507, 518– 19 (6th Cir. 2020). However, “[i]f the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims generally should be dismissed as well.” Id. (citing Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701, 709 (6th Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, the Amended Complaint’s claims under Tennessee law will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to pursue them in state court.

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

Stamm v. Cnty. of Cheyenne · filed 2018-06-11(c)(3)

Alternatively, because the court has determined that all federal law claims should be dismissed, these state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3).

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

Kolackovsky v. Town of Rockport · filed 2026-01-22(c)(3)

But "district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... We are not bound to the district court's reasoning but may affirm dismissal "on any basis ... that is apparent from the record," Hochendoner, 823 F.3d at 730, and we conclude that it would have been appropriate to dismiss Plaintiffs' first claim on this basis as well.

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

Troublefield v. City of Harrisburg, Bureau of Police · filed 1992-04-08(c)(3)

As the court has dismissed all the federal claims brought by plaintiff, it no longer has jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (pendent jurisdiction should be exercised unless “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). This case was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. The court will accordingly remand the case there for further proceedings on the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to dismiss supplemental state claims after it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Calzaturificio Rangoni S.P.A. v. United States Shoe Corp. · filed 1994-11-16(c)(3)

That section vests the Court with discretion to dismiss remaining state claims after dismissing those claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... This Court agrees with defendants that it should dismiss plaintiffs pendent state claims.

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

Pappas v. Passias · filed 1995-06-05(c)(3)

Insofar as the RICO counts provide the sole basis for original federal jurisdiction, the plaintiffs pendent state-law claims also must be dismissed, since the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiffs remaining 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, including when the federal claims are dismissed without prejudice.

MCKINNEY v. LANIGAN · filed 2021-01-28(c)(3)

The remaining § 1983 claims are dismissed without prejudice, and the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because it has dismissed the federal claims.

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

CLAUSO v. CORR. OFFICER · filed 2020-09-15(c)

Moreover, because the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims without prejudice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Martinez v. DeLone · filed 2020-02-18(c)

The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is DECLINED 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, even when the dismissal is without prejudice.

PASCALE v. SOUTHERN STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2021-03-02(c)(3)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to bring state law claims against any of the Defendants, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction at this time, as it has dismissed without prejudice the federal claims.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal claims remain.

Wakat v. Lamar Advertising Co. · filed 2025-07-30(a)

With no federal claims remaining, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdic- tion over the state-law claims and they must also be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves state law claims without supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claims fail at screening and there is no diversity jurisdiction.

Gottfried · filed 2026-01-26(c)(3)

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal law claims, as it stands, his state law claims cannot survive.

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

Jones v. Bell Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1991-07-26(c)(3)

Given the demise of Jones’ federal claim and his federal jurisdiction difficulties, the court also declines to exercise jurisdiction ... over his remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Greenstone v. Cambex Corp. · filed 1991-10-04(c)(3)

Since the Court has dismissed the federal claim contained in the Complaint, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over the pendent state claim.

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

Heller v. CACL Federal Credit Union · filed 1991-10-21(c)(3)

While a federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where the claims arise out of the same case or controversy as the federal claim which is before the court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (codifying supplemental jurisdiction), the court should ordinarily decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed. ... Since the plaintiffs federal claims must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the court will not entertain state law quo warranto claims.

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

Darvoe v. Town of Trenton · filed 1992-02-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of plaintiff’s federal causes of action, it is within the court’s discretion to decline to exercise its jurisdiction over these state constitutional and statutory claims.

Section 1367(a) gives a court with jurisdiction over federal claims supplemental jurisdiction over related state law damages claims.

Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n v. Benjamin · filed 1991-10-30(a)

Because the court has jurisdiction over this cause pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and § 301 of the LMRA, the court has jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims for damages pursuant to the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to state-law claims when the federal claims fail.

Rial v. Burmila · filed 1992-01-27

To the extent that his Complaint also cites to provisions of the Illinois Constitution, of course Section 1983 provides no remedy — and any possible application of the supplemental jurisdiction doctrine under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to encompass those state-law claims vanishes with the failure of the federal claims under Section 1983.

