28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when only those claims remain after dismissal of the federal claim.

Koch v. United States · filed 1993-03-03(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, since only state-based claims remain.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Evans v. City of Marlin · filed 1993-03-16(c)

On remand, the district court will not have the federal question "hook" on which it can hang the pendent state law claims. However, this is not fatal to the exercise of federal jurisdiction. The court is vested with discretion to decide whether or not supplemental jurisdiction continues to be appropriate.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a defendant once the federal claim against that defendant has been dismissed.

Helton v. Phelps County Regional Medical Center · filed 1993-03-31(a)

Counts II and III of the complaint will be dismissed as to Dr. Curran on grounds that the Court no longer has supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims when the plaintiff cannot establish an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Barnes v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance · filed 1993-04-05(c)(3)

Should Plaintiff be unable to establish independent federal jurisdiction in an Amended Complaint, the Court will also dismiss her pendant state-law claims, without prejudice to refiling them in state court.

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

Garner v. Township of Wrightstown · filed 1993-04-16(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, I will grant the summary judgment motions of the Wrights-town defendants, Chief Hughes, and the Bucks County defendants and enter judgment against plaintiff and in favor of defendants on all Section 1983 claims against defendants set forth in plaintiffs second amended complaint. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims alleging violations of plaintiffs rights under the Pennsylvania state constitution and dismiss Count IV of plaintiffs second amended complaint without prejudice to his right to re-file in the state court.

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

Hahn v. County of Otsego · filed 1993-05-06(c)(3)

The court agrees that since there remains only three causes of action pursuant to state law, plaintiffs’ complaint against the Church defendants is dismissed.

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

Wexley v. Michigan State University · filed 1993-04-19(c)(3)

The foregoing analysis effectively disposes of plaintiffs only claims arising under federal law. The sole premises for federal subject matter jurisdiction have thhs been extinguished. Under these circumstances, the Court may decline to exercise continuing “pendent” or supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) and (4) permit a court to decline continued supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when its findings warrant that course.

Ackerman v. National Property Analysts, Inc. · filed 1993-07-01(c)(3) and (4)

Given the above stated findings, however, should either the Ackerman or Remington plaintiffs seek to amend its complaint in a manner consistent with this decision, the Court would decline to continue exercising its supplemental jurisdiction over this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and (4).

After the federal claims are resolved, § 1367(c) directs the district court to apply its criteria in deciding whether a remaining state-law claim should proceed in federal or state court.

Kathleen Frymire-Brinati and Michael Brinati v. Kpmg Peat Marwick · filed 1993-07-29(c)

The district court shall enter judgment for Peat Marwick on all federal claims and apply the criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to determine whether further proceedings on the common law claim should occur in state or federal court.

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

Griffin v. Triton College · filed 1993-06-04(c)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state claims, and dismiss them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Blake v. Dickason · filed 1993-06-23(c)(3)

After dismissing the federal claims, the district court exercised its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We find no abuse of discretion and affirm that determination.

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

Verdon v. Consolidated Rail Corp. · filed 1993-08-12(c)(3)

However, since all of plaintiffs existing and proposed federal claims are no longer before us, we refuse to entertain this pendent state claim, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Gutierrez v. Allen May, Sergeant · filed 1993-08-25(c)(3)

Finally, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Gutierrez's remaining state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim after resolving the federal claims, but the court may decide the state claim when the record is adequate.

R.L.R. v. Prague Public School District I-103 · filed 1993-08-31(c)(3)

Having resolved the federal claims, the Court could decline to exercise its jurisdiction over this state claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). However, there are adequate facts in the record to determine this issue.

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

In Re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation · filed 1993-10-22(c)(3)

Since plaintiff has produced no claim based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1332, I decline to accept supplemental jurisdiction as requested in plaintiffs complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

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

Aizuss v. Commonwealth Equity Trust · filed 1993-12-21(c)(3)

Because all federal claims have been dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, most of which share the same infirmities as the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental claims after the federal claims are resolved against the plaintiff.

Haavistola v. Community Fire Co. of Rising Sun · filed 1994-01-07(c)(3)

2. That Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII BE, and they hereby ARE, DISMISSED, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); 3. That defendants have and recover of the plaintiff all costs of this action. .

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

Haston v. Tatham · filed 1994-01-19(c)(3)

Since no federal claim exists, this court will not entertain a supplemental state claim.

