28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Matthews v. Ely State Prison · filed 2019-11-05(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims.

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

Pizarro v. United States of America · filed 2019-11-05(c)(3)

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

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

Hoeller v. Carroll University · filed 2019-11-27(c)(3)

Having found that Plaintiff’s federal questions are improperly before the federal court, and in light of the fact that the parties are both citizens of Wisconsin, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Talley v. Mazzocca · filed 2019-11-27(c)

Because the District Court properly dismissed all federal claims, its refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Talley’s state-law claims constituted a proper exercise of its discretion.

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

McKeefry v. Town of Bedford · filed 2019-12-02(c)(3)

Having determined that all of the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law causes of action.

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

Blondin v. Bedford County Sheriff's Department · filed 2019-12-02(c)(3)

Because all of Plaintiffs federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law negligence claims raised by the complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the federal claims against that defendant are dismissed when a federal claim against another defendant survives.

Byrne v. City Of Chicago · filed 2019-12-05(c)(3)

Schuler seeks dismissal only on the ground that the court should invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim upon dismissing all of Byrne’s federal claims. Doc. 42 at 6. Because Byrne’s Monell claim against the City survives dismissal, Schuler’s argument for dismissing the negligence claim fails.

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

Estavillo v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2019-12-05(c)(3)

After dismissing Plaintiff’s ADA claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 1723.

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

Sharp v. Grisham · filed 2019-12-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Under § 1367(c)(3), a court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Davis v. Chisholm · filed 2019-12-11(c)(3)

Furthermore, with no cognizable federal claim, this court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Davis’s Wisconsin 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 law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Silva v. Yosemite Community College District · filed 2019-12-17(c)(3)

As all federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines 23 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

After all federal claims are dismissed, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remand them, with relinquishment ordinarily appropriate absent exceptional circumstances.

Miller v. LaPorte County of The · filed 2019-12-17(c)(3)

I don’t see any exceptional circumstances in this case. Thus, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Those claims will be remanded to state court for adjudication.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, where the case is at an early stage and the remaining issues are better resolved by state courts.

James v. Bleigh Construction Company · filed 2019-12-18(c)(3)

Here, after consideration of the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. This case is in its early stages, and the only remaining claims involve questions of state law that would be better determined by the Missouri state courts. Accordingly, Plaintiff's state law claims will be remanded to state court.

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

Bonds v. Jack Casino · filed 2019-12-18(c)(3)

In addition, because plaintiff's federal law claims should be dismissed, the Court would no longer have original jurisdiction and should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, plaintiffs state law claim should be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Martin v. Julian · filed 2019-12-19(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims raised in the complaint.

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

Seymore v. Department of Revenue CSE · filed 2019-12-20(c)(3)

Even assuming these are properly pled, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(¢)(3), the Court exercises its discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Dismissal of all claims within original jurisdiction permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim.

DAY v. STATE OF MAINE · filed 2019-12-20(c)(3)

The Court is dismissing Mr. Day’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and so is without jurisdiction to hear Mr. Day’s state law breach of contract claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial, ordinarily leaving the state claims dismissed without prejudice.

Byrne v. Aurora Health Care Inc · filed 2019-12-23(c)(3)

With the ADA claim dismissed, only Byrne’s cessation of health care benefits claim under Wis. Stat. 109.075 remains. I will follow the general rule by relinquishing jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claim. See Redwood v. Dobson, 476 F.3d 462, 467 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)) (“A court that resolves all federal claims before trial normally should dismiss supplemental claims without prejudice.”). Thus, Byrne’s state law claim is dismissed without prejudice.

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

Ramos v. Martinez · filed 2019-12-23(c)(3)

A district court’s decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction is discretionary. ... This Court is dismissing all federal claims in this case. To the extent that the Complaint can be construed as alleging medical negligence claims under New Mexico law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ramos’ state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

After dismissal of all federal claims, supplemental state-law claims may be dismissed without prejudice, and limitations for timely filed state-law claims are tolled for thirty days after dismissal unless state law provides a longer tolling period.

Rafiy v. The County of Nassau · filed 2019-12-23(c)(3), (d)

... the County Defendants are granted judgment as a matter of law dismissing plaintiff’s federal claims against them in their entirety with prejudice; and plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), the statute of limitations for any state law claims timely filed in this Court is tolled for a period of thirty (30) days after the date of this order unless a longer tolling period is otherwise provided under state law.

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

Thompson v. Hammond City · filed 2019-12-30(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the only federal law claims asserted in this case, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Sgt. Bivona and Officer Barthelemy, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law causes of action for false arrest, false imprisonment and defamation.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, supplemental jurisdiction must be declined unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness provides an affirmative justification for retaining it.

BROWN v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ROSE TREE MEDIA SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2019-12-30(c)(3)

“Where the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” ... With respect to the state law claims for battery, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, we shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Evans v. Digiovanni · filed 2019-12-30(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff alleges a state law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it as the alleged federal constitutional claim is being dismissed.

