28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Verri v. Nanna · filed 1997-08-01(c)(3)

Since there are no remaining federal claims in this action, we decline to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction over Verri’s state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Fox v. Doran · filed 1997-08-04(c)(3)

The federal claims against the 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

BELL BY BELL v. Lennon · filed 1997-08-04(c)(3)

The federal claims having been dismissed, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it has disposed of all federal claims, particularly when the state claims are already pending in state court.

Bolt v. Norfolk Southern Corp. · filed 1997-07-31(c)(3)

In the absence of any remaining federal claims and in deference to this state proceeding, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Counts 3 and 4.

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

Ruiz v. Posadas · filed 1997-08-18(c)(3)

Finally, since the district court supportably dismissed the federal claims, it permissibly declined to retain, see 28 U.S.C. S 1367, supplemental jurisdiction of the pendent claim under Commonwealth "Law 100."

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

Ivan RUIZ, Et Al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. POSADAS DE SAN JUAN ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Appellee · filed 1997-08-18(c)(3)

Finally, since the district court supportably dismissed the federal claims, it permissibly declined to retain, ... supplemental jurisdiction of the pendent claim under Commonwealth “Law 100.”

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

In Re Merrill Lynch Ltd. Partnerships Litigation · filed 1997-08-25(c)(3)

Jurisdiction over the state law claims is therefore supplemental, and retention of jurisdiction over them is discretionary. ... Therefore, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Burgess v. George Logan Dave Adams Ken Devoe Greg Olzak Richard Rogers Dennis Anderson Andy Krotik Tom Liberty M · filed 1997-08-28(c)(3)

Given the district court's dismissal of Burgess's federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion by dismissing his pendant state claims.

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

Sodexho USA, Inc. v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union · filed 1997-09-03(c)(3)

Defendants contend that if the court dismisses plaintiffs federal claim it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). An examination of the statutory grounds permitting the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction results in the conclusion that declining supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate in this case.

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

Southwest Williamson County Community Ass'n v. Slater · filed 1997-09-15(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed all federal claims, declines to take supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in Count Four.

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

Bridges v. Kelly · filed 1997-09-26(b)

As to any state law claims contained within the complaint, because all the federal claims are dismissed, this Court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) to decline jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Costello v. Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission · filed 1997-10-15(c)(3)

There is no need to consider the second, third, or fifth grounds in detail, because the first and fourth are dispositive of the remaining federal claims, and, once the federal claims are dismissed, a sound exercise of discretion permits dismissal of the pendant state claims as well.

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

Boston Scientific Corp. v. Schneider (Europe) AG · filed 1997-10-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the state claims as well under 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 the federal claims.

Angelico v. Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc. · filed 1997-10-28(c)(3)

Plaintiffs remaining claims are state law claims over which we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state claims after it dismisses all federal claims.

Johnston v. Town of Greece · filed 1997-11-12(c)(3)

Finally, because Johnston’s federal claims are dismissed in their entirety, I hereby dismiss all of his supplemental state claims as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of supplemental state law claims to the district court’s discretion after the federal claims are dismissed, even when the state law claims are ready for decision.

Pamela K. Larsen and Peter A. Larsen v. City of Beloit, Daniel T. Kelley, and Richard v. Holm · filed 1997-12-05(c)

The decision to dismiss supplemental state law claims is discretionary; this Court will reverse only if the decision was based upon an erroneous view of the law or upon clearly erroneous factual findings.

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

Watson v. Cencom Cable Income Partners · filed 1997-12-08(c)(3)

As the Court dismisses with prejudice the federal claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s pending state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, especially when unresolved state law issues favor resolution in state court.

Bauchman v. West High School · filed 1997-12-18(c)(3)

Instead, we conclude the district court abused its discretion by exercising jurisdiction over those claims and remand Ms. Bauchman’s state law claims to the district court with instructions to dismiss without prejudice for want of federal jurisdiction.

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

Estate of Brouhard Ex Rel. Brouhard v. Village of Oxford · filed 1997-12-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims which, arguably, were asserted by plaintiff, this Court 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 if no viable federal claim remains.

Pearson v. Miller · filed 1997-12-31(c)(3)

If, however, plaintiff does not file an amended complaint alleging viable federal civil rights claims within the time period allotted in this order, Counts V, VI and VIII will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Roberson v. Wexford Health · filed 1998-01-06(c)(3)

The district court properly refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Roberson’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Rhyne v. Henderson County, 973 F.3d 386, 395 (5th Cir. 1992).

