28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Cousins v. Howell Corp. · filed 2000-09-22(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on both of the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to plaintiffs state-law claim for negligent misrepresentation, and dismisses count three.

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

Alderdice v. American Health Holding, Inc. · filed 2000-10-19(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed plaintiffs federal claims, it refuses to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

La Marco v. New York State Nurses Ass'n · filed 2000-11-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims at this early stage of the litigation, 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 state claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Frazier v. Fairhaven School Committee · filed 2000-11-22(c)(3)

Because all of the plaintiffs’ federal claims have been dismissed herein, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Brown v. EG & G Mound Applied Technologies, Inc. · filed 2000-10-24(c)(3)

Plaintiffs federal claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court will not retain jurisdiction of Plaintiffs pendant state-law claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs pendant state law claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Beck v. City of Durham · filed 2000-11-23(c)(3)

Furthermore, because the Court will grant Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court will not consider Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs remaining state law claims. Instead, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, and dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

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

Moore v. Willis Independent School District · filed 2000-12-01(c)(3)

As this leaves no remaining federal claims involved in the case, we decline to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over the supplemental state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of remaining state-law claims after the federal claim is dismissed.

Wagner v. Magellan Health Services, Inc. · filed 2000-12-05(c)(3)

I also Dismiss the state law claims in count II-V for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Intermedia Communications, Inc. v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. · filed 2000-12-15(c)(3)

However, since this Court has dismissed the related federal claims, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Havens-Tobias v. Eagle · filed 2001-01-02(c)

Furthermore, jurisdiction in the instant case is based upon a federal question, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and, thus, this Court in its discretion, may decline to hear Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Jones v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2001-01-09(c)(3)

Finally, plaintiff has asserted several state law claims pursuant to this court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Since we are dismissing the federal claims, we will exercise our discretion not to hear the state law claims.

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

Kulesza v. New York University Medical Center · filed 2001-01-23(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. ... Given this opportunity to litigate the claims in state court, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Hunt v. City of Mulberry · filed 2001-02-08(c)(3)

Title 28, Section 1367 of the United States Code provides that the district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims where it has dismissed all the underlying federal claims. ... In the interest of judicial economy and convenience, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims (Counts III through VI) in this action.

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

Davidson v. Casey · filed 2001-02-09(c)(3)

Because Davidson asserted no other basis for federal jurisdiction, we also conclude the district court did not abuse its ... discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Davidson’s remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

IDT Corp. v. eGlobe Inc. · filed 2001-03-21(c)(3)

Therefore, as IDT’s only two claims based upon federal law have been dismissed, there is no reason for this court to retain jurisdiction over the pendent claims.

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

Johnson v. Kroger Co. · filed 2001-03-30(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed plaintiffs federal claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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 after it resolves all federal claims.

Golt v. City of Signal Hill · filed 2001-03-07(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted Summary Adjudication as to all of the federal claims, the remaining claims in this case arise under state law. At oral argument, the parties acknowledged that the parties are not diverse. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Crosland v. City of New York · filed 2001-04-16(c)(3)

The disability discrimination claims (claims VIII and IX) are brought only under state law and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Boyd v. Presbyterian Hosp. in City of New York · filed 2001-04-17(c)(3)

Since Plaintiffs federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any of Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

GE Investment Private Placement Partners II v. Parker · filed 2001-04-18(c)(3)

... because the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Interactive Products Corp. v. A2Z Mobile Office Solutions, Inc. · filed 2001-04-24(c)

Having dismissed all of IPC’s federal claims and the mirror image state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Diaz v. Terhune · filed 2001-04-26(c)

In view of the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims.

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

Haddad v. Fromson · filed 2001-05-02(c)(3)

Dismissal of Plaintiffs federal claims leaves pending his state-law counts, which fall within this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Generally, a district court should decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if all federal claims have been dismissed. ... The Court will therefore exercise its discretion to remand all state-law claims.

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

Coleman v. City of New York · filed 2001-05-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs New York common law claims under 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 claim supporting jurisdiction is dismissed.