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

Torrie by and Through Torrie v. Cwayna · filed 1994-01-20(c)(3)

Because this Court is dismissing all of plaintiffs’ federal causes of action I have decided, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), that this Court will not exercise its supplemental-jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining state-law claims after it resolves the federal claim.

Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Hamtramck · filed 1993-12-22(c)(3)

Because the court will grant plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the federal claim, the court will exercise its discretion and dismiss the remaining state claims pursuant to section 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Racine v. Cecil County · filed 1994-02-01(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court will enter an order that grants plaintiff leave to file her amended complaint, dismisses the federal claims (Counts I through IV, and VII) of the amended complaint in their entirety, as barred by legislative immunity, dismisses the state-law based claims in Counts V and VI for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3), and moots all other pending motions.

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

Trimble v. Androscoggin Valley Hospital, Inc. · filed 1994-03-30(c)(3)

Since there are no surviving federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state claims.

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

Boca Ciega Hotel, Inc. v. Bouchard Transportation Co. · filed 1994-02-18(c)(3)

As Plaintiffs have failed to establish a basis for federal question jurisdiction under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 or in diversity, the Court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Templeman v. Philbrick · filed 1994-03-28(c)(3)

Having disposed of Tempelman's federal claims, I decline to exercise my discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Quimby v. DCYS · filed 1994-03-31(c)(3)

Having disposed of plaintiff's federal claims, I decline to exercise my discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state law claims after it dismisses the federal claims.

Williams v. Kling · filed 1994-04-21(c)(3)

This Court will exercise its discretion and dismiss any remaining state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims after disposing of the federal claims.

Soo v. Maumelle Co. · filed 1994-04-15(c)(3)

Given the disposition of plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1367.

Section 1367 gives a district court broad discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed.

Welch v. Thompson · filed 1994-05-13(c)(3)

When all federal claims are dismissed, the district court enjoys wide discretion in determining whether to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.51 In the light of our deferential review, we conclude that the district judge was within his discretion in refusing to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a state law claim when the federal claim is summarily disposed of.

DiCarlo v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund · filed 1994-06-02(c)(3)

Because the plaintiffs federal claim is being made the subject of summary disposition herewith, her state law claim will be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

A dismissal of state-law claims under § 1367(c)(3) based on the absence of federal claims cannot stand when federal claims are reinstated on appeal.

Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company · filed 1994-06-06(c)(3)

Because this partial reversal reintroduces federal claims into each of the Losch and the Yeager's cases, we will also reverse the district court's dismissal of the Losch state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c).

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

Jenkins v. Security Sav. Bank of Michigan · filed 1994-06-20(c)(3)

Whatever state law violations remain, Mr. Jenkins is not entitled to use the federal courts for that litigation.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decide a pendent state-law claim after the federal claims are resolved when the state-law claim can clearly be decided in only one way.

Sommers v. Sauk County, Eugene Dumas, and Norman Brickl · filed 1994-07-05(c)

Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the Gibbs rule, of which the one applicable here is that if it is absolutely clear that the pendent state-law claim can be decided in only one way, the district court can and should decide it, to save the time of the state court.

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

Ross v. Runyon · filed 1994-07-06(c)(3)

If the state law claims were not preempted, the court would nevertheless decline to exercise jurisdiction to consider them. Once the federal claims have been dismissed, the court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendent state law claims.

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

Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington, Inc. v. Bmc Marketing Corporation, T/a Snelling & Snelling Personnel Cons · filed 1994-07-19(c)(3)

As a result, even if the plaintiffs have a cause of action for damages under D.C. law, it will be within the district court’s discretion whether or not to dismiss this claim if it dismisses both their federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claim, including when those claims would be resolved more efficiently in state court.

SmileCare Dental Group v. Delta Dental Plan of California · filed 1994-07-25(c)(3)

Since this Court only has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, and since this Court believes that these claims would be resolved most efficiently in a state court, SmileCare’s state law claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim, considering the case’s progress and the nature of the remaining issues.

Stetka v. Hunt Real Estate Corp. · filed 1994-07-29(c)(3)

However, once the federal claim was dismissed, under § 1367(c)(3), the remaining state claim becomes subject to dismissal as the court may, in its discretion, decline supplemental jurisdiction over this claim. While the complaint in this case was filed in 1991, a trial date has not yet been set, and the remaining issues are solely based on state discrimination law. Accordingly, based on relevant law, the court declines to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the state claim.