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

Youells v. Hitchcock · filed 1998-01-15(c)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s other claims because they are based solely upon state law, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and hereby remands those state claims to the Grafton County Superior Court.

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

Leptich v. City College of San Francisco · filed 1998-01-15(c)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) provides that where all federal claims have been disposed of, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state claim is unwarranted. While the district court had the power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Leptich's state law claim even though no federal claims remained, it is well within the discretion of the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

Jones v. Bd. of Educ. of Washington County · filed 1998-01-30(c)(3)

Similarly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims under Md.Code Ann., Educ. § 8-413(c)(2)(ii). See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Glass v. Fairman · filed 1998-02-12(c)

However, since the court dismisses Glass’ federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Glass’ state claims.

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

Clifford v. Hughson · filed 1998-02-04(c)(3)

Additionally, we decline to hear plaintiffs’ state claims, because the Court has no basis for federal jurisdiction.

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

Davies v. Genesis Medical Center · filed 1998-02-12(c)(3)

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

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

Castellano v. City of New York · filed 1998-02-24(c)(3)

In light of the district courts’ proper dismissals of the federal claims of all of these appellants, save Velardi, those courts did not abuse their discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

WHS Entertainment Ventures v. United Paperworkers International Union · filed 1998-03-11(c)(3)

A district court may in its discretion decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims if the court has dismissed all federal claims.

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

L.C. Development Co. v. Lincoln County · filed 1998-03-13(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss plaintiffs federal claims, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over its state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

George v. County of San Diego · filed 1998-03-17(c)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to retain supplemental jurisdiction over appellants' state law claims once it dismissed their federal claims.

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

Wesley v. Howard University · filed 1998-03-05(c)(3)

My conclusion, for the reasons set forth below, is that all of plaintiffs federal claims fail as a matter of law. I will decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and remand the remaining issues to the Superi- or Court for the District of Columbia.

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

Langman Fabrics v. Samsung America, Inc. · filed 1998-03-16(c)(3)

Because my Order and Opinion disposed of all the federal claims in this case, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law counterclaims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Frooks v. Town of Cortlandt · filed 1998-03-11(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims against each of the defendants, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after dismissing the federal claims when the state claims are not of federal concern.

Davis v. Cole · filed 1998-03-20(a)

Although the Court may at its discretion retain jurisdiction over the nine remaining state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), it declines to do so. The remaining counts in the complaint are not of federal concern and will not be addressed by this Court.

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

Butler v. New York State Department of Law · filed 1998-03-25(c)(3)

Because her federal claims have been dismissed this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her 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 claims after dismissing all federal claims, subject to abuse-of-discretion review.

The Estate of Amory v. Harris · filed 1998-04-06(c)(3)

We, therefore, conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. See Anglemyer v. Hamilton County Hosp., 58 F.3d 533, 541 (10th Cir. 1995) (reviewing for abuse of discretion); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that when all federal claims are dismissed, district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state claims).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when the remaining state law issues are best resolved by state courts.

Puglise v. Cobb County, Ga. · filed 1998-04-08(c)(3)

This Court finds that the state law claims remaining in this action are best resolved by the Georgia state courts. The remaining claims raise issues of state law only, including state law regarding sovereign and official immunity, that do not implicate federal interests in any manner. Because 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) tolls the state statute of limitations, there is no unfairness to plaintiffs resulting from dismissal.

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

Toms v. Pizzo · filed 1998-04-09(c)(3)

In the absence of Tom’s federal claims, only his state law claims remain. Because no diversity jurisdiction exists — see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) — I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. 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.

Mills v. Meadows · filed 1998-04-16(c)(3)

In light of my rulings dismissing all of Mills’ federal claims, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mills’ state law claims and will dismiss them.

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

Wilkins v. Gomez · filed 1998-04-23(c)(3)

With respect to the Wilkins' state law claims, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise jurisdiction over the claims after all the federal claims had been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 84 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir.1996).

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

Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp. · filed 1998-05-01(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), we also have discretion to decline jurisdiction over any and all pendent state law claims once all federal claims have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a state-law claim after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Bennett Electric Co. v. Village of Miami Shores · filed 1998-05-06(c)(3)

Nonetheless, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ Commerce Clause and Sherman Act claims, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the staté law claim for declaratory relief.

