28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Steuer · filed 2007-12-21(c)(3)

Having resolved all claims arising out of federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count One pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hubbs v. Alamao · filed 2005-02-14(c)

However, having dismissed plaintiffs federal claims, this Court declines to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs supplemental state claim.

Section 1367 allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when no viable federal claim remains.

Ognibene v. Niagara County Sheriff's Department · filed 2005-01-11(c)(3)

The district court properly exercised its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over Ognibene’s state-law malpractice claim in the absence of any viable federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to address state law claims after it dismisses the federal claim.

Rieger v. Township of Fairfield · filed 2005-02-09(c)(3)

However, because the District Court had discretion to address her state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it was not beyond its authority to do so and we will not disturb this ruling.

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

Nicholson v. Lenczewski · filed 2005-02-16(c)(3)

In addition, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The court has dismissed all federal claims contained in the complaint. Thus, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

Moore v. Capital Region Workforce Development Board · filed 2005-02-28(c)(3)

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

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

DH2, Inc. v. Athanassiades · filed 2005-03-10(c)(3)

The question of whether the Court should continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims is entirely within the Court’s discretion. ... The Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

DOMINIC J. v. Wyoming Valley West High School · filed 2005-03-22(c)(3)

Since the Court will grant summary judgment on all Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state tort claims.

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

Torres v. Corrections Corp. of America · filed 2005-04-18(c)(3)

The Court does not have federal question or diversity jurisdiction of the remaining negligence action against defendant CCA, and the Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

When federal claims are dismissed, § 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Craig v. Park Financial of Broward County, Inc. · filed 2005-04-26(c)(3)

When federal claims are dismissed, the Court has the discretion to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... Upon due consideration, however, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claim against Defendant Park Finance.

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

Mullins v. Crouch · filed 2005-04-28(c)(3)

Inasmuch as the federal claims have now been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mullins state-law claims against Crouch.

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

Wojewski v. Rapid City Regional Hospital, Inc. · filed 2005-06-13(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining claims, Counts I, VI, VII, VIII, and IX, all of which allege violations of the laws of the State of South Dakota.

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

Milgrom v. Burstein · filed 2005-06-28(c)(3)

Since Plaintiff has no remaining federal claim to pursue herein, for the reasons set forth above, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consider the state claim.

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

Ruggiero v. Kavlich · filed 2005-06-30(c)(3)

As there is no remaining federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and remands the remaining state law claims to state court.

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

Arnett Physician Group, P.C. v. Greater Lafayette Health Services, Inc. · filed 2005-07-29(c)(3)

The federal law claims in this lawsuit have been dismissed. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction as to the remaining state law claims.

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

Caltabiano v. BSB Bank & Trust Co. · filed 2005-08-08(c)(3)

Pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), this Court in its discretion declines to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

May v. City of Springfield · filed 2005-09-23(c)(3)

In accordance with the supplemental jurisdiction statute, this Court possesses the discretion to decline to continue to exercise such jurisdiction over a plaintiffs state law claims after her federal law claims have been dismissed.

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

Neer v. Pelino · filed 2005-09-27(c)

Furthermore, absent a federal claim under SarbOx, we believe the Delaware state courts are far better suited than we are to consider plaintiffs remaining state law based claims. We therefore elect not to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not authorize declining supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claims ended in a default judgment, because those claims were not dismissed.

Morin v. Empiyah & Co., LLC · filed 2005-09-28(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline to exercise jurisdiction if all federal claims have been dismissed. Here, a default judgment has been entered on the federal claims against Empiyah. In this situation, one court has written that [f]ar from determining that the federal claim was unfounded, the court’s default judgment represents its determination that the federal claim was well-founded. The simple fact that there was nothing left to litigate on the merits of that claim does not mean that the claim was dismissed. As the federal claim ... was not dismissed, the exercise of discretion [to decline jurisdiction] was not authorized by § 1367(c)(3). ... This Court agrees.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims fail at the outset, especially where the applicable state limitations period is unclear.

Lee v. Town Board · filed 2005-09-28(c)(3)

Because it is unclear which state statute of limitations applies and the effect of any of the arguably relevant limitations periods on Appellant’s claims, we conclude that, once the federal claims failed at the outset, supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims should not have been exercised.

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

New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v. IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. · filed 2005-09-29(c)(3)

Because all of the federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these purely state law claims.

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

Iwachiw v. Port Authority · filed 2005-11-03(c)

Fifth, the district court properly dismissed appellant’s state law claims once his federal claims were dismissed.