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

Worthington v. Subaru-Isuzu Automotive, Inc. · filed 1994-08-16(c)(3)

The plaintiffs alleged federal cause of action under the JTPA does not exist; it is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This court may and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e). Therefore, the state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not allow dismissal of supplemental state law claims on the ground that all federal claims are gone when federal claims remain.

Orange Environment, Inc. v. County of Orange · filed 1994-08-22(c)(3)

Because several of the plaintiffs’ federal causes of action remain, we cannot dismiss the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Otis v. Canadian Valley-Reeves Meat Co. · filed 1994-07-22(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims which are founded on state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

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

Yoonessi v. State University of New York · filed 1994-08-26(c)(3)

To the extent the complaint alleges claims against these defendants based on state law, the court declines to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over those claims since it has dismissed all claims against the Millard Fillmore defendants over which it has original federal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Flaherty v. Cunningham · filed 1994-09-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed the inmates' federal claims, I decline to exercise my discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 does not sustain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed at the threshold.

D'Last Corp. v. Ugent · filed 1994-09-19

With both federal-question claims thus having gone by the boards, nothing remains as a jurisdictional anchor to which D’Last’s several state-law claims can moor themselves. Section 1367 speaks of “supplemental jurisdiction,” and the essential primary jurisdiction is nonexistent.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the basis for original federal jurisdiction has been extinguished.

Strong v. Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc. · filed 1994-09-22(c)(3)

Under these circumstances, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, declines to exercise continuing supplemental jurisdiction over the surviving state law claims.

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

Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc. · filed 1994-08-31(c)(3)

In Counts IV, V and VI, Plaintiff asserts various state law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), 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 when it dismisses all federal claims.

Jean v. Walgreen Co. · filed 1994-09-27(c)(3)

Because all federal claims are being dismissed, jurisdiction over the state claim will be declined. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

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

Obersteller v. Flour Bluff Independent School District · filed 1994-09-30(c)(3)

Having disposed of plaintiffs federal question claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed.

Doe v. Bagan · filed 1994-11-15(c)(3)

We conclude, therefore, that none of plaintiffs' Sec. 1983 claims amount to the deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured under the Constitution. ... The district court's dismissal of the state law claims was also correct. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-27, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Sweeney v. Great Western Bank · filed 1994-11-10(c)

Because the Sweeneys' federal claims were properly dismissed, the district court had discretion to dismiss the Sweeneys' pendent state-law claims.

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

Amato v. City of Richmond · filed 1994-12-15(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over those claims because all claims over which the court has federal question jurisdiction have been dismissed on summary judgment motion.

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

Gerald Gelles and Darst Associates Limited Partnership v. Tda Industries, Inc., Douglas P. Fields and Frederick M. Fried · filed 1994-12-28(c)(3)

Finally, we agree with the district court’s determination not to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over Gelles’ state law claim, the federal securities claim having been dismissed.

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

Thomasson v. Moblinski · filed 1995-02-08(c)(3)

Additionally, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Thomasson’s state law claims 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 it dismisses all federal claims.

Agricultural Excess & Surplus Insurance v. A.B.D. Tank & Pump Co. · filed 1995-02-16(c)(3)

As jurisdiction in this case is based on a federal question; the RCRA, and as the dismissal of Count I disposes of all federal claims before this Court, this Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Accordingly, Counts II through XIV of the Amended Complaint are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Trans Penn Wax Corp. v. McCandless · filed 1995-02-28(c)

The court retained supplemental jurisdiction until it declined to exercise that jurisdiction under § 1367(c).

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

Hunte v. Darby Borough · filed 1995-02-10(c)(3)

No federal claims remaining, supplemental jurisdiction over the other claims was declined.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims if the federal claim is dismissed.

Blanksteen v. New York Mercantile Exchange · filed 1995-03-16(c)(3)

If the federal claim is dismissed, the state law claims would be subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Donaggio v. Arlington County, Va. · filed 1995-03-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

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

Herrington v. City of Pearl, Miss. · filed 1995-03-31(c)(3)

Therefore, inasmuch as this court finds no basis for any of Herrington’s federal claims, this court hereby declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Schachter v. PacifiCare of Oklahoma, Inc. · filed 1995-03-16(c)(3)

Since the remainder of this action involves pendent state law claims, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). These claims shall be remanded to the District Court in and for Tulsa County, Oklahoma for adjudication.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state claims after the claims supporting original federal jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Wilkins v. Cowell · filed 1995-04-04(c)(3)

To the extent that Wilkins contends that the district court erred by dismissing his supplemental state claims, we reject this contention.