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

Fisher v. Maryland Department of Housing & Community Development · filed 1998-05-14(c)(3)

In light of my ruling dismissing all of Fisher’s federal claims, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fisher’s state law claims and will dismiss them.

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

Bartell v. Lohiser · filed 1998-07-01(c)

All of the federal claims having been dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs pendant state law claims, pled in counts five through seven, which hereby are DISMISSED 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 all federal claims are dismissed.

Johnston v. Ardmore Ind. School · filed 1998-07-15(c)(3)

Having disposed of the federal claims on which jurisdiction rested, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state law claims. See § 1367(c)(3) (stating that when all federal claims are dismissed, district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state claims).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after it disposes of all federal claims.

DeMarco v. Cuyahoga County Department of Human Services · filed 1998-07-24(c)(3)

Because pendent jurisdiction is principally associated with federal question jurisdiction, where the existence of a federal claim supports jurisdiction of a pendent state claim, disposition of the federal claim allows the district court to exercise its discretion to allow any unresolved state claims to be heard in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims (Counts III, IV, and V) and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Lancaster v. Independent School District No. 5 · filed 1998-07-28(c)(3)

Under these circumstances, the district court may decline to exercise continuing “pendent” or supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state claims.

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

McGee v. City of Warrensville Heights · filed 1998-07-30(c)(3)

Because pendent jurisdiction is principally associated with federal question jurisdiction, where the existence of a federal claim supports jurisdiction of a pendent state claim, disposition of the federal claim allows the district court to exercise its discretion to allow any unresolved state claims to be heard in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claim in 97-CV-2312, and dismisses Count II of the Wallace complaint without prejudice.

When federal claims are reinstated on appeal, a decision declining supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims because the federal claims were dismissed must be vacated.

Menkowitz v. Pottstown Memorial Medical Center · filed 1998-08-24(c)

We will also vacate the order of the district court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over appellant's state law claims, in light of our determination with respect to appellant's federal claims.

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

Howell v. Anne Arundel County · filed 1998-07-29(c)(3)

The federal claims having thus been eliminated from the case, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Putnam Pit, Inc. v. City of Cookeville · filed 1998-09-21(c)(3)

As the Court dismisses with prejudice the plaintiffs’ federal claims against the defendants, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ pending state claim involving the Tennessee Public Records Act.

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

Battle v. City of Florala · filed 1998-10-06(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims and the court chooses not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, it is further CONSIDERED and ORDERED that this case be and the same is hereby REMANDED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to the Circuit Court of Coving-ton County, Alabama.

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

Shenandoah v. United States Department of the Interior · filed 1998-10-06(c)(3)

In light of our affirmance of the dismissal of all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these New York state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after the federal claims are dismissed, subject to abuse-of-discretion review.

Darlene F. Chambers v. Schriro · filed 1998-09-04(c)(3)

Insofar as Ms. Chambers raises the issue, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Coffey v. County of Hennepin · filed 1998-09-10(c)(3)

However, when all federal claims have been dismissed, the court has discretion to dismiss the state claims as well. ... Because this Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on all of plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III-VI.

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

Corr v. MTA Long Island Bus · filed 1998-10-16(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines, in the exercise of its discretion, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Medgar Evers Houses Tenants Ass'n v. Medgar Evers Houses Associates, L.P. · filed 1998-10-23(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of the federal claims, it is appropriate to decline jurisdiction over these state 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 claims that provided federal jurisdiction, particularly when the remaining matter is better left to state courts.

Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Strand · filed 1998-11-13(c)(3)

Since this Court has now dismissed the other counts which provided a basis for federal jurisdiction and because the matter asserted is the type of matter better left to the state courts, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the claim and dismisses the claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Serbalik v. Gray · filed 1998-11-17(c)(3)

The federal claims against the Grays having been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Clemons v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 1998-11-25(c)(3)

Accordingly, as the Court dismisses with prejudice the federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs pending state claims under the THRA.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts wide discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Robertson v. the Neuromedical Center · filed 1998-12-03(c)(3)

However, it is clear that a district court has wide discretion to refuse to hear a pendent state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United States v. Capeletti Bros., Inc., 621 F.2d 1309, 1317-18 (5th Cir.1980). We will therefore reverse a district court's decision to remand pendent state law claims after dismissing all remaining federal claims only upon a finding of abuse of this "wide" discretion.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss pendent state claims after the supporting federal claims are dismissed.