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

Egilman v. Keller & Heckman, LLP. · filed 2005-11-10(c)(3)

As Egilman’s claims based on federal law have been dismissed, there is no reason for the court to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Egilman’s state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Gibson v. Weber · filed 2006-01-10(c)(3)

Congress unambiguously gave district courts discretion in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to dismiss supplemental state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed, and there is no basis to find an abuse of discretion here.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to dismiss supplemental state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed.

Golden v. Town of Collierville · filed 2006-01-23(c)(3)

District courts have the discretion to dismiss pendent state-law claims where all federal claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Walker v. Prieto · filed 2006-02-03(c)(3)

Absent an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, the state law claims can only be maintained through the district court’s discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3). As explained in this Order, no federal civil rights claims remain pending. Therefore, it is within this Court’s discretion to dismiss the state law claims. Therefore, Counts II and III are DISMISSED.

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

Clark v. NATIONAL EQUITIES HOLDINGS, INC. · filed 2006-02-13(c)(3)

This court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims now that the federal claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Perkins v. Sebring Associates the Excelsior II · filed 2006-02-13(c)

Because Perkins and Young failed to state a federal cause of action, the District Court properly acted within its discretion to choose not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims.

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

May v. Comm · filed 2006-02-15(c)(3)

District courts have the discretion to dismiss pendent state law claims if all federal claims have been dismissed.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed as a matter of law.

Wall v. Dauphin County · filed 2006-02-15(c)(3)

Because the District Court properly dismissed all of Wall’s federal claims as a matter of law, the state law claims were also properly dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

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

Phyllis May, Administratrix of the Estate of Deborah Kirk, Deceased v. Franklin County Commissioners · filed 2006-02-15(c)(3)

District courts have the discretion to dismiss pendent state law claims if all federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Banks v. Department of Motor Vehicles for Cal. · filed 2006-02-17(c)(3)

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

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

Fernandez v. Alexander · filed 2006-03-01(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed all federal law claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fernandez’s state law claims.

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

Taylor v. CSX Transportation · filed 2006-03-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the court in its discretion declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim in Count IV.

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

Harrison v. Jones Walker · filed 2006-03-08(c)(3)

The general rule is that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the court has dismissed all claims over which it had pendent jurisdiction.

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

Posey Ex Rel. Estate of Posey v. Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P. · filed 2006-03-24(c)(3)

In any event, § 1367(c)(3) expressly grants a district court the authority to decline to exercise jurisdiction when all federal claims have been dismissed. ... The court therefore exercises its discretion and declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Davis v. Township of Paulsboro · filed 2006-03-27(c)(3)

No other claims arising under federal law remain and we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Jones v. PEOPLE'S HERITAGE BANK · filed 2006-03-29(c)(3)

Having disposed of Plaintiffs federal law claims, the Court finds that this case should be remanded to state court for adjudication of her remaining state law claims. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of Richmond County, Georgia.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims based on dismissal of a federal claim when that dismissal is reversed.

Johnson v. Riddle · filed 2006-04-04(c)(3)

After dismissing Johnson’s federal claim, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because we conclude that summary judgment in favor of Riddle was erroneous, we reverse this decision as well.

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

Reynolds v. Gables Residential Services, Inc. · filed 2006-04-26(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), while the Court could retain jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissal of the federal component, the Court has discretion to decline to do so.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims have been dismissed, even when the state claim meets § 1367(a)’s same-case-or-controversy requirement.

Thurman, Clifton v. Village of Homewood · filed 2006-05-02(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) assumes that a claim satisfies the same case or controversy requirement of § 1367(a), but grants to the district court the discretion to decline jurisdic- tion where all federal claims have been dismissed. The No. 05-2940 9 court exercised that discretion, and Thurman raises no argument challenging that determination. Because the court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdic- tion under § 1367(c)(3), Thurman’s argument regarding the court’s alternative holding is irrelevant.

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

Hood v. Prisoner Health Services, Inc. · filed 2006-05-09(c)(3)

The court thus lawfully exercised its discretion not to assert supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

McCloskey v. Mueller · filed 2006-05-16(c)(3)

Without any federal claims left in the case, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims asserted against Sampson.

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

Allen v. Texas Department of Transportation · filed 2006-06-22(c)

Additionally, without a federal cause of action before it, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Allen’s state law claims against TDOT and DPS.

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

Tal v. Hogan · filed 2006-06-29(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed all of Appellants’ federal claims, it was well within its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline 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 it dismisses the federal claims.