Section 1367(c) is not retroactive, but its grounds for declining supplemental jurisdiction reflect preexisting discretion and may guide the dismissal of pendent claims.

Pedro Pablo Blanco F. v. Banco Industrial de Venezuela · filed 1992-04-02(c)

Retention of pendent claims once the original ones are dismissed is discretionary. To exercise that discretion to retain matters involving almost exclusively events in Venezuela governed by Venezuelan law would run contrary to the policy established by Congress in enacting 28 U.S.C. § 1367 in 1990 which, although not retroactive, is persuasive.

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

Tapogna v. Egan · filed 1992-03-17(c)(3)

Under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, which codified the doctrines of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction, a district court may decline to hear state law claims once the federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Procopio v. Johnson · filed 1992-03-19(c)(3)

The court, in its discretion, declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, and Counts II and III are accordingly dismissed as well.

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

Maybee v. Town of Newfield · filed 1992-04-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs’ federal cause of action, it is within the court’s discretion to decline to exercise its jurisdiction over their state constitutional claims. ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and dismisses them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c)(3).

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

Lord v. Casco Bay Weekly, Inc. · filed 1992-05-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claim, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear the related state law claims under Counts II, III, and IV.

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

McGee v. County of Los Angeles · filed 1992-05-29(c)(3)

In the case before us, the district court properly dismissed the pendent state law question, the alleged breach of the settlement, for lack of jurisdiction once it had dismissed the federal question aspect of the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 does not support jurisdiction over a state-law claim when dismissal of the federal-question claim leaves it without a claim to supplement.

Vanderlinde v. Brochman · filed 1992-05-18

That being the case, Count II is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because it is no longer supplemental to any federal-question claim as 28 U.S.C. § 1367 would require (see United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966)).

Section 1367(c) does not require dismissal of supplemental state-law claims merely because the state and federal claims use different liability standards.

Bridges v. Eastman Kodak Co. · filed 1992-09-01(c)

The mere existence of one difference in legal theory does not create a sufficient likelihood of jury confusion to justify dismissing plaintiffs’ HRL claims.

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

Nello L. Teer Co. v. Orange County · filed 1992-09-09(c)(3)

However, since all the other claims have been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over these state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Haverstick Enterprises, Inc. v. Financial Federal Credit, Inc. · filed 1992-09-10(c)

The remaining claims set forth in the complaint are based on state law. Since the parties to this action are non-diverse and no other independent jurisdiction exists, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and the state claims are hereby remanded to state court.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts considerable discretion to decide which state claims to hear alongside valid federal claims.

Cushing v. Moore · filed 1992-07-27(c)

Since the district court may exercise considerable discretion over what state claims it will include within its supplemental jurisdiction in a particular case, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1)-(4), we leave it for the district court to determine what state claims, if any are alleged, may properly be considered under supplemental jurisdiction principles in conjunction with any valid federal claims that may be asserted by the five plaintiffs, should one or more of them elect to replead.

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

Hayden v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co. · filed 1992-10-28(c)(3)

Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims as plaintiffs federal claim is no longer pending before the court.

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

Kleiss v. Short · filed 1992-11-04(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs pendent state law claim, having dismissed the section 1983 claim over which it has jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, which a court may dismiss after disposing of the federal claims.

Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Sonford Products Corp. · filed 1993-01-11(c)(3)

Those claims were properly before this court pursuant to this court’s supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. After dismissal of the plaintiff’s federal claims, there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction with respect to this defendant. Therefore, the court dismisses plaintiff's state law claims against IFC for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance v. Rhode Island Insurer's Insolvency Fund · filed 1993-02-02(c)(3)

Because there is no merit to the various federal claims asserted by Metropolitan, this Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Metropolitan’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Indeed, since those claims involve nothing more than interpretations of the Rhode Island Constitution, considerations of comity and justice dictate that they be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims in its discretion after it disposes of the federal claims.

Lewis v. Law-Yone · filed 1993-02-22(c)(3)

The court, in its discretion, may dismiss pendent state law claims after having disposed of federal claims.

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

W.E. Darin Construction Enterprises, Inc. v. Detroit Coke Co. · filed 1993-02-24

Further, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and remands the matter to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).