Trustees of Boston University v. ASM Communications, Inc. · filed 1998-12-04(c)

Section 1367(a) gives the Court discretion to dismiss pendent state claims where the supporting federal claims are dismissed.

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

Wright v. Department of Corrections · filed 1998-12-14(c)(3)

However, because the federal causes of action that gave rise to this court’s jurisdiction are no longer viable, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Wullschleger v. Peters · filed 1998-11-20(c)(3)

To the extent that the plaintiff asserts claims founded on state law, I will dismiss those claims without prejudice because I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them now that all the federal claims have been resolved.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss a remaining supplemental claim when no federal claim remains.

Spetalieri v. Kavanaugh · filed 1998-12-22(c)(3)

In the event plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint, the Eighth Cause of Action against Hardin will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Thomas v. Dugan · filed 1998-12-31(c)(3)

Because Appellants' federal claims were properly dismissed, so were the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (1994).

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

Rotec Industries, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp. · filed 1999-01-12(c)(3)

Based upon these considerations, this court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claim.

United States v. Gasification · filed 1999-01-14(c)(3)

This Court has said the decision of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of a federal claim is discretionary under 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 claim.

Korshin v. Benedictine Hospital · filed 1999-02-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claim, there remains no independent basis for federal jurisdiction and, thus, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not appropriate and the Second Cause of Action asserting state law claims must also be dismissed.

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

Moore v. Board of Educ. for Talbott County · filed 1999-01-27(c)

Therefore, defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to that claim. As to Moore’s state law claims, I shall decline, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise jurisdiction.

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

Warden v. Pataki · filed 1999-02-11(c)(3)

Whatever their merit under state law, in light of my dismissal of plaintiffs’ federal claims, I decline to maintain jurisdiction over Chan’s additional claims.

Section 1367(d) tolls the limitations period for state law claims brought under supplemental jurisdiction for at least 30 days after dismissal.

Estate of Burke v. Mahanoy City · filed 1999-03-03(d)

On the contrary, the statute of limitations on Plaintiffs state law claims is tolled for a minimum of 30 days from the date of dismissal. With the codification of supplemental jurisdiction, Congress has allowed for the dismissal of state claims, arising under article III jurisdiction and brought under § 1367(a), to benefit from a tolling of the statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when no other basis for federal jurisdiction remains.

Keith v. Black Diamond Advisors, Inc. · filed 1999-03-08(c)(3)

For the reasons set forth above, Keith’s securities fraud claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Keith has no other ground for federal jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

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

Nadalin v. Automobile Recovery Bureau, Inc. · filed 1999-03-12(c)(3)

He has in fact made a claim under that law, but the district court properly relinquished the claim to the state court when it dismissed the federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Fleming v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. · filed 1999-02-11(c)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Fleming’s and Bimler’s remaining state-law claims and directs the Clerk to REMAND this action to state court.

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

Santiago Ex Rel. Muniz v. Hernandez · filed 1999-04-29(c)(3)

As a consequence of the dismissal of plaintiffs’ federal claims against the City, only plaintiffs’ state law claims against the City and Hernandez remain. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state claims.

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

Snyder v. City of Lima · filed 1999-05-14(c)(3)

Because I am dismissing all of plaintiffs federal claims, I may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Three of the claims involve complex issues of state public policy, and I believe they can be addressed more appropriately in state court. Plaintiffs state law claims shall be dismissed, without prejudice, to be refiled in state court.

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

Pesso v. General · filed 1999-05-24(c)(3)

Having affirmed the dismissal of all federal claims, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to exercise supple- mental jurisdiction over Pesso's state law claims.

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

Geidel v. City of Bradenton Beach · filed 1999-06-09(c)(3)

At this time, the Court has determined that all federal causes of action are to be dismissed, with leave to amend. Therefore, there remains only state causes of action, over which the Court will not retain jurisdiction unless a federal cause of action is found to exist.