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

Boyle v. Brown University · filed 1995-04-05(c)(3)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court has the discretion to decline to exercise such jurisdiction over these claims when plaintiff’s federal claims are no longer viable.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed.

Town of Secaucus v. United States Department of Transportation · filed 1995-04-17(c)(3)

If Counts Five and Six were construed to assert state law claims, they should be dismissed because all federal claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Robinson v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. · filed 1995-05-03(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims plaintiff seeks to raise, if any, (see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)) and to that extent the complaint is also dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs bringing any state claims he might have in state court.

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

Brothers v. NCR Corp. · filed 1995-05-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the federal claims have been dismissed. Accordingly, this Court, in its discretion, dismisses without prejudice Brothers’ state law claim.

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

James Emory, Inc. v. Twiggs County, Ga. · filed 1995-05-10(c)(3)

Because none of plaintiffs federal claims remain, the only claims left before the court are based upon state law. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court declines to continue the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over these state-based claims and accordingly DISMISS ALL PENDENT STATE CLAIMS.

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

Slabik v. Sorrentino · filed 1995-06-30(c)(3)

Diversity of citizenship does not exist. We will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, we will dismiss these remaining claims.

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

Leak v. Grant Medical Center · filed 1995-07-18(c)(3)

Having determined that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Pazienza v. Saint Barnabas Medical Center · filed 1995-07-28(c)(3)

Because there are no remaining federal claims in this action, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, 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 the federal claims.

Hartsfield v. Gary West and Peter Isaacson · filed 1995-08-03(c)(3)

To the extent that Hartsfield is alleging that his state law rights were violated, the district court's exercise of its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3) was proper.

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

Quick v. Donaldson Co., Inc. · filed 1995-08-04(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state claims. The remaining state claims 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 after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Frankwell Bullion Ltd. · filed 1995-08-14(c)(3)

As no federal claim remains in the action, the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Booth v. NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT, HLTH. & NAT. RES. · filed 1995-09-19(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Booth v. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources · filed 1995-09-19(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Those claims are, therefore, also DISMISSED.

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

Walker v. Lifeskills, Inc. · filed 1995-08-18(c)(3)

To the extent that Walker is alleging that his state law rights were violated, the district court's exercise of its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3) was proper.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims after the federal claim supporting jurisdiction is dismissed.

Perino v. Mercury Finance Co. of Illinois · filed 1995-10-12(c)(3)

The remaining counts are state law claims before this Court pursuant to its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Since Count I is dismissed, the Court has no independent jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the Uniform Commercial Code. Accordingly, Counts II, III, and IV are also dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after all federal claims have been dismissed, particularly when adjudicating that claim calls for interpreting state law.

Barney v. Holzer Clinic, Ltd. · filed 1995-10-19(c)(3)

When a case has no remaining federal claims, federal courts ordinarily decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Because there are no remaining federal issues in this case, and because proper adjudication of this claim may involve interpreting both Ohio’s Medicaid laws and the CSPA, the Court believes that this case is best handled in the state judicial system. The Court thus refuses to extend its supplemental jurisdiction over this matter and dismisses the remaining claim.

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

Cate v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. · filed 1995-10-13(c)(3)

Given the court's dismissal of the three federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim alleged under Count Four. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Marks v. United States Social Security Administration · filed 1995-11-02(c)(3)

In view of the Court's disposition of the federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Gorman v. Hughes Danbury Optical Systems · filed 1995-11-22(c)(3)

At this time, and unless and until the plaintiff proves that the CCHRO had an opportunity to consider her claims of discrimination, no federal elaims remain in this case. Consequently, the court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decide whether to dismiss remaining state law claims after the federal claims are gone.

Bleiler v. Cristwood Construction, Inc. · filed 1995-12-08(c)

There are now only state claims left in the case. The district court should, on remand, determine whether they should be adjudicated in a federal forum, dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), ... or remanded to the court from which they were removed.

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

Shepard v. Kemp · filed 1995-12-29(c)(3)

Finally, in light of the disposition of the federal claims, the court will not assert jurisdiction oyer the pendent state counts.