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

Montgomery v. Ferentino · filed 2019-12-31(c)(3)

The statute contains an express provision that permits the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

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

Vann Ex Rel. Vann v. Stewart · filed 2006-06-05(c)(3)

Turning to plaintiffs state law claims, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Because the Court will dismiss the claims over which it has original jurisdiction in this case, the will Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims against defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction on nonjurisdictional grounds.

Holzer v. Prudential Equity Group LLC · filed 2007-01-31(c)(3)

However, it is within the district court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims, on non-jurisdictional grounds, over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an attorney-client fee dispute after the original federal claims have been dismissed.

Seymour v. Carol Hug, Appeal of Leslie v. Matlaw · filed 2007-05-03(c)(3)

There is no need for the district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this dispute because the original federal claims have already been dismissed.

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

Williams v. Savage · filed 2008-08-05(c)(3)

The court, therefore, has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ fraud and negligence claims.

When dismissal of the claims within original jurisdiction is reversed, state law claims over which the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction are remanded for consideration.

Johnson v. CH Energy Group, Inc. · filed 2009-11-17(c)(3)

In any event, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). Since we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing the action, we also remand for consideration of the claims under the New York Executive Law.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction when the claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction remain pending.

New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2009-12-23(c)(3)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs federal claims is denied, and the motion to dismiss the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) is denied as moot.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental claims without prejudice after the claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Muscarello v. Ogle County Board of Commissioners · filed 2010-06-24(c)(3)

The district court was thus entitled to dismiss those claims without prejudice under § 1367(c)(3).

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

Brown v. Holladay · filed 2013-01-14(c)

According to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Here, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Brown’s claims under the ACRA.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over local-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, but leaves that choice to the court’s discretion.

Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham · filed 2013-12-11(c)

Even if it lacks diversity jurisdiction, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the local law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Shekoyan v. Sibley Int’l, 409 F.3d 414, 423 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which the court had original jurisdiction is “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1862, 1866 (2009).

After pretrial disposition of the federal claims, dismissal of supplemental state-law claims without prejudice is particularly appropriate when the state cause of action is undergoing development.

Ball v. Renner · filed 1995-05-10(c)(3)

Under those circumstances the most common response to a pretrial disposition of federal claims has been to dismiss the state law claim or claims without prejudice--that is the seminal teaching of United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), reconfirmed in Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S.Ct. 614, 619, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988) and repeated in a host of cases such as Sawyer v. County of Creek, 908 F.2d 663, 668 (10th Cir.1990). That concept has been codified in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3), part of the supplemental jurisdiction enactment in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367. ... Where a state law cause of action is thus in a process of current evolution, it is particularly appropriate for the federal courts to leave the continuing development and application of that cause of action to the state courts. ... We simply reverse the summary judgment entered by the district court on the state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, remanding that claim with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice.

State law claims dismissed under § 1367(c)(3) must be reinstated on remand when the dismissal of federal claims is reversed.

Bonenberger v. Plymouth Township · filed 1997-12-17(c)(3)

On remand, the district court is directed to reinstate plaintiffs' state law claims. ... 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to "decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim ... if [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction...."

Section 1367(c)(3) does not authorize declining supplemental jurisdiction merely because all federal claims have been tried and resolved in favor of the plaintiff.

Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc. · filed 2006-10-24(c)(3)

A plain reading of the word “dismissed” in section 1367(c)(3) does not include when all federal claims have been tried and resolved in favor of the plaintiff.

Dismissal of supplemental state-law claims under § 1367(c)(3) based on dismissal of all federal claims must be reversed when a federal claim is reinstated on appeal.

Carmichael v. Galbraith · filed 2014-06-19(c)(3)

After the district court dismissed the Carmichaels’ federal-law claims, it then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state- law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 16 Because we reverse the district court’s dismissal of the Title IX claims, we likewise reverse dismissal of the state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims at an early stage after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction and provides 30 days of limitations tolling for the dismissed state claims.

Residences at Bay Point Condominium Ass'n v. Standard Fire Insurance · filed 2014-08-28(c)(3), (d)

In light of the relatively early stage of proceedings before this Court, the fact that all of the remaining counts of the Second Amended Complaint concern matters of New Jersey state law, and the fact that at least one of the remaining defendants is a citizen of the State of New Jersey, it is appropriate for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Amended Complaint. ... There being no further independent basis for federal jurisdiction in this case, the Court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismisses the remainder of the state law claims in the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice and tolls the period of limitations for the dismissed state law claims for a period of 30 days, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed before trial, upon consideration of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Thomley v. City of Daleville · filed 2020-01-03(c)(3)

Where all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, district courts are encouraged to dismiss any remaining state-law claims. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088– 89 (11th Cir. 2004). Before dismissing the remaining state-law claims, the Court must consider the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. See Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Labs., Inc., 803 F.3d 518, 537 (11th Cir. 2015). “Both comity and economy are served when issues of state law are resolved by state courts.” Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 279 F.3d 1271, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002). “Federal courts are (and should be) loath to wade into uncharted waters of state law, and should only do so when absolutely necessary to the disposition of a case.” Ameritox, 803 F.3d at 540. Indeed, the Supreme Court has declared that “[n]eedless decisions of state law should be avoided as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). In this case, there are state-law immunity issues which are best resolved by the state courts. Further, there is nothing before the Court to suggest that the remaining factors––convenience and fairness––weigh in favor of retaining subject-matter jurisdiction where no discovery has been conducted. Moreover, the Court can discern no possibility of significant prejudice to any party, particularly in light of § 1367(d)’s provision tolling the statute of limitations on any of the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