John v. Beaumont Independent School District · filed 2001-05-08(c)

Nevertheless, because the Court’s jurisdiction was based on the federal civil rights claim that has now been dismissed, in accordance with this circuit’s general rule, the Court dismisses the remaining state law claims. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and DISMISSES them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal claims fail.

Patel v. Heidelberger · filed 2001-04-26(c)(3)

When a plaintiffs federal law claims fail, courts routinely decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

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

El-Bey v. City of New York · filed 2001-05-16(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all of plaintiffs federal claims in El-Bey I and El-Bey II, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to address this particular state law claim.

Section 1367(c) allows, but does not require, a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims.

Guinan v. Dean Foods of of California, Inc. · filed 2001-06-19(c)

The district court could have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it dismissed Guinan’s § 301 claims, but did not have to.

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

Ray v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. · filed 2001-05-30(c)(3)

In light of our disposition of the federal claim in this action, we decline to address the plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Bheemarao v. City of New York · filed 2001-05-30(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ federal claims having been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Aziz v. Schriro · filed 2001-06-05(c)(3)

Finally, we hold that the district court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendent state law claim.

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

Davis v. City of Cincinnati · filed 2001-06-12(c)(3)

Finally, because there was no basis for federal jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over any supplemental state law claims.

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

Leong v. City of Detroit · filed 2001-07-06(c)(3)

Having resolved Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims, but leaves these ... to be adjudicated on remand to the state court.

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

Clement v. Amscot Corp. · filed 2001-08-01(c)(3)

Title 28, Section 1367 of the United States Code provides that the district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims where it has dismissed all the underlying federal claims. ... In the interest of judicial economy and convenience, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in this action.

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

Lewis v. City of St. Petersburg · filed 2001-08-06(c)(3)

Further, we remand to the district court to reconsider whether it should continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Lewis's state law claim because "all [the federal] claims over which it has original jurisdiction" have been dismissed, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), especially in light of a related case pending in state court.

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

Local 1150 International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Santamaria · filed 2001-09-04(c)(3)

Plaintiffs and defendants agree that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 if the Court dismisses plaintiffs’ LMRDA claims against all defendants, and accord...ingly Counts Two and Three are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Lewis v. Jarvie · filed 2001-09-26(c)(3)

Finally, we conclude that the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over any supplemental state law claims after finding no basis for federal jurisdiction.

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

Fleming v. Martin · filed 2001-09-26(c)(3)

Finally, having found no basis for federal jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over Fleming’s supplemental state law claims.

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

Sedighim v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc. · filed 2001-10-05(c)(3)

Since the federal claims have been dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims is discretionary.

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

Andrews v. Texas Park & Wildlife Dept. · filed 2001-10-11(c)

Because the state law claims predominate over the nonexistent federal claim and because the general rule is to decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims when the court has disposed of all federal claims, this court decides not to exercise jurisdiction over Andrews’ state law claims for discrimination.

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

Van Horn v. Town of Castine · filed 2001-10-18(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state any federal causes of action, it does not reach Plaintiffs state constitutional claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local claims when the federal claims have been dismissed.

Bandwagon Brokerage, Inc. v. Mafolie Foods Co. · filed 2001-10-30(c)(3)

Finally, in the absence of any federal question, there is no reason to exercise this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear the remainder of the purely local claims against defendants Mafolie Foods, Rolando and Tagini.

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

Wappler v. Carniak · filed 2001-10-30(c)(3)

Finally, having found no basis for federal jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over Wappler’s supplemental state law claims.

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

Hayes v. Packard Bell Nec, Inc. · filed 2001-10-12(c)(3)

In light of the foregoing, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hayes’ remaining state law claims (the Third and Fourth Causes of Action) and dismisses those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) without prejudice for refiling in the appropriate forum.

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

Morehardt v. Spirit Airlines, Inc. · filed 2001-11-09(c)

As to Count III of the Amended Complaint, which alleges a claim for violation of state law only, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and, therefore, Count III is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to pursue this claim in the appropriate state forum and subject to the tolling provisions provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Schneider v. San Diego County · filed 2001-12-07(c)(3)

The district court’s dismissal of the FEHA claims alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodations and related retaliation is REVERSED, and we REMAND to the district court to consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state claims under 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.