Ramos-Pinero v. Commonweath of PR · filed 2006-06-30(c)(3)

First, having properly dismissed the federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims asserted in this case.

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

Niemic v. Maloney · filed 2006-08-11(c)(3)

Because the federal claims will be dismissed on summary judgment, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the pending state claims. ... See also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)(providing that a district court can decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim once all of the federal claims have been dismissed). Thus, the state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to Niemic filing them in the trial court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

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

Gutierrez v. Molina · filed 2006-09-05(c)(3)

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court that does not sit in diversity has the discretion to dismiss a plaintiffs supplemental state claims once it has dismissed all federal claims brought by that plaintiff. ... Since all of plaintiffs’ federal claims have been dismissed, I decline to hear the supplemental claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims are dismissed; reinstatement of federal claims requires reconsideration of whether to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Swiecicki v. Delgado · filed 2006-09-15(c)(3)

But because we are reversing the grant of summary judgment on Swiecicki’s federal claims, we also reverse the dismissal of Swiecicki’s other state-law claims. The district court will now need to reconsider whether it should exercise jurisdiction over the various state-law claims in light of our holding. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (outlining the circumstances in which a district court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction).

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

General Cable Industries, Inc. v. Zurn Pex, Inc. · filed 2006-09-28(c)(3)

This court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims now that the federal claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It is therefore ordered that the remaining state law claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the refiling of the same in the appropriate state court.

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

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc. · filed 2006-09-28(c)(3)

The Court, however, has dismissed plaintiffs federal claims and because plaintiff asserts no other basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

After all federal claims are dismissed, a court ordinarily should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply · filed 2006-09-28(c)(3)

As the district court recognized, a federal court that has dismissed a plaintiff’s federal-law claims should not ordinarily reach the plaintiff’s state-law claims.

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

Anderson v. Wiggins · filed 2006-09-29(c)

Because this Court also chooses not to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the various state claims cited by plaintiff, plaintiffs claims must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

In Re Sinaltrainal Litigation · filed 2006-09-29(c)(3)

As this Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal claims, this Court declines to retain jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiffs state law-based claims.

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

Gordon v. Continental Airlines · filed 2006-10-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims before it, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gordon’s state-law retaliation 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.

Ward v. Bank of New York · filed 2006-10-13(c)(3)

When, as here, all 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. ... Here, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ward’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when those claims present novel state law issues.

Michigan Division-Monument Builders v. Michigan Cemetery Ass'n · filed 2006-10-27(c)

This is not such a case. Moreover, there are no published opinions from Michigan courts discussing the statute that forms the ' basis of Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Plaintiffs’ claims will therefore likely raises novel issues under the statute. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a state law claim dependent on supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims are dismissed.

Fisher v. Kanas · filed 2006-12-07(c)(3)

The Court has determined that the securities law claims should be dismissed. As a result, there is no basis upon which to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

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

L. Walter Quinn etc. v. Ocwen Federal Bank · filed 2006-12-08(c)(3)

It is within the district court's discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of the federal claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss state law claims when it has dismissed all federal claims.

Miller v. County of Nassau · filed 2006-12-12(c)(3)

Although the Plaintiffs have alleged violations of the New York State constitution and various New York laws, jurisdiction over these claims is asserted solely on the basis of the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court has determined that all the federal law claims should be dismissed. As a result, there is no basis upon which to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

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

Andrew v. Clark · filed 2007-02-05(c)(3)

As complete diversity of citizenship is lacking, I shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and shall dismiss without prejudice the remaining, state law claims.

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

Highland Development, Inc. v. Duchesne County · filed 2007-03-02(c)(3)

Further, bdsed on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, all of which are based on state law. For that reason, the court dismisses Plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice. The federal claims are dismissed with prejudice.

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

Justin F. v. Maloney · filed 2007-03-07(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of the only federal causes of action pleaded in the complaint, the Court, exercising its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state causes of action.

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

Ramirez v. New York City Board of Education · filed 2007-03-30(c)

Plaintiffs federal claims are dismissed. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives the court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissal of the federal claim, and the court ordinarily should decline it.

Darboe v. Goodwill Industries of Greater NY & Northern NJ, Inc. · filed 2007-04-16(c)(3)

WTiere, as here, the dismissal of a federal claim leaves only state law claims for adjudication, the court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state claims. ... In such cases, the court should ordinarily decline the exercise of such jurisdiction. ... In light of the foregoing, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claim and dismisses the case in its entirety.