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

Favela v. Las Cruces Police Department · filed 2020-01-06(c)(3)

The Court concludes that it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction, because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The Court also has considered and weighed the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. In this case, after dismissing Favela’s federal law claims, the Court concludes that remanding the remaining claims to the state court where Favela filed them would best promote fairness and comity.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining local-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed at the outset of litigation.

Crawford v. US Security Associates · filed 2020-01-06(c)(3)

Because Crawford’s federal claims have been dismissed at the outset of this litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his New York City Human Rights Law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed early in the litigation.

Lee v. Potter · filed 2020-01-08(c)(3)

Because the Court dismissed the claims over which it had an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, and because it did so early in the litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Lee’s remaining state law claims.

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

DCR Marketing Inc. v. Pereira · filed 2020-01-08(c)(3)

Under § 1367, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if — as here — “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” § 1367(c)(3). The Supreme Court has instructed that “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). Thus, pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines 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 all federal claims.

Klein v. Met Ed · filed 2020-01-08(c)(3)

Here, we have found that Mr. Klein’s federal claims are subject to dismissal. Given this finding in the exercise of our discretion we decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over potential ancillary state law claims in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not authorize declining supplemental jurisdiction when a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction remains pending.

Vail v. The City of New York · filed 2020-01-10(c)(3)

Defendants initially move to dismiss all state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), which permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c)(3). But that provision has no application here because this Court has not dismissed — and Defendants have not moved to dismiss — the § 1983 claim against Brown.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Al Ghareeb v. Board of Trustees at the University of Northern Colorado · filed 2020-01-13(c)(3)

When a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) expressly authorizes the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. ... Because Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law contract claim and that claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, so that Plaintiff may refile it in the appropriate state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial and no unusual circumstances justify retaining jurisdiction.

Spottswood v. Washington County · filed 2020-01-13(c)(3)

Under this Court’s recommendations above for the Amended Complaint, Spottswood’s federal-law claims would be “eliminated” well before trial. There is no indication that this case would be “unusual” in any way that would support exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim. As a result, if this action comes to this juncture, the Court will recommend declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Spottswood’s state- law claim, and so will recommend dismissal of that claim without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

Gonzalez v. City of New York · filed 2020-01-13(c)(3)

Here, subsection (3) applies because the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court may exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Rutty v. Krimko · filed 2020-01-14(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[a] district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss a state law claim without prejudice when no federal claim or independent basis for jurisdiction remains.

Jones, Damont'a v. Dittmann, Michael · filed 2020-01-15(c)(3)

However, in the absence of a federal claim or independent basis for exercising jurisdiction over that claim, the court will follow its ordinary practice of dismissing that claim without prejudice.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Loggins (ID 63088) v. Norwood · filed 2020-01-15(c)(3)

Since this Memorandum and Order dismisses all of plaintiff’s federal law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Morelli v. Hyman · filed 2020-01-16(c)(3)

Because there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction, and the dismissed § 1983 claims provide the only other basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, to the extent the FAC asserts state-law claims, the court declines to address them. ... If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, the court will decline jurisdiction over state-law claims pursuant to § 1367(c) and dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Franco v. McDonald · filed 2020-01-17(c)(3)

At this stage, for the reasons already discussed, Mr. Franco has not stated a plausible claim under the United States Constitution. This Court therefore will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of his state law claims.

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

Mayhew v. General Medicine, PC, a Michigan Corporation · filed 2020-01-21(c)(3)

Having determined that summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Illinois state law claims and Counts II, III, V and VI are dismissed without prejudice.

Under § 1367(c)(3), federal courts generally should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are resolved before trial.

Bonilla, Ricardo v. Tidquist · filed 2020-01-23(c)(3)

The general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial.

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

Hunnell-Villines v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company · filed 2020-01-23(c)(3)

As this count provided the sole ground for this court’s exercise of federal jurisdiction, this matter will be remanded to state court.

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

Packard Square LLC v. Canyon Partners LLC · filed 2020-01-23(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, as it has now “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Under § 1367(c)(3), courts generally relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial and no reason justifies retaining jurisdiction.

Jackson v. Tapio · filed 2020-01-27(c)(3)

Generally, when federal claims drop out of a case, federal courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. ... Nothing in this case suggests that the presumption should be ignored. Accordingly, Jackson’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice so that they may be pursued in a state forum.

Under § 1367(c)(3), courts generally should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, absent a reason to depart from that presumption.