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

Ventura v. City of Independence, Walter Ellert, Dorothy Ornas, Dennis Messina and George Spilker · filed 1997-03-04(c)(3)

However, once a district court has dismissed all of a plaintiff's federal claims, that court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

Dennis v. Thurman · filed 1997-03-12(c)(3)

This Court, nevertheless, declines to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs pendent state claims because no federal cause of action remains.

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

Schroeder v. County of San Diego City of La Mesa G. Sperry La Mesa Police Department M. Murphy · filed 1997-03-13(c)(3)

Finally, because Schroeder's federal claims are barred by the statute of limitations, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Schroeder's state law claims after it dismissed his federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); O'Connor v. State, 27 F.3d 357, 363 (9th Cir.1994).

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

Norton v. Garro · filed 1997-03-20(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Norton’s state law claims.

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

Dougherty v. Carver Federal Savings Bank · filed 1996-01-04(c)

For the reasons set forth above, the federal claims in this action must be dismissed. Accordingly, the supplemental state law claims should also be dismissed as well.

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

Powell v. Dept. of Human Resources of State of Ga. · filed 1996-02-21(c)(3)

Having determined Plaintiff has stated no viable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Butala v. Agashiwala · filed 1996-02-24(c)(3)

Because the claims arising under federal law are dismissed, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Robbins v. Fragrance Impressions Ltd. · filed 1996-03-31(c)(3)

Nevertheless, since this Order disposes of all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs fraudulent inducement claim (if it exists at all under the circumstances at bar).

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

Gannon v. Continental Insurance · filed 1996-04-01(c)(3)

It would be inappropriate for a federal court to resolve the many questions of state law which the complaint raises in absence of any related federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of pendent state law claims when no federal claim remains.

Arnold v. Waterfield Mortgage Co. · filed 1996-04-03(c)(3)

In that plaintiff Redding has no federal claim, any pendent state law claims will be dismissed for lack of subject matter 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 all federal claims have been dismissed.

Estate of Story Through McNair v. McDuffie County · filed 1996-04-11(c)(3)

As all federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to retain discretionary supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, especially when state equitable policies are best resolved by state judges.

Stallings v. Head · filed 1996-03-26(c)(3)

As the only remaining claims arise from state law which present issues implicating state equitable policies best resolved by state judges, this court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over those removed claims, even granting that removal was proper in the first place. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Park v. City of Atlanta · filed 1996-03-28

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the court uses its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these pendent claims.

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

Marthel v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. · filed 1996-04-22(c)(3)

Without expressly finding whether the plaintiff has made a sufficient showing to withstand summary judgment with respect to these claims, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state claims in its discretion after all federal claims are dismissed.

Abshire v. Parish of Iberia · filed 1996-04-23(c)(3)

Any supplemental state claims may be dismissed, in the district court's discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Williams v. Discovery Day School · filed 1996-05-01(c)(3)

We dismiss these two state claims on the ground that, having dismissed the federal causes of action, supplemental jurisdiction is no longer appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hardy v. Village of Piermont, NY · filed 1996-05-03(c)(3)

Because we grant defendants summary judgment dismissing all federal claims, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims.

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

Wiers v. Barnes · filed 1996-05-03(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wheatley’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and those claims will be dismissed.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state law claims when the federal claims fail to state a claim.

Hager v. City of West Peoria · filed 1996-05-17(c)(3)

Because we determine plaintiffs fail to state a federal question claim upon which relief can be granted, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of their state law claims, which were based on supplementary jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Love v. City of Grand Rapids · filed 1996-05-15(c)(3)

Finally, because the district court properly granted summary judgment dismissing Love's federal claims, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and properly so declined in this case.

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

Adelman v. UAL, Inc. · filed 1996-05-29(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court shall dismiss these claims and shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Granse v. United States · filed 1996-06-03(c)(3)

In the absence of any claims remaining against the Federal Defendants, the Court will not exercise jurisdiction over Granse’s common law quiet title action against Park Drive. The action against Park Drive will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Rife v. Dallas Tx City of · filed 1996-06-17(c)(3)

With respect to the state law aspect of this claim, we find it implicit in the district court's full grant of summary judgment for the defendants that the court rightfully declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed.

Societe Nationale D'Exploitation Industrielle Des Tabacslumettes v. Salomon Bros. International Ltd. · filed 1996-06-26(c)(3)

Because no federal question is presented under the federal laws under which jurisdiction is asserted, and because no diversity jurisdiction is asserted, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the federal law claims will be dismissed. The state law claims will, therefore, be dismissed as well, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).