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

Lost Trail, LLC v. Town of Weston · filed 2007-04-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims asserting inverse condemnation or regulatory taking in violation of the Connecticut Constitution (Count Six), declaratory judgment of property lines (Count Seven), and municipal estoppel (Count Eight).

Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily calls for dismissal of supplemental state-law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed and no other basis for federal jurisdiction remains.

Endico v. Fonte · filed 2007-04-24(c)(3)

As there remains no other basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiffs state law claims must be dismissed.

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

Clemens Trust v. DW · filed 2007-05-02(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3),3 it was within the district court’s discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims once it dismissed the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not require a district court to withdraw supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claims are dismissed.

Lopez v. Del Taco Restaurant Properties, II · filed 2007-06-27(c)(3)

After all, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) does not require a district court to withdraw supplemental jurisdiction when federal “anchor” claims are dismissed.

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

Ortiz-Romany v. United States · filed 2007-07-06(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law claims against defendants-officers.

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

Giallorenzo v. Beaver County · filed 2007-07-20(c)(3)

Given that Giallorenzo failed to state a cognizable federal claim, the District Court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over Giallorenzo’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 properly dismissing the federal claims.

Steskal v. Benton County · filed 2007-08-22(c)(3)

Having properly dismissed Steskal’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Steskal’s new state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed, state law issues predominate, and the case has not neared trial.

Mitchell v. Johnson · filed 2007-09-05(c)

The instant case presents no novel issues of state law. However, state law issues were at all times overwhelmingly predominant, and no federal law issues remain in the lawsuit. Moreover, as further indicia that this court lacks special reasons for continued adjudication of this matter, no trial date is set, and the matter has not advanced to the last pre-trial stages. See Smith v. Amedisys, Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 447 (5th Cir.2002). The court finds no other compelling circumstances warranting retention of the remaining State law claims, and mindful of the general rule in the Fifth Circuit and the guidance provided by the Supreme Court, this court, in its discretion, declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining State law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Foster v. Wilson · filed 2007-10-05(c)(3)

The decision whether to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed lies within the district court’s discretion.

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

Dunleavy v. New Jersey · filed 2007-10-16(c)

Because Dunleavy did not present actionable federal claims, the District Court did not abuse its disex’etion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over Dunleavy’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); De Asencio, 342 F.3d at 309.

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

Brown v. Sweeney · filed 2007-11-01(c)(3)

This Court, expresses no opinion on the matter, however, since, with the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court refuses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses this claim.

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

Pitchford v. Borough of Munhall · filed 2007-11-13(c)(3)

Since Pitchford’s federal law claims will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bush v. Butler · filed 2007-11-14(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) in light of the dismissal of all asserted federal claims for failure to state claim upon which relief could be granted.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court discretion to hear state-law claims after dismissing the claim over which it had federal-question jurisdiction.

First & Beck, a Nevada LLC v. Bank of the Southwest · filed 2007-12-17(c)(3)

Whether the district court chooses to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction is, of course, a decision committed to its good discretion.

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

Briggman v. Virginia, Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement · filed 2007-12-21(c)

Because the court has determined to dismiss the plaintiffs federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims under state law.

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

Fields v. Oklahoma State Penitentiary · filed 2007-12-28(c)(3)

Because we affirm the dismissal of all Mr. Fields’s federal-law claims, dismissal of his state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) was proper.

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

Fields v. OK Penitentiary · filed 2007-12-28(c)(3)

Because we affirm the dismissal of all Mr. Fields’s federal-law claims, dismissal of his state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) was proper.

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

Phillips v. Martz · filed 2007-12-28(c)(3)

The district court properly refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Phillips’ remaining state law claims. See 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 dismissing the federal claims.

Givens v. Chambers · filed 2008-01-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the court in its discretion declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim in Count TV.

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

Dobyns v. Trauter · filed 2008-04-03(c)

The remaining claims against the Trau-ter and MSC Defendants are grounded in state law. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

When federal claims are reinstated on appeal, the district court must reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims it dismissed after all federal claims were dismissed.

Gruenwald v. Maddox · filed 2008-04-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Gruenwald’s federal causes of action, the district court dismissed these claims pursuant to its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Based on our conclusion that the district court erred in dismissing all of Gruenwald’s federal causes of action, we remand for the district court to reconsider whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gruenwald’s pendent state law claims.

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

Matican v. City of New York · filed 2008-04-23(c)(3)

Furthermore, because Matican has no valid federal claims, the district court did not exceed its allowable discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over his state claims.