Perry v. Burling · filed 2020-01-27(c)(3)

Generally, when federal claims drop out of a case, federal courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Carlsbad Tech. Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (“A district court’s decision whether to exercise [supplemental] jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.”). The Seventh Circuit has described a “sensible presumption that if the federal claims drop out before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over the state-law claims.” Williams Elecs. Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 2007). Nothing in this case suggests that the presumption should be ignored. Accordingly, Perry’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice so that they may be pursued in a state forum.

Under § 1367(c)(3), federal courts generally should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are resolved before trial.

Mix, Dennis v. Lind · filed 2020-01-30(c)(3)

The general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial.

Rudman v. Board of Education for Township School District 113 · filed 2020-01-30(c)(3)

In the Seventh Circuit, "the usual practice is to dismiss without prejudice state supplemental claims whenever all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial." Fields v. Wharrie, 672 F.3d 505, 518–19 (7th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the Court dismisses Rudman's remaining claim for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when it has invested few judicial resources in the litigation.

Brown v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2020-01-30(c)(3)

A district court’s decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary. Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)). ... This Court has not invested a significant amount of its judicial resources in this litigation.

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

Clay v. Freebird Publishers · filed 2020-01-31(c)(3)

The district court has discretion to dismiss pendent state law claims, and may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims where it has dismissed claims over which it had original jurisdiction. St. Germain v. Howard, 556 F.3d 261, 363-64 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Because the Court has dismissed Clay’s section 1983 claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims he asserts based on state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the federal claim fails for lack of standing.

Strojnik v. Bakersfield Convention Hotel I, LLC · filed 2020-01-31(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and CDPA claims.

Without a federal claim, a court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Pickett v. Carroll · filed 2020-02-03(c)(3)

Without a federal claim, this court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Pickett’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Cresci v. Gyss · filed 2020-02-03(c)(3)

We conclude, moreover, that the denial of supplemental jurisdiction over Cresci’s state-law claims was not an abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

Section 1367 permits dismissal of state-law claims when the related federal claims have been dismissed and no remaining federal claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.

YOAST v. POTTSTOWN BOROUGH · filed 2020-02-03(a), (c)(3)

As no federal claims remain against these Defendants, and there are no remaining claims that “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,” the pendent state law claims will be dismissed.

Under § 1367, remaining state-law claims ordinarily should be remanded after all claims arising under federal law have been dismissed.

Woodcock v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC · filed 2020-02-04(c)(3)

Having already dismissed the claims arising under federal law, any remaining state law claims are best reserved for the state courts.

After all federal claims are dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims is discretionary, but judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity ordinarily favor declining jurisdiction.

Jager v. Mulheron · filed 2020-02-04(c)(3)

Nonetheless, the district court in this circumstance has the discretion to retain state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... The court should consider “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” in order to decide whether to exercise this discretion. ... After considering the relevant factors, the Court cannot find that the usual presumption in favor of dismissal, which is grounded largely in notions of comity, is overcome. Keeping in mind that the court “usually should” decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state claims, Koch v. Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1248 (10th Cir. 2011), the Court hereby declines to exercise its discretion in retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Stokes v. Hopewell Electoral Board · filed 2020-02-06(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. ... Because this Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims over which it has original jurisdiction, for the reasons discussed supra, the Court need not resolve Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, which arise under the laws and constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

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

Belnap v. Steward Health Care Systems · filed 2020-02-10(c)(3)

Therefore, in the absence of any federal causes of action, the court will refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Dr. Belnap’s remaining state law claims and dismiss them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

Laurie Homes, Inc. v. City of Columbia · filed 2020-02-10(c)(3)

Having determined that dismissal is appropriate on Plaintiff’s federal claim against Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any Illinois state law claims. Counts II, III, VI, and V are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits dismissal without prejudice of a state-law claim when the federal claims against those defendants have been dismissed and no remaining federal claim shares a common nucleus of operative fact.

BURGOS v. NUTTER · filed 2020-02-11(a), (c)(3)

As no federal claims remain against the City Defendants, and there are no remaining claims that “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,” the pendent state law claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Harris v. Bradley, Arkansas · filed 2020-02-13(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Under these circumstances, the Court finds that it would be inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Nichols v. Dwyer · filed 2020-02-19(c)(3)

Having determined that Nichols’s federal claims lack merit, the case does not retain a federal character. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Nichols’s state-law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

When all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c)(3) requires declining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide an affirmative justification for retaining them.

TALLEY v. IONATA · filed 2020-02-19(c)(3)

“Where the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original) (citing Borough of W. Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). No exceptions apply here. There is no reason to retain jurisdiction over Talley’s state law claims, which he may assert in state court. See, e.g., Segers v. Williams, No. 13-2413, 2014 WL 285078, at *5 n.9 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2014). Thus, we shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Wiley v. Vea · filed 2020-02-21(c)(3)

If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, the court will decline jurisdiction over state-law claims pursuant to § 1367(c) and dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Gunn v. Betivegna · filed 2020-02-21(c)(3)

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

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

Sanchez, Salvador v. Huber, Andrew · filed 2020-02-24(c)(3)

In this instance, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims because I have dismissed all of plaintiff’s federal claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a FEHA claim involving the same case or controversy as a Title VII claim and allows the court to decline that jurisdiction if the Title VII claim is dismissed.