Thompson v. KN Energy, Inc. · filed 2001-12-13(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on plaintiffs federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim arising under state law.

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

Bailey v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. · filed 2001-12-17(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on the only federal claim and its state law counterpart, the Court has discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Kiman v. NH DOC · filed 2001-12-19(c)(3)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law 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.

Skysign International, Inc. v. City and County of Honolulu Does 1-100 · filed 2002-01-09(c)(3)

We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Skysign’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local claims when the federal claim is dismissed.

Hazell v. Executive Airlines, Inc. · filed 2002-01-24(c)(3)

In the absence of a federal claim, there is no reason to exercise this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear the remainder of plaintiffs purely local claims against defendant.

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

Tasini v. New York Times Co., Inc. · filed 2002-01-25(c)(3)

... as the federal claims in this action have been dismissed, the court is not obligated to invoke its pendent jurisdiction over these state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and it declines to do so.

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

Jetter v. Knothe Corp. · filed 2002-01-31(c)(3)

Having granted defendants’ summary judgment motion with respect to plaintiffs federal age discrimination and retaliation claims, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Schultz v. Hansen · filed 2002-02-01(c)(3)

While not specifically mentioning these claims in dismissing the case, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over Schultz’s supplemental state law claims, after the court had dismissed all of Schultz’s federal claims.

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

Gonzalez v. Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, Division of Florida Highway Patrol · filed 2002-02-06(c)(3)

Because there are no remaining federal claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Melzer v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF CITY SCHOOL DIST. · filed 2002-02-26(c)(3)

Since Melzer's federal claim is dismissed, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

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

Humphrey v. LA St Penitentiary · filed 2002-01-11(c)(3)

As this leaves no remaining federal claims involved in the case, the district court should decline to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over the supplemental state-law claims.

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

Rocco v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension And Retirement Fund · filed 2002-02-13(c)(3)

However, in light of the fact that no federal claims remain in this case, the district court is not required to retain jurisdiction of state law 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 dismissing the federal claims.

Byars v. Jamestown Teachers Ass'n · filed 2002-03-17(c)(3)

As a result of the dismissal of plaintiffs federal claims against the JTA, this court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit dismissal of supplemental state law claims on the ground that all federal claims have been dismissed when federal claims remain pending.

Smith v. Barber · filed 2002-03-22(c)(3)

Because the court has declined to dismiss all federal claims against defendant Barber and defendant City, the court finds no merit in defendants’ arguments for dismissal of plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims.

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

Gonzalez v. BLACK & DECKER, PR, LLC. · filed 2002-03-22(c)(3)

Since the federal claim has been dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. They will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Samedi v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2002-03-14(c)(3)

As there are no remaining federal claims against the County, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs remaining state law claim (Count XII: negligent retention).

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

River Oaks Homeowners Protection Committee, Inc. v. Edington & Associates · filed 2002-04-01(c)

Finally, the district court’s decision to dismiss the state claims once the federal claims were dismissed was not erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Fang v. United States, 140 F.3d 1238, 1243 (9th Cir.1998).

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

R.E. Grills Construction Co. v. Alabama Department of Transportation · filed 2002-04-25(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs federal claims are dismissed herein, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Fields v. Burnett · filed 2002-04-16(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fields’ state law claims.

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

Henderson v. Torres · filed 2002-04-17(c)

The district court properly declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over Henderson’s state claims after his federal claims were dismissed.

Section 1367(d) tolls limitations for state law claims asserted under subsection (a) even when the federal claim is dismissed on subject matter jurisdiction grounds.

Scarfo v. Ginsberg · filed 2002-05-08(d)

It is true that the federal court of appeals rationalized the dismissal of the federal claim on grounds of subject matter jurisdiction. We disagree, however, that such a dismissal makes the tolling provision of section 1367(d) inapplicable.