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

Colassi v. Looper et al · filed 2008-05-20(c)(3)

Because the court is dismissing all of Colassi's federal claims, however, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Marrero-Gutierrez v. Molina, 491 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2007).

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

Waybright v. Frederick County, MD · filed 2008-06-02(c)(3)

With all its federal questions gone, there may be the authority to keep it in federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a) and 1441(c) (2000), but there is no good reason to do so. Plaintiffs deserve a day in court on all their state law claims, and the better path is to send their case back to state court whole.

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

Allen v. City of Sturgis · filed 2008-06-05(c)(3)

Having disposed of Allen’s federal claim, the court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and declines supplemental jurisdiction over the claims which arise under state law.

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

Hernandez v. Florida Department of Corrections · filed 2008-06-09(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed Hernandez’s federal claims, it properly chose not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and (c).

When all federal claims have been dismissed, courts ordinarily should decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Reynosa v. Schultz · filed 2008-06-23(c)(3)

Ordinarily, where all federal claims have been dismissed, federal courts should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

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

Wilson v. Dollar-Thrifty Auto Group-South Fla Transport · filed 2008-07-03(c)(3)

Moreover, nothing in the record suggests the court abused its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over Wilson’s remaining state law claims against Dollar-Thrifty and Torres, and we “have encouraged district courts to dismiss any remaining state claims when, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed . . . .” Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088 (11th Cir. 2004).

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

Hernandez v. Carbone · filed 2008-07-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Mr. Hernandez’s federal claims against Mr. Carbone, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Brady v. Dammer · filed 2008-08-13(c)(3)

Since all of the federal claims fail to survive -the instant Motion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Andreen v. Lanier · filed 2008-08-26(c)(3)

Moreover, because plaintiff has failed to allege any viable claims under federal law, the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over her common law claims.

After disposing of the federal claim, a court may dismiss the remaining state law claims under § 1367(c)(3).

Milano v. NBC Universal, Inc. · filed 2008-09-05(c)(3)

The Court’s ruling disposes of the case in its entirety as to Defendants NBC, 3 Ball Productions, Inc., Reveille, LLC, 25/7 Productions, LLP and Ben Silverman (“NBC Defendants”); as to the remaining defendants, the Court does not address the state law claims but rather orders them DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

GVA Market Neutral Master Ltd. v. Veras Capital Partners Offshore Fund, Ltd. · filed 2008-09-29(c)(3)

Because the Gottex federal claims are dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common law and state statutory claims.

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

Celestin v. City of New York · filed 2008-10-14(c)(3)

The plaintiffs federal claims are dismissed. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c) ordinarily calls for declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed, but permits resolution of remaining state law claims that are clear without further trial proceedings or difficult state law issues.

Moder v. L.E. Meyers Co. · filed 2008-12-05(c)

Under § 1367(c), a federal court “may” decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once federal claims have been dismissed, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has cautioned that the “may” in § 1367(c) is closer to “must”; unless the circumstances of the case are “unusual,” dismissal (or in this case remand) of state law claims is proper once the federal claims are dismissed. ... Since this is the only remaining claim, I conclude that it would be an abuse of discretion for this court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to tackle this question.

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

Potter v. City of Tontitown · filed 2009-01-12(c)

The district court also did not err by declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims, and dismissing them without prejudice. See Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 647 (8th Cir. 2006) (Congress clearly gave district courts discretion in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to dismiss supplemental state-law claims once all federal claims have been dismissed).

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

Wisdom v. Katz · filed 2009-01-13(c)

Although it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction,... it was not required to do so once it dismissed the federal claims.

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

Leib v. Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission · filed 2009-02-19(c)(3)

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Leib’s federal claims, we also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision not to retain jurisdiction over the state law claim.

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

Harrell v. Oreck · filed 2009-03-05(c)(3)

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

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

Li Xi v. Apple Inc. · filed 2009-03-13(c)(3)

Given the Court’s dismissal of all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

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

Shahin v. Darling · filed 2009-03-31(c)(3)

Because the complaint fails to state a federal claim, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any supplemental state law claims plaintiff raises.

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

Ontiveros v. Los Angeles County · filed 2009-04-18(c)(3)

IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted; ... (4) plaintiffs state law claims shall be dismissed without prejudice, and Judgment shall be entered accordingly.

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

Northern Highlands I, II, LLC v. Comerica Bank · filed 2009-04-30(c)(3)

Having properly concluded that the federal claims should be dismissed, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Delaney v. District of Columbia · filed 2009-05-04(c)(3)

However, having dismissed such federal law claims against Shoppers and the Union, it is appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the allegedly related state law claims.