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

Clark v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. · filed 1996-06-24(c)(3)

Since the federal issues pending in this litigation have been disposed, the Court believes that the remaining state law issues should be left to the courts of Georgia. The Court declines to retain discretionary supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with the early posture of the case supporting that choice.

Levitin v. PaineWebber, Inc. · filed 1996-07-09(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all of plaintiffs federal claims, and given the early posture of this case, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Geiger v. Solomon-Page Group, Ltd. · filed 1996-07-10(c)(3)

Because all of the claims arising under federal law are dismissed, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Rudy v. Village of Sparta · filed 1996-07-17(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court will decline to exercise its jurisdiction over, the remaining state law claims alleged against defendants Holmberg, Butterworth Hospital, and MeNinch.

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

Fujisawa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Kapoor · filed 1996-07-25(c)(3)

Because I dismiss Fujisawa’s federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state law claims.

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

Salinger v. Projectavision, Inc. · filed 1996-07-25(c)(3)

Because all of the claims arising under federal law are dismissed, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 gives a court discretion to dismiss state law claims after it disposes of the federal claims over which it had jurisdiction.

Memorial Hospital System v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance · filed 1996-07-30(c)(3)

This result, i.e., dismissal of the state law causes of action, is also warranted by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which grants the Court discretion to dismiss state law claims after disposition of the federal claims over which the Court had jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from separate events with different defendants and no overlapping proof.

Marks v. US Social Security · filed 1996-08-06(a)

Furthermore, we find that it would be inappropriate for the district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims should the claims against Drs. Longa and Vinh survive. A district court may exercise supplemental jurisdic- tion over claims "that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or contro- versy." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (1988). Appellants' claims regarding their foreclosure are entirely separate from their claims against the employees of the Department for negligent handling of Ms. Marks's disability claim. None of the Defendants are the same, and the proof required for each claim would not overlap.

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

Engstrand v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. · filed 1996-08-20(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The state claims are, therefore, dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state law claims when the federal claims lack merit.

Wheat v. Jessamine Journal Newspaper · filed 1996-08-20(c)(3)

Wheat's supplemental state law claims were properly dismissed, because his federal claims have no merit.

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

Dees v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. · filed 1996-08-20(c)(3)

Since the federal issues pending in this litigation have been disposed, the Court believes that the remaining state law issues should be left to the courts of Georgia. The Court declines to retain discretionary supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of this case.

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

Graboski v. Guiliani · filed 1996-09-04(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of all the federal claims, it is appropriate to decline jurisdiction over these state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state claims to the court’s discretion after the federal claims are dismissed.

Aquinas v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 1996-09-26(c)(3)

Because plaintiff’s federal claims are being dismissed, the question of whether this Court should exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state claims is left to the Court’s discretion.

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

Moebus v. OB-GYN ASSOCIATES, INC. · filed 1996-09-03(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after resolving all federal claims.

Miss Dig System, Inc. v. Power Plus Engineering, Inc. · filed 1996-11-04(c)(3)

Thus, this court GRANTS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(a) and 1125(a) and DENIES PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(a) and 1125(a). ... Furthermore, this court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and DISMISSES PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Mutter v. Town of Salem · filed 1996-11-14(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all federal claims asserted by plaintiffs. The court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state claims, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Nowicki v. Bruff · filed 1996-12-03(c)(3)

Dismissal of plaintiff's pendent state law claims is affirmed given the dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims.

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

Westine v. Gonzales Const. · filed 1996-12-16(c)(3)

When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may properly decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed.

Street v. Corrections Corporation of America, Jimmy Turner, and Dexter Stephen · filed 1996-12-17(c)(3)

As supplemental jurisdiction over Street’s state law claims was lacking after dismissal of the federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Street’s state law claims.

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

Haley v. Virginia Commonwealth University · filed 1996-12-19(c)(3)

Even were the Court able to hear these state law claims, it would decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to hear them because, as is discussed below, all of Haley’s federal claims are being dismissed with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Barkauskie v. Indian River School District · filed 1996-12-27(c)(3)

To the extent Counts XVI through LVIII raise claims under state law the Court declines to exercise supplemental subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and those claims will be dismissed.

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

McClellan v. Cablevision of Connecticut, Inc. · filed 1997-01-06(c)(3)

Since the federal Cable Act claim is dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim is denied. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Federico v. Board of Education of the Public Schools · filed 1997-01-23(c)(3)

The only federal claims against defendants having been dismissed, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against them.