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

Legg v. DellaVolpe · filed 2002-05-23(c)

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

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

Langer v. Town of Trumball · filed 2002-05-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline jurisdiction over pendent state law claims when all the claims conferring federal jurisdiction have been dismissed. The district court, therefore, was within its discretion when it declined jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims.

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

Gage v. New York State Department of Health · filed 2002-05-29(c)

Because it is held that ADM-8 complies with federal law, plaintiffs' state law claims, if any, will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

After the federal claims are dismissed, § 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Roe v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services · filed 2002-07-17(c)(3)

We remand to the district court either to reconsider the official immunity question or to decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. If the court declines supplemental jurisdiction, it should dismiss without prejudice so that plaintiffs can pursue their claims in Texas state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to leave state-law claims to state courts when no federal claims remain.

Logiodice v. Trustees of Maine Central Institute · filed 2002-07-18(c)(3)

In the absence of federal claims, the district court was entitled to leave those to the state courts, as it did here. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (2000).

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

Taylor v. Money Store · filed 2002-08-01(c)

After the district court dismissed the federal claims, it was not an abuse of discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Biddle v. Fred Meyer Stores · filed 2002-08-15(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

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

Metz v. Supreme Court · filed 2002-08-19(c)(3)

Finally, because the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims, it properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bendzak v. North Royalton School District · filed 2002-07-29(c)(3)

Because there was no basis for federal jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over the Bendzaks’s supplemental state law claims.

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

Tabers Marketing Corp. v. Hopper · filed 2002-08-01(c)(3)

This case is remanded to the District Court with the understanding that, as no federal claims remain, it may choose to decline to exercise supplemental 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 state-law claims when no federal claim remains.

Lynch-Bey v. Bolden · filed 2002-08-13(c)(3)

Having found no basis for federal jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over Lynch-Bey’s supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed; the Fifth Circuit generally favors declining jurisdiction in that situation.

Morris v. MS Farm Bur Mtl Ins · filed 2002-08-19(c)

This court’s “general rule” is to decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over state claims once all federal claims are eliminated from a case. ... The district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding the remaining state law claims.

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

Potts v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2002-08-29(c)(3)

Because I will dismiss Potts’ federal claims as a matter of law, I decline to entertain these pendent state law claims and will dismiss them 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 all federal claims.

Carter v. Mostovoy · filed 2002-09-20(c)

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

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

McCord v. City of Columbus · filed 2002-09-10(c)(3)

Because all of Plaintiffs federal claims are disposed of in this Order, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it resolves all federal claims.

Ray v. Village of Woodridge · filed 2002-09-16(c)(3)

Having determined that there is no federal issue, the court relinquishes pendant jurisdiction over any and all of Gideon’s and Ray’s state law claims. It is customary for the court to do so after resolving all federal claims.

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

Quarless v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center · filed 2002-09-27(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state and local law claims in light of the dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs federal causes of action.

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

Malone v. Addison Insurance Marketing, Inc. · filed 2002-09-27(c)(3)

Because the Court finds there is no viable federal claim in this action on which to predicate supplemental jurisdiction, the Court will exercise its discretion to dismiss supplemental state law claims pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Frierson v. Goetz · filed 2002-10-10(c)(3)

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

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

Duff v. Yount · filed 2002-10-22(c)(3)

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

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

Collins v. Deegan · filed 2002-10-23(c)(3)

Finally, having found no basis for federal jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over Collins’s supplemental state law claims.

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

Maysonet v. Drillex, S.E. · filed 2002-10-30(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Commonwealth claims against Defendants.

Section 1367(d) tolls the limitations period for a supplemental state claim for 30 days after the federal court dismisses that claim.

Harris v. Grimes · filed 2002-12-09(d)

Thus, we conclude the negligence claim remained pending until the federal court actually dismissed it in June 1993. By the court’s dismissal order, the statute of limitations was tolled for 30 days after entry of dismissal, and appellant filed her negligence claim against Mathieson within that period. Hence, the complaint was timely.

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

Moreland v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2002-11-13(c)(3)

There being no federal claims remaining, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), over Counts I, II, VII, VIII, IX, and X.