Marinello v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2020-02-24(a), (c)(3)

The Court may have supplemental jurisdiction over the FEHA claim if the Title VII claim in the case involves the same case or controversy, but if the court dismisses the Title VII claim it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the FEHA claim.

Courts generally should decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed or otherwise eliminated.

Simmons v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-02-24(c)(3)

The Court declines to take up the plaintiff’s remaining state-law causes of action, mindful of the “general rule” that “courts should decline supplemental jurisdiction [over state law claims] when all federal claims are dismissed or otherwise eliminated from a case.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Warrantech Corp., 461 F.3d 568, 578 (5th Cir. 2006).

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

Fletcher v. Foxwell · filed 2020-02-25(c)(3)

Where the Court will dismiss all federal constitutional claims, to the extent that Fletcher has asserted a violation of a specific state law, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such acclaim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2018).

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

Michalski v. Privitera · filed 2020-02-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Mr. Michalski’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, and dismisses them for lack of jurisdiction.

Dismissal of all federal claims leaves supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims intact but permits the court to decline to exercise it.

DOE v. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · filed 2020-02-28(a), (c)(3)

The Court even “retain[s] its statutory supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims” after having “dismiss[ed] [Doe’s] federal claim[s].” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 640 (2009). However, the Court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in light of that dismissal. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Doe v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 567 (3d Cir. 2017).

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

Whiteside v. Hover-Davis, Inc. · filed 2020-02-28(c)(3)

The Court having dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the claims asserted under New York State law are dismissed without prejudice.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, supplemental jurisdiction ordinarily should be relinquished when state refiling remains available, substantial judicial resources have not been committed to the state claims, and their disposition is not obvious.

Hart v. Prestress Services Industries, LLC · filed 2020-03-02(c)(3)

In sum, the Court finds that none of the exceptions to the “usual practice” applies in this case. Relinquishing jurisdiction will ensure that federal intrusion into areas of purely state law is minimized. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the state law claims without prejudice and dismisses those claims with leave to refile in state court.

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

Ragelis v. Haase · filed 2020-03-03(c)(3)

Because the Court finds no issues for trial with respect to claims over which it has original jurisdiction, those claims will be dismissed with prejudice, and the Court will dismiss Ragelis’s supplemental state law claim without prejudice.

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

Carter, Jr. v. Point Coupee Parish Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-03-03(c)(3)

In the instant case, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court concludes that it is appropriate for the court to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims asserted in his pleadings.

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

Yourman v. Meyers · filed 2020-03-06(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing Plaintiffs federal claims for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1), and declining to consider his state-law claims under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, 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.

Terry v. City of New York · filed 2020-03-06(c)(3)

The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants denied him access to social services for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court further declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

(PC) Flow-Sunkett v. Diaz · filed 2020-03-11(c)(3)

Because this court has found that plaintiffs fail to state any cognizable federal claims, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ putative state law claims.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, supplemental state-law claims ordinarily should be dismissed without prejudice unless an exception warrants retaining jurisdiction.

Lawlor v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago · filed 2020-03-11(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court also dismisses Plaintiffs’ state-law claims against all Defendants without prejudice. ... Exceptions to this general rule exist: (1) when the statute of limitations has run on the pendent claim, precluding the filing of a separate suit in state court; (2) substantial judicial resources have already been committed, so that sending the case to another court will cause a substantial duplication of effort; or (3) when it is absolutely clear how the pendent claims can be decided. Davis v. Cook Cty., 534 F.3d 650, 654 (7th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, none of the exceptions applies.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not authorize declining supplemental jurisdiction upon dismissal of federal claims against some defendants while federal claims remain pending against other defendants.

Lawson v. LMDC · filed 2020-03-11(c)(3)

Here, even though Lawson’s federal claims pertaining to Defendants CCS, Dr. Smith, and Krank are dismissed, there are still pending federal claims against other defendants. As such, dismissal of the state law claims on jurisdictional grounds is improper.

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Darby v. May · filed 2020-03-11(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) supports relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed at the pleading stage when substantial judicial resources have not been committed and the merits of the state-law claims are not absolutely clear.

Flores v. City of South Bend · filed 2020-03-13(c)(3)

Moreover, this matter remains at the pleading stage, and extensive judicial resources have not yet been committed to the claims such that sending the case to another court would cause a substantial duplication of effort. Finally, the merits of the state-law claims are not “absolutely” clear, and therefore a state court should have the opportunity to address the merits of these claims in the first instance. See RWJ Mgmt., 672 F.3d at 478-81; Sharp, 578 F.3d at 514–15. In sum, because all federal claims have been dismissed, the court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Norton v. Columbus County Board of Elections · filed 2020-03-13(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of Norton’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

Under Section 1367(c)(3), supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims should be declined and those claims dismissed without prejudice when amendment eliminates all federal claims and diversity jurisdiction is absent.