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

Depiero v. City Of Macedonia · filed 1999-06-23(c)(3)

The statute also permits district courts, in their discretion, to dismiss pendent state law claims if all federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Soltis v. Kotenski · filed 1999-07-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Reyes v. FCC National Bank (In Re Reyes) · filed 1999-07-13(c)

Having rejected plaintiffs federal claims, the court has no jurisdiction to address her supplemental state law claims.

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

Roberts v. Cohn · filed 1999-07-16(c)(3)

The plaintiffs have failed to sustain any of their federal claims against the defendants and summary judgment will be granted in the defendants’ favor. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims will be dismissed.

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

Froelich v. CITY OF NEWTON, KAN. · filed 1999-06-17(c)(3)

By granting summary judgement on the plaintiffs two federal claims, it will be unnecessary for the court to review the plaintiffs state law claims. ... While, the court does have discretion whether to exercise supplementary jurisdiction, “Notions of comity and federalism demand that a state court try its own lawsuits, absent compelling reasons to the contrary.” ... There are no compelling reasons to retain jurisdiction of the state law claims in this case.

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

LaMay v. Town of Bloomfield · filed 1999-07-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Person v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 1999-08-19(c)(3)

However, this court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim. 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 the federal claims.

Modesto Irrigation District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. · filed 1999-08-20(c)(3)

Finally, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to section 1367(c)(3) over the remaining state law claims and DISMISSES these claims without prejudice.

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

Forant v. Cabot Creamery Cooperative, Inc. · filed 1999-08-23(c)(3)

The federal claims in this lawsuit having been dismissed, the Court hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in Counts VII, VIII, IX and X, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gurary v. Winehouse · filed 1999-08-24(c)(3)

The district court's dismissal of the state law claims for lack of jurisdiction once it correctly dismissed the federal claims was entirely appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Sibley v. Lemaire · filed 1999-08-24(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the court has dismissed all claims over which it had pendent jurisdiction.

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

Hahn v. McKENZIE CHECK ADVANCE OF ILLINOIS, LLC · filed 1999-08-25(c)(3)

Hahn’s federal claims are dismissed. As to the remaining state law claims, e.g., claim for unconscionability and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the Court finds that it has no independent jurisdiction over them. The Court also declines to exercise jurisdiction over these claims. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the remaining state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Baldwin v. Kulch, et al. · filed 1999-08-26(c)

As plaintiffs' federal claims are hereby dismissed, and the amount in controversy does not meet the minimum reguired to establish diversity jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law claims.

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

Vargas v. Colon · filed 1999-09-07(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and ... the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Commonwealth claims against the Defendants.

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

Tufano v. One Toms Point Lane Corp. · filed 1999-09-13(c)(3)

In addition, to the extent Plaintiff can allege a valid state law claim, which he has not done herein, the Court elects not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Friedman v. Wheat First Securities Inc. · filed 1999-09-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims brought by plaintiffs, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims and dismisses those 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 dismissing all federal claims.

Katzman v. Khan · filed 1999-09-17(c)(3)

As all of plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and the claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Alberter v. McDonald's Corp. · filed 1999-09-20(c)(3)

The court will therefore dismiss all federal claims. 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 claims when no viable federal claims remain.

Veale v. USA, et al. · filed 1999-09-01(c)(3)

Nevertheless, it is sufficient to say that since no viable federal causes of action exist, this court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Holland v. Pinkerton Security · filed 1999-09-23(c)

Having summarily decided all federal claims against Plaintiff, I now decline, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state tort law claims.

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

Hines v. Hillside Children's Center · filed 1999-09-28(c)(3)

There being no federal claims remaining in any of these cases, I 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 after dismissing the federal cause of action.

Stetz v. Reeher Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1999-10-07(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs’ federal cause of action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Abdullah Ex Rel. Abdullah v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY · filed 1999-11-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the ... federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(8).

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

Chavez v. Propp · filed 1999-11-09(c)(3)

If the district court was correct in dismissing Chavezes’ federal claims, it did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Chavezes’ state claims.

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

Rau v. City of Garden Plain · filed 1999-11-19(c)(3)

Now that this court has dismissed all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the reasonableness claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The court, therefore, remands plaintiffs’ remaining claim to Sedgwick County District Court.

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

Nieves v. McSweeney · filed 1999-11-02

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims as asserted in Counts IX and XI and transfers said counts to the Superior Court for Middlesex County.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has resolved all federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims.