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

McMillan v. Edwards · filed 2002-12-09(c)(3)

Finally, having found no basis for federal jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over any supplemental state law claims which McMillan may have had.

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

Shooting Point, L.L.C. v. Cumming · filed 2002-12-20(c)(3)

With the dismissal of plaintiffs’ federal claims, however, the basis for federal jurisdiction has been extinguished. The court, in its discretion, declines to exercise continuing supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims contained in Count 6.

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

Phillips Getschow Co. v. Green Bay Brown County Professional Football Stadium District · filed 2003-01-02(c)(3)

Pursuant to § 1367(c), I may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if I have dismissed all federal claims.

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

R.T. v. Gross · filed 2003-01-08(c)(3)

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

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

Campuzano v. Illinois State Board of Elections · filed 2003-01-10(c)(3)

And even if they did, the court would refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it because all of the federal causes of action have long since been dismissed from this law suit.

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

Small v. Chao · filed 2003-01-15(c)(3)

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in Counts I, II, and IV of his Complaint. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count III, to the extent it states a State law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support dismissal of related state-law claims when federal claims are reinstated on appeal.

ESTATE OF · filed 2003-01-29(c)(3)

After granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of the Smiths' section 1983 claims, the district court dismissed their supplemental state tort law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment with respect to certain of the Smiths' section 1983 claims, we also will reverse the district court's dismissal of their related state-law claims and the district court on the remand should reinstate those claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed; ordinarily, the state law claims should then be dismissed.

Torres v. City of New York · filed 2003-03-11(c)

The Court declines to exercise such discretion. These state law claims were before the Court based on supplemental jurisdiction. Where the basis for pendent jurisdiction is dismissed, ordinarily so should the state law claims be dismissed.

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

Gladysz v. Desmarais et al. · filed 2003-03-17(c)(3)

The only claims that remain pending in this case are claims based on state law. I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.

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

Costello v. St. Francis Hospital · filed 2003-04-16(c)(3)

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

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

Frazer v. Angelina College · filed 2003-05-06(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 by declining to exercise pendant jurisdiction over Finch’s state-law claims against Dickens, in light of its dismissal of all federal-law claims against Angelina College.

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

Frazer v. Dickens · filed 2003-05-06(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 by declining to exercise pendant jurisdiction over Finch’s state-law claims against Dickens, in light of its dismissal of all federal-law claims against Angelina College.

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

Grupo Catalan De Inversiones, S.A. v. Grupo Cupey, Inc. · filed 2003-05-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed Grupo Catalan’s claims against AIICO, no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case insofar as no diversity exists between the parties with pending claims. ... Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Grupo Cupey’s cross-claims and AIICO’s third-party complaint.

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

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2003-06-20(c)(3)

Because there is no longer any federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses the remaining claim under the New York State constitution.

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

Murphy v. Board of Education of the Rochester City School District · filed 2003-07-10(c)(3)

Since plaintiffs federal claims have all been dismissed, however, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims, and they are dismissed.

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

Goldberg v. Cablevision Systems Corp. · filed 2003-08-29(c)(3)

Because his federal claims must be dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Taggart v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2003-09-03(c)(3)

Finally, because the district court correctly dismissed Mr. Taggart’s federal law claims, we perceive no abuse of discretion in its decision to refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Gold v. Local 7 United Food & Commer. Workers Union, 159 F.3d 1307, 1310 (10th Cir. 1998).

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

CARCAMO v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2003-09-03(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the other claims contained in the second amended complaint.

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

Hockman v. Westward Communications, L.L.C. · filed 2003-09-18(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of all federal claims against Defendant Westward, the Court respectfully declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over Plaintiffs state-law claims against Oscar Rogers.

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

Williamson v. Indiana University · filed 2003-09-23(c)(3)

Moreover, given its dismissal of Williamson’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state causes of action.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing the federal claim when the claims arise from the same facts and their outcome is plain.