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

Cespedes v. Coughlin · filed 1997-02-07(c)(3)

This Court notes that if Cespedes’ motion to amend his Complaint was denied, or if Cespedes elects not to amend his Complaint after permission to do so is granted, this Court is not obligated to retain jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Evans v. Holiday Inns, Inc. · filed 1997-01-13(c)(3)

There is no diversity of citizenship jurisdiction in this case; jurisdiction over the state-law claims is clearly based on supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, since the federal claims have been finally resolved, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Federico v. BD. OF EDUC. OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS · filed 1997-01-23(c)(3)

The only federal claims against defendants having been dismissed, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against them.

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

Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. v. Ratcliff · filed 1997-01-24(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims brought in Counts IV through X in the Hutsell action.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves district courts discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claims.

Raber v. Southern Ohio Coal · filed 1997-02-12(c)(3)

The district court had the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdic- tion over the state law claim even after it dismissed the federal claims.

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

Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats Inc. v. State of NY · filed 1997-02-13(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs’ claims against the State under the RFRA and Section 1983 are dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims against the State under New York Civil Rights Law § 40-c and the New York State Constitution, Article 1, § 11.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims when it dismisses the federal claims that supplied the only basis for federal jurisdiction.

Emery v. American General Finance, Inc. · filed 1997-02-18(c)(3)

Because those counts are the only basis for federal jurisdiction, the court dismisses Count IV pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims after all federal claims are found to lack merit.

Hunter v. Smith · filed 1997-03-27(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the plaintiffs' supplemental state law claims, after all federal claims were found to be without merit. 28 U.S.C. § 1367, Hankins v. The Gap, Inc., 84 F.3d 797, 802-03 (6th Cir.1996).

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

Drew v. First Sav. of NH · filed 1997-04-02(c)(3)

As those claims form the sole basis for federal jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Rennard Street Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1997-04-02(c)(3)

In the instant case, this Court has dismissed the plaintiffs federal cause of action. Thus, it is appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when it dismisses the claims providing the sole basis for federal jurisdiction.

Drew v. First Sav. of New Hampshire · filed 1997-04-02(c)(3)

As those claims form the sole basis for federal jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hansen v. Vanderbilt University · filed 1997-04-11(c)(3)

As the Court dismisses with prejudice the federal claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs pending state claim.

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

Woelbling v. RC Wilson Co. · filed 1997-04-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise its authority to determine the merits of the same allegations as plaintiff asserts them under the MHRL. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725-26, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138-39, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (grants supplemental jurisdiction over state laws claims "that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution").

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all federal claims at a preliminary stage.

Friedlander v. Rhoades · filed 1997-04-28(c)(3)

Because all the federal claims have been dismissed at a preliminary stage, no reason remains to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the alleged state law claims. Hence, they are hereby dismissed.

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

Machos v. City of Manchester · filed 1997-05-09(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3), the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims set forth in plaintiffs' amended complaint (Counts 4 through 7), as they are based solely upon state law. Accordingly, those counts are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed.

Kerr v. Puckett · filed 1997-05-21(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because all federal claims are being dismissed, all supplemental state law claims are dismissed.

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

Nicole K. by & Through Peter K. v. Upper Perkiomen School District · filed 1997-05-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs federal claims, and lacking diversity jurisdiction, we decline to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Giannacopolous v. Credit Suisse · filed 1997-06-04(c)

In the absence of a federal claim, this court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims and dismiss the case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss a supplemental state-law claim after it dismisses the case’s federal claims.

Lewis v. Harris · filed 1997-06-05(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), however, the Court may now dismiss Count III because it has dismissed the Complaint’s only federal claims.

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

Moody Emergency Medical Service, Inc. v. City of Millbrook · filed 1997-06-12(c)(3)

Since the court finds that plaintiffs federal claims are due to be dismissed, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Sarantakis v. Village of Winthrop Harbor · filed 1997-06-26(c)(3)

This court, having granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Counts I, III, and IV, which are plaintiffs only federal question claims, declines jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority · filed 1997-07-28(c)

The jurisdiction of this Court over these state claims is supplemental premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). As the Court has determined that the Plaintiffs federal claims should be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims which remain.

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

Salinger v. Projectavision, Inc. · filed 1997-07-31(c)(3)

Because all of the claims arising under federal law are dismissed, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).