PPS Service Group, LLC v. Eckert · filed 2020-03-13(c)(3)

With this amendment to the complaint, however, there will be no federal claim before the Court, nor does the complaint allege diversity of citizenship. As such, the Court no longer has original jurisdiction and should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendant state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, any state law claims should also be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that all federal claims have been dismissed when a federal claim remains pending.

Elsasser v. DV Trading, LLC · filed 2020-03-16(c)(3)

DV’s argument for dismissal of the state law claim in Count I presupposes the dismissal of Counts II–IV. DV notes that this court has supplemental jurisdiction over Count I and urges the court to exercise its discretion to dismiss Count I because all claims arising under federal law have been dropped from the case. See 28 USC § 1367(c)(3) (permitting the court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). Since Count IV has not been dismissed, the request to dismiss Count I must be, and is, denied.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims ordinarily should be declined unless limitations, substantial judicial investment, or a clearly determinable outcome warrants retaining jurisdiction.

JULIUS v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF · filed 2020-03-16(c)(3)

Substantial judicial resources have not been expended on these claims and it is not clear how the pendent claims will be decided. ... The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and they are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Rodman v. Jean-Charles · filed 2020-03-16(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “District Courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . [where] the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” Because Ms. Rodman’s remaining claims arise under the laws of the State of Maryland, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction to resolve them.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of remaining state-law claims after the claim supporting original jurisdiction has been dismissed.

Jenkins v. Mercy Hospital Rogers · filed 2020-03-17(c)(3)

Because Ms. Jenkins’s remaining claims arise under state law and the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction, rather than original jurisdiction, over those claims, they will be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Keating v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 660 F.3d 1014, 1018–19 (8th Cir. 2011).

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

SHROPSHIRE v. GALLAWAY · filed 2020-03-17(c)(3)

Nevertheless, because plaintiff's § 1981 and employment-based discrimination claims must be dismissed, the court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining 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 and dismiss them without prejudice after disposing of all federal claims.

Washington v. Omahony · filed 2020-03-18(c)(3)

Having disposed of all of Plaintiff's federal claims, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate the remaining state law claims. Therefore, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

When the federal claim supporting federal jurisdiction is dismissed, state claims within supplemental jurisdiction generally should also be dismissed without prejudice.

Pinto v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc. · filed 2020-03-19(c)(3)

As a general rule, when a federal claim that is the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction is dismissed, the state claims that the Court could otherwise adjudicate under supplemental jurisdiction should also be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the case remains at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

DOYLE,et al v. ADVANCED FRAUD SOLUTIONS, LLC · filed 2020-03-19(c)(3)

Since this matter has not progressed past the motion-to- dismiss stage and only state-law claims remain, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Claims Two or Three.

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

Damato v. Kasimer · filed 2020-03-20(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once they have dismissed all claims over which they had original jurisdiction. ... Having disposed of D’Amato’s federal claims and considering the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

Under § 1367(c)(3), courts ordinarily relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all claims within their original jurisdiction have been resolved before trial and no unusual circumstances justify retaining jurisdiction.

Vogelsberg, Jeffrey v. Kim, Young · filed 2020-03-23(c)(3)

Vogelsberg relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as the basis for exercising jurisdiction over his state-law claims. “Absent unusual circumstances, district courts relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims if all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been resolved before trial.” Coleman v. City of Peoria, Illinois, 925 F.3d 336, 352 (7th Cir. 2019). In this case, neither side identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify a decision to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claims, so I will dismiss those claims without prejudice to Vogelsberg refiling them in state court.

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

Dickerson v. Stirling · filed 2020-03-23(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and will remand them to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims against defendants against whom all federal claims have been dismissed, while retaining jurisdiction over state claims against defendants with pending federal claims.

Soler v. San Diego, County of · filed 2020-03-24(c)(3)

The Court has reconsidered and once again declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Germaine, Medina, Milton, Smith, Turvey, and Tarantino, as well as the San Diego County Office of the Public Defender, based on the previous dismissal of all federal claims against these defendants.

When all federal claims are dismissed at the pleading stage, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims where little judicial effort has been expended and disputed state-law issues remain.

Petropoulos v. City of Chicago · filed 2020-03-24(c)(3)

The Court follows the presumption that it will relinquish federal jurisdiction over the state-law claims absent a federal hook, and thus declines to exercise jurisdiction over these supplemental state law claims. This case is at the pleading stage, so there is little concern about wasted judicial resources. And the parties disagree about an issue of state law. That issue is best settled by an Illinois state court.

Dismissal of all federal claims against one defendant does not trigger the presumption of relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when federal claims against other defendants remain.

Doe v. Board of Education District 299 · filed 2020-03-24(c)(3)

In this case, however, not all federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. Specifically, the Court still has federal-question jurisdiction over the § 1983 claims against Velarde and Reynolds. So the presumption to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction has not been triggered.

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

Fu v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. · filed 2020-03-25(c)(3)

Finally, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” once it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYCHRL claims and thus dismisses those claims without prejudice.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims must be declined unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide an affirmative justification for retaining them.