Friends of Falun Gong v. Pacific Cultural Enterprise, Inc. · filed 2003-09-24(a)

The Court chooses to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in favor of deciding plaintiffs state law claims because the claims arise out of the same underlying facts, and the outcome of these claims is “plain.”

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

Holt v. Morgan · filed 2003-10-23(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(c) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Tyson v. Willauer · filed 2003-11-04(c)

Having dismissed all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, we also dismiss their pendent state-law claims.

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

Rogers v. Martin · filed 2003-12-11(c)(3)

Having dismissed Rogers’s federal claim, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over Rogers’s supplemental state law claims.

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

Aldana v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. · filed 2003-12-12(c)(3)

When all of the principal federal claims over which the Court may have had original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent non-federal claims is fully discretionary. ... Therefore, in the exercise of its discretion, the Court declines to consider the pendent non-federal claims.

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

California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. City of Chico · filed 2004-01-04(c)(3)

This court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 if it has original jurisdiction. ... Given that the head of federal jurisdiction has been lost, Century’s remaining state claims will also be dismissed.

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

Santos v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT. OF CHILDREN · filed 2004-01-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs' federal claims, this Court declines to retain jurisdiction over plaintiff's supplemental state claims because no federal cause of action remains.

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

Santos v. County of Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services · filed 2004-01-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs’ federal claims, this Court declines to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs supplemental state claims because no federal cause of action remains.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives federal trial courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the sole claim within original federal jurisdiction is dismissed.

Chesapeake Ranch Water Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Calvert County · filed 2004-01-12(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides federal trial courts with discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the only claim with original federal jurisdiction must be dismissed, leaving only claims grounded in state law. ... In keeping with these decisions, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Chesapeake’s claims based upon state law, but will dismiss the claims without prejudice.

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

Kitchen v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. · filed 2004-01-12(c)(3)

The court has determined that dismissal of Plaintiffs federal claims is appropriate. In the absence of another basis for original jurisdiction, the court intends to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Garay v. U.S. Bancorp · filed 2004-02-03(c)

At this stage of the case, because her federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims and need not consider the defendant’s remaining arguments.

Section 1367(d) allows a plaintiff thirty days after dismissal of supplemental state-law claims to refile them in state court.

HealthTrac, Inc. v. Sinclair · filed 2004-01-23(d)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims against Mol and Baillie and they are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, plaintiff may re-file its state law claims in the proper state court within thirty days.

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

Yap v. Oceanside Union Free School District · filed 2004-02-02(c)(3)

Plaintiffs have alleged several causes of action under the common law of New York. 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 may decline to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). After consideration of the arguments presented by the parties, the Court exercises its discretion to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Mathon v. Feldstein · filed 2004-02-17(c)(3)

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

When federal claims are reinstated on appeal, state claims dismissed after all federal claims were dismissed under § 1367(c)(3) are reinstated as well.

Theofel v. Farey-Jones · filed 2004-02-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the federal claims, the district court declined jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because we reverse dismissal of some of the federal claims, we also reinstate the state claims.

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

Van Deelen v. Shawnee Mission Unified School District 512 · filed 2004-02-18(c)(3)

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

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

Clissuras v. City University of New York · filed 2004-02-19(c)(3)

In the absence of any viable federal claims,... the district court was well within its discretion in declining to exercise sup...plemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law causes of action, which it dismissed, of course, without prejudice.

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

Yanaki v. Iomed, Inc. · filed 2004-03-11(c)(3)

Because this order disposes of all Plaintiffs’ claims involving federal law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Gatlin v. Sergeant Green · filed 2004-03-16(c)(3)

Because the district court correctly dismissed Mrs. Gatlin’s federal claims, the court properly exercised its discretion to decline to accept supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state claims.

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

Concepcion v. Lluch · filed 2004-03-19(c)(3)

Thus, this Magistrate Judge declines to exercise pendant jurisdiction upon absence of a federal cause of action as to any claim generally stated in the complaint as falling under article 1802 of the P.R. Civil Code.

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

Hallman v. Lee County MS · filed 2004-03-25(c)(3)

The district court also properly refused to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Rhyne v. Henderson County, 973 F.2d 386, 395 (5th Cir. 1992).