Taylor v. Luper, Sheriff & Niedenthal Co., LPA · filed 1999-11-15(c)(3)

Now that the court has concluded that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ federal claims, this court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... However, these claims raise novel, complex and important issues of state law. The court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Shegog v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago · filed 1999-10-18(c)(3)

If the judge concludes that it is sound, he should provide appropriate relief and then either relinquish supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), or defer further proceedings until the state courts have had an opportunity to address the main state-law question.

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

Pisciotti v. County of Wayne · filed 1999-12-21(c)

To the extent that plaintiff is attempting to assert claims under state law pursuant to this court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), I decline to exercise such jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after resolving all federal-law issues.

Marin v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2004-12-07(c)(3)

The Court, having resolved all federal law issues, declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Wilson v. Watters · filed 2004-12-10(c)(3)

Because petitioner has not made out a claim arising under federal law, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

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

Muti v. Schmidt · filed 2004-12-29(c)(3)

As there are no redressable federal claims remaining, the District Court appropriately declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Muti’s state-law claims.

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

Wisneski v. Nassau Health Care Corp. · filed 2003-12-09(c)(3)

Plaintiff has also alleged a cause of action under New York law. The Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over those claims due to the supplemental jurisdiction provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Nonetheless, due to the Court’s decision supra, the Court declines to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction over those state law issues. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After dismissing the federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim that requires a separate legal analysis.

Estate of Levinson v. Mucker · filed 2003-10-27(c)(3)

However, since the only remaining outrage claim raises distinctly state law questions, the Court elects not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses the outrage claim without prejudice.

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

Carpenter v. City of Chicago · filed 2003-11-06(c)(3)

Mr. Carpenter’s only federal claim against the city fails, and I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Stein v. JP Morgan Chase Bank · filed 2003-08-27(c)(3)

When, as here, the federal claims in a case are dismissed, leaving only state law claims, it is within the discretion of the district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Alder v. Correctional Medical Services · filed 2003-08-27(c)(3)

Having found no basis for federal jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over any supplemental state law claim.

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

Violett v. Reynolds · filed 2003-09-05(c)(3)

Finally, having found no basis for federal jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over any supplemental state law claim.

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

Tackett v. Marion County Fair Board · filed 2003-06-26(c)(3)

This court, in its discretion, declines to exercise jurisdiction over this state-law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Curtis v. Sandia Casino · filed 2003-06-17(c)(3)

With the failure of the federal claims, the district court correctly declined ... supplemental jurisdiction over the state court 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 the federal claims.

Sheehy v. Palmateer · filed 2003-06-18(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sheehy’s state law claims after dismissing his federal claims.

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

Curtis v. City of Bullhead · filed 2003-06-19(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Curtises’ state law claims because it had dismissed all the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) precludes supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim when dismissal of the claim meeting the diversity amount leaves no independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Louis Dolente & Sons v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Corp. · filed 2003-03-24(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim appearing in Count I.

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

Doe v. Harrison · filed 2003-03-24(c)(3)

As plaintiff and defendants are citizens of New York for purposes of this action, there does not exist federal jurisdiction over these claims on the grounds of diversity. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Doe’s remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction once the federal claim has been resolved.

ISI Int'l Inc v. Ladner · filed 2003-01-21(c)(3)

Indeed, even if we were to de- clare that the district court abused its discretion by using the doctrine of forum non conveniens, that court would be free to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction now that the claim under federal law has been resolved, see 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3), a step that would have the same prac- tical effect as the use of forum non conveniens.

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

Schilling v. WISCONSIN DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES · filed 2003-01-09(c)(3)

Because only state law claims remain in this lawsuit among plaintiffs and defendant State of Wisconsin, I will remand this case to state court. Although the State of Wisconsin asserts in its counterclaim that this court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the state law claims, I decline to exercise that jurisdiction. See Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 500 (7th Cir.1999) (district court has discretion to retain or refuse jurisdiction over state law claims).

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

Conboy v. at & T Corp. · filed 2000-02-04(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims brought by plaintiffs, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims and dismisses those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Watson v. Dorsey · filed 2000-02-29(c)

Because the district court properly dismissed Watson’s federal law claims, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Watson’s state law claim concerning breach of the settlement agreement.

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

Mormile v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · filed 2000-03-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims in Counts Three, Four and Five, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts One and Two pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Plaintiffs state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Mercure v. Van Buren Township · filed 2000-01-31(c)(3)

Having resolved all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims.