Wilson v. Altman · filed 2020-03-26(c)(3)

Where those federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, “the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Borough of W. Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995). Wilson provided no compelling justification for allowing the abuse-of-process claim to go forward, and the Court correctly declined to exercise jurisdiction.

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

Husted v. First Capital Real Estate Investments LLC · filed 2020-03-27(c)(3)

With the RICO claim dismissed, only Plaintiff’s conversion claim remains. Considering the values of “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” the Court deems it appropriate to decline jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim. See id. at 1001. The Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, so Plaintiff’s claim may be more appropriately addressed in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice based on comity and federalism.

VDARE Foundation v. City of Colorado Springs · filed 2020-03-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over VDARE’s remaining state law tortious interference claim and dismisses it without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) supports relinquishing state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed before trial when refiling remains available, little judicial effort has been expended, and the state-law merits are not absolutely clear.

Caldwell v. Blythe · filed 2020-03-27(c)(3)

In the absence of any remaining federal claim, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this matter any further. ... While in some circumstances it is appropriate for a district court to retain jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims have dropped out of the case, none of those circumstances are present in this case. ... Here, plaintiff will not be prejudiced by this dismissal because he may refile the case in state court as appropriate under Indiana’s savings statute, Ind. Code § 34–11–8–1, and the tolling provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). Moreover, this matter remains at the pleading stage, and there has not been such substantial judicial resources committed to the claims that sending the case to another court will cause a substantial duplication of effort. Finally, the merits of the state law claims are not “absolutely” clear, see Sharp Elecs. Corp., at 515, and therefore a state court should have the opportunity to address the merits of these claims in the first instance.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits discretionary relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, with a presumption favoring relinquishment.

Washington v. Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. · filed 2020-03-29(c)(3)

With the federal claims dismissed, the only remaining claim is the state-law legal malpractice claim, and the usual presumption kicks in: “when the federal claims are dismissed before trial, there is a presumption that the court will relinquish jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.” Dietchweiler by Dietchweiler v. Lucas, 827 F.3d 622, 631 (7th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (citing cases). This presumption is reflected in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides for the discretionary relinquishment of jurisdiction over state claims when the claims providing original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... Because the federal claims have been dismissed, the Court will also relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all claims providing original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Wang v. Chueh · filed 2020-03-29(c)(3)

Indeed, this presumption is statutorily expressed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides for the discretionary relinquishment of jurisdiction over state claims when the claims providing original jurisdiction (here, federal-question jurisdiction) have been dismissed (as discussed next, Chueh’s claims are premised only on state law).

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

Nahwooksy v. Elam · filed 2020-03-30(c)(3)

Assuming Nahwooksy was also asserting a claim of defamation directly (as opposed to a claim under § 1983), the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the sole federal claim is dismissed at the pleading stage, no discovery has occurred, and a forum selection clause requires a state forum.

Hastey v. Welch · filed 2020-03-30(c)(3)

The court has dismissed plaintiff’s sole federal claim at the motion to dismiss stage. ... No discovery or other pretrial proceedings have taken place yet. ... Plaintiff has provided no compelling reason that the court should ignore the forum selection clause governing the state law claims and retain jurisdiction over them. ... Exercising its discretion, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. The court dismisses, without prejudice, plaintiff’s state law claims.

After dismissing all federal claims, a court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide an affirmative justification for retaining jurisdiction.

VERDU v. THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · filed 2020-03-30(c)(3)

The Third Circuit has stated that “where the claim[s] over which the district court has original jurisdiction [are] dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” ... In this case, having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, I find that no considerations justify this Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and, therefore, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Ioele v. City of New York Department of Citywide Administrative Services · filed 2020-03-30(c)(3)

In light of my dismissal of Plaintiffs federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's New York State and New York City Human Rights Law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the sole federal claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Sullivan v. Storer Transit Systems · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

To the extent that the ADA claim is subject to dismissal, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sullivan’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss remaining state- and city-law claims without prejudice when all federal claims have been dismissed at an early stage.

Glaser v. Upright Citizens Brigade LLC · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

Here, because all of Glaser’s federal claims have been dismissed at an early stage of this litigation, the Court declines in its discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Glaser’s remaining city- and state-law claims. Accordingly, all of Glaser’s remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Aikens v. Cedar Hill Independent School District · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

But the Court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if it dismisses the federal claim that gives the Court original jurisdiction.

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

Bell v. Maricopa, County of · filed 2020-04-02(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim 28 in the First Amended Complaint, as discussed above, the Court declines to exercise 1 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Robledo 250767 v. Bautista · filed 2020-04-02(c)(3)

Pursuant to § 1367, a federal 12 court with original jurisdiction may exercise jurisdiction over related state-law claims. The 13 Court declines to do so here, however, because it has already dismissed all claims over 14 which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Hernandez v. Gonzalez · filed 2020-04-03(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over state law claims raised by a plaintiff when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Wright v. Bella Vista Police Department · filed 2020-04-03(c)(3)

To the extent Wright asserts such a claim, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over it. All claims within the original jurisdiction of the court are being dismissed.