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

Agency Development, Inc. v. Med America Insurance Co. of New York · filed 2004-03-24(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment against plaintiff on its federal claims, I decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims, and they are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after the federal claims are dismissed, taking account of factors such as the case’s progress, possible time bars, and forum shopping.

Herron v. Virginia Commonwealth University · filed 2004-04-29(c)(3)

It is within the court's discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims when federal claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... The court concludes that none of these considerations, even if present here to some degree, justify retention of the issue for resolution by this court.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves retention of related state-law claims to the court’s discretion after the federal claims are dismissed.

Nexans Wires S.A. v. Sark-USA, Inc. · filed 2004-05-25(c)(3)

Now that the federal claims have been dismissed, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is discretionary. ... Therefore, I exercise my discretion to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Howell v. North Central College · filed 2004-06-02(c)(3)

With the sole basis for invoking federal jurisdiction gone, the general rule is that the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state law claims rather than resolve them on the merits.

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

Dickerson v. Parnell · filed 2004-06-10(c)(3)

Fourth, it was unnecessary for the district court to consider Dickerson’s supplemental state law claim alleging interference with his right to petition the government for redress of his grievances because his fed...eral claims had been dismissed.

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

Harrison v. Potter · filed 2004-07-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed all of Harrison’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise its discretion under § 1367(c) over her remaining state law claim under New York Executive Law § 296.

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

Boyd v. Rockwood Area School District · filed 2004-07-22(c)(3)

Since the ... district court correctly dismissed the section 1983 claim, it was within its authority to remand the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Brown v. Regional School District 13 · filed 2004-08-09(c)(3)

Having disposed of all of the federal claims in this case, the Court has discretion to dismiss the state claims as well under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court will decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Brown’s state law claims.

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

Special Situations Fund, III, L.P. v. Cocciola · filed 2004-08-26(c)(3)

Because the federal claims have been dismissed, the Court, in its discretion, will not maintain jurisdiction over the state law claims. They too are dismissed, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Tao of Systems Integration, Inc. v. Analytical Services & Materials, Inc. · filed 2004-08-11(c)(3)

Because all federal claims have been eliminated from this case, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count Three, the sole remaining claim.

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

Jones v. Smith · filed 2004-09-13(c)(3)

Because we have affirmed the dismissal of all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and thus dismiss this state claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Ashton v. City of Concord, North Carolina · filed 2004-09-17(c)(3)

Despite this ruling, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the two remaining state common law claims because all the federal claims in this action have been dismissed.

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

Phillips v. Bailey · filed 2004-09-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs federal claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Merry Charters, LLC v. Town of Stonington · filed 2004-10-27(c)(3)

Having disposed of the federal claims in this case, the Court has discretion to dismiss the state claims as well under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Munro v. Tristan · filed 2004-10-29(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Munro’s claim that the CDC bulletin violated his rights under California state law.

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

Higdon v. Jackson · filed 2004-12-16(c)(3)

Although a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even after the federal claims are dismissed.

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

Lassiter v. Topeka Unified School District No. 501 · filed 2004-12-17(c)(3)

Further, given the court’s dismissal of plaintiffs federal claims, at this time the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs pendent state claims.

Under § 1367(c)(3), a district court should retain supplemental state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claims when substantial judicial resources have been committed and remand would require substantial duplication of effort.

Miller Aviation v. Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors · filed 2001-11-27(c)(3)

This case presents a good example of when a district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims for reasons of judicial efficiency. The judicial resources expended by the district court in this case are considerable. The district court spent more than five years overseeing this multifaceted litigation. During this time, the district court considered 22 motions, held 9 hearings, and issued 19 orders, including the 71-page decision presently before us on appeal. Additionally, the district court's orders demonstrate a mastery of the minutiae of airport administration, aviation commerce, as well as the inner workings of the various decision-making processes within Milwaukee County's government. For these reasons, we conclude that a remand of the remaining supplemental claims would require a "duplication of effort" by the state court that undermines the very purpose of supplemental jurisdiction--judicial efficiency.