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

N.A.M.I. (National Alliance of Mentally Ill of Essex) v. Essex County Board of Freeholders · filed 2000-04-11(c)(3)

Having found that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims without need to address them on their merits. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Fitch v. Solipsys Corp. · filed 2000-04-06(c)(3)

Having thus disposed of all of the federal claims in this case, I shall exercise my discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to dismiss, without prejudice, Fitch’s state claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims after the federal claim is dismissed if the federal claim was substantial at the outset.

United International Holdings, Inc. v. Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. · filed 2000-04-28(a)

Thus, a district court has the constitutional power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims even after a federal claim has been dismissed, provided the federal claim was not insubstantial from the outset.

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

Lopos v. Ruocco · filed 2000-05-03(c)(3)

Consequently, this Court adheres to its earlier decision (a copy of which is annexed herewith) and grants judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiffs federal discrimination claims. The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim that supported jurisdiction.

Florida Country Clubs, Inc. v. Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. · filed 2000-05-23(c)(3)

Due to the dismissal of Count I of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Counts II, III, IV, and V of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, all of which assert violations of Florida law. 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 the federal claims.

Poling v. K. Hovnanian Enterprises · filed 2000-05-24(c)(3)

Having found that plaintiffs have failed to state a federal cause of action and that this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ state law claims, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over such claims and they are dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to plead them in state court.

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

Bruker v. City of New York · filed 2000-04-27(c)(3)

However, a court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if ... (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the Catholic Home Bureau under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Wiskur v. Short Term Loans, LLC · filed 2000-05-05(c)(3)

To the extent that the court could assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the court declines to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when no federal claims survive.

Western Mohegan Tribe and Nation v. New York · filed 2000-05-25(c)(3)

In the absence of any surviving federal claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state claims. ... Since this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction rested on unsustainable federal claims, supplemental jurisdiction is inappropriate.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, taking account of how far the litigation has progressed.

Nwanze v. Philip Morris Inc. · filed 2000-06-07(c)(3)

Although federal courts have the authority to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims after the dismissal of all federal claims, we also have the authority to decline to exercise such jurisdiction. ... Although this case has now been open and pending in this Court for nearly three years, the litigation is not in an advanced stage. No discovery has occurred. ... In these circumstances, we see no hardship in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Grand Design Golf, Ltd. v. Glinstra · filed 2000-06-15(c)(3)

Because the court finds dismissal appropriate with respect to each of plaintiffs’ claims arising under federal law, the court declines to exercise its discretion to address the merits of plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Butler v. Snyder · filed 2000-07-25(c)(3)

Finally, having decided that all of Butler’s federal claims must be dismissed, the court will exercise its discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that Butler may have attempted to assert in his complaint.

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

Maio v. Aetna Inc. · filed 2000-08-11(c)(3)

Given the result we reach on the federal claims, the district court acted well within its discretion in dismissing appellants' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1367(c)(3).

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

Tucker v. County of Jefferson · filed 2000-08-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed the remainder of Plaintiff's federal claims on summary judgment, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain pending.

Sebastian International, Inc. v. Russolillo · filed 2000-08-25(c)(3)

Defendants have also moved the Court to dismiss the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); however these motions are moot as the Court has not dismissed all of Sebastian’s federal trademark claims.

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

Doe I v. Unocal Corp. · filed 2000-08-31(c)

Having determined that summary judgment should be granted on all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court must decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if all the federal claims have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claim cannot proceed.

United Derrickmen & Riggers Assoc. Local Union No. 197 of the International Ass'n of Bridge v. Local No. 1 Bricklayers & · filed 2000-09-14(c)(3)

Plaintiffs pendent state claims cannot proceed because the District Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is based upon an unsustainable federal claim, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Cipolla v. County of Rensselaer · filed 2000-09-14(c)(3)

Moreover, because there are no longer federal claims in this ... case, the Court declines 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 the federal claims.

Brown v. Society for the Preservation & Encouragement of Barber Shop Quartet Singing in America, Inc. · filed 2000-09-22(c)(3)

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

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

Lewis v. United Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2000-09-28(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if all federal claims have been dismissed. ... Having found that Plaintiff has failed to state a federal cause of action and as this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs state law claims, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.