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

Byrnes v. Flaherty · filed 2020-04-03(c)(3)

There no longer being a question of federal law before it, the Court declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction over Byrnes’ remaining state law claims.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims must be declined unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness affirmatively justify retaining it.

PINKNEY v. MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2020-04-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Pinkney’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. ... The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed, however, “where the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Borough of West Mifilin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995)) (emphasis in original). No such considerations weigh in favor of this Court continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

Smout v. Benewah County · filed 2020-04-06(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Claims Four, Five, and Six are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the ground that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and the remaining motions (Docs. 32, 43, 44) are DENIED AS MOOT.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction upon dismissal of the federal claim against one defendant when a federal claim against another defendant remains pending.

Gomez v. New Orleans City · filed 2020-04-01(c)(3)

The City also argues that this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gomez’s state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) once it dismisses Gomez’s § 1983 claim against the City. But because Sutton answered the original complaint, including the § 1983 claim against him, R. Doc. 20, a federal claim remains pending.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed at the pleading stage, before discovery, when judicial economy, fairness, and comity favor doing so.

Farquharson v. Lafayette · filed 2020-04-07(c)(3)

On balance, the considerations of judicial economy, fairness, and comity militate in favor of this Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims when no compelling reason supports retaining jurisdiction.

Leonhard v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC · filed 2020-04-08(c)(3)

Plaintiffs do not argue that the Court should retain jurisdiction over their state law claims if their federal claims are dismissed, and the Court does not find any compelling reason to do so. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ third, fourth, and fifth claims for relief will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Jones v. Rodi · filed 2020-04-10(c)(3)

To the extent that any state law claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them because it has dismissed all federal claims.

Declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under Section 1367(c)(3) is premature when leave to amend the dismissed federal claims is recommended.

(PS) Lull v. County of Placer · filed 2020-04-13(c)(3)

Absent a viable federal claim, this court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). However, because the undersigned is recommending leave to amend several of the federal claims, it is not appropriate ... for supplemental jurisdiction to be declined at this time.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims before trial when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining jurisdiction.

Simons v. Washington · filed 2020-04-14(c)(3)

Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. Id. Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims generally is not exercised when the federal claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Cooper v. Baker · filed 2020-04-15(c)(3)

And ... supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is generally not exercised if a plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed for failure to state claim.

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

Roe v. Roosen, Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC · filed 2020-04-15(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the federal claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental 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 dismissing the federal claims.

Rodriguez v. Shoprite Supermarket · filed 2020-04-15(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state laws claims Plaintiff may have and any such claims are thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(3) supports relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of all federal claims before trial when the remaining claims concern state causes of action and state-law immunities.

Lindley v. City of Elkhart · filed 2020-04-17(c)(3)

If Mr. Lindley is unable to state a federal claim in an amended complaint (or declines to file one), the Court intends to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... That presumptive course would be appropriate here. The arguments as to the state claims concern the scope of state causes of action and the applicability of different immunities under state law. A state court should have the chance to answer those questions of state law.

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

The Retired Public Employees of New Mexico, Inc. v. The Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico Board · filed 2020-04-17(c)(3)

The Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

Under § 1367, dismissal of all federal claims early in the litigation ordinarily favors dismissing supplemental state-law claims without prejudice or remanding them to state court, particularly when novel state-law issues implicate comity.

Barnett v. Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable · filed 2020-04-20(c)(3)

In this case the district court resolved the federal-law claims at a very early stage of the litigation. This in itself counsels dismissal without prejudice of the state-law claims at the same time. In addition, there is a novel issue of state law regarding attorney-fee awards under the OCPA. ... We therefore reverse the dismissal of the state claims under the OCPA and remand with instructions to dismiss them without prejudice or remand them to state court.

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

The Indigenous American People Inhabiting the County of Wayne, Michigan v. Wayne County Muncipal Corporation · filed 2020-04-20(c)(3)

As for Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254–55 (6th Cir. 1996) (“When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims.”).

Under Section 1367(c)(3), courts should decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, absent an affirmative justification based on judicial economy, convenience, or fairness.

LIDDELL v. BREEN · filed 2020-04-20(c)(3)

As all of Plaintiff’s federal claims shall be dismissed pre-trial insomuch as this Court will grant Defendants summary judgment as to those claims for the reasons discussed above, this Court finds that there are no special considerations which justify retaining pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. This Court will therefore decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Thomas v. New York City Health and Hospital Corp. · filed 2020-04-20(c)(3)

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

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

Dale v. Mayfield Messenger · filed 2020-04-21(c)(3)

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff is asserting any state-law claims against Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed at an early stage before discovery begins.

Smith v. City of Syracuse · filed 2020-04-21(c)(3)

Given that the federal claims are being dismissed at an early stage in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Under section 1367(c)(3), federal courts ordinarily should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are resolved before trial.

Chandler, Jimmy v. Waterman, Jolinda · filed 2020-04-23(c)(3)

The general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015). In this instance, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims because I am granting summary judgment to defendants on all of the federal claims.