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

Straker v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2009-06-25(c)

Finally, the District Court acted well within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), over plaintiffs state law breach of the duty of fair representation claim after it had dismissed each of plaintiffs claims under federal law.

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

Keenan v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers · filed 2009-07-13(c)(3)

Accordingly, in an exercise of its informed discretion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition v. Florida · filed 2009-07-27(c)(3)

Presuming that the state law claims are related under § 1367(a), this Court will not retain jurisdiction over them because the federal claims are dismissed.

Section 1367 does not require a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Bangura v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2009-07-29(c)(3)

The District Court was not required to exercise jurisdiction over these state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Chiesa v. New York State Department of Labor · filed 2009-07-31(c)

Exercising supplemental jurisdiction is not required. Rather, a district court may dismiss a state law claim if the court dismissed the federal claims, among other reasons. ... Because all the federal law claims are dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction will be declined and the state claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Maduforo v. Urban Service Systems Corp. · filed 2009-07-31(c)(3)

I will decline supplemental jurisdiction of plaintiff’s DCHRA claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and dismiss them without prejudice, so that plaintiff can pursue these claims, if she chooses to do so, across the street.

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

Lewis v. Government of the District of Columbia · filed 2009-08-15(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims against the District of Columbia.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing the federal claims, with a presumption favoring dismissal absent another basis for federal jurisdiction.

Lee v. City of Columbus · filed 2009-08-20(c)(3)

“Having so dismissed [Bowman’s] federal claims, this Court presumptively should not address any state law claim.” ... The Court, therefore, in its discretion declines to exercise federal jurisdiction over Bowman’s remaining state law claim for disability discrimination.

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

Nalley v. New Mexico Behavioral Health Institute · filed 2009-08-25(c)(3)

Having properly dismissed Nalley’s federal claims, the district court permissibly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law 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 dismissing all claims that could support federal jurisdiction.

Ibrahim v. Latham & Watkins, Law Office · filed 2009-08-28(c)(3)

Inasmuch as the district court properly dismissed all the claims that could have served as a basis for federal jurisdiction, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state and common law claims.

Section 1367 calls for reconsideration of supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when dismissal of the federal claim may materially alter the decision to exercise that jurisdiction.

City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern · filed 2009-09-09(c)(3)

Because our dismissal of the federal constitutional claim may materially alter the district court’s decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the preemption claim, ... we vacate its judgment and remand the state-law claim for reconsideration of the factors listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Mayrides v. Delaware County Commissioners · filed 2009-09-24(c)(3)

Having disposed of the federal claims, this Court will remand all remaining state law claims to state court. This Court has the discretion to dismiss pendent state law claims if all federal claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Cenveo, Inc. v. Rao · filed 2009-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed Cenveo’s federal-law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state-law claims.

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

Smith v. Hernandez · filed 2009-10-05(c)(3)

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

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

Darcy v. Lippman · filed 2009-10-22(c)

Having dismissed Darcy’s federal claims, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over his pendent claims.

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

Navo South Development Partners, Ltd. v. Denton County Electric Cooperative, Inc. · filed 2009-10-23(c)(3)

The Court finds that the remaining supplemental claims should also be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not authorize declining supplemental jurisdiction when the court adjudicates the federal claim and grants relief rather than dismissing it.

Glover v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance · filed 2009-10-28(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) does not apply, as the federal-question claim was not dismissed.

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

Friends of Tims Ford v. Tennessee Valley Authority · filed 2009-11-06(c)(3)

Additionally, the district court was acting well within its rights when it refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against TDEC. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); ROA at 497.

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

Friends of Tims Ford v. TVA · filed 2009-11-06(c)(3)

Additionally, the district court was acting well within its rights when it refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against TDEC.

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

Austin v. Beard · filed 2009-11-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed Austin’s federal claims, the court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim.

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

Chen v. Township of Fairfield · filed 2009-12-02(c)

The District Court properly exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims after dismissing Chen's federal claims.

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

Chipka v. Bank of America · filed 2009-12-08(c)(3)

The BoA apparently overlooks the fact that the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Chipkas’s state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. It was within the court’s discretion to do this.

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

Cataldi v. United Water New York · filed 2010-02-02(c)(3)

Finally, it was appropriate for the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Appellant’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally calls for a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed.

Irby v. Sumnicht · filed 2010-02-05(c)(3)

When all the federal claims in a case have been dismissed, the general rule is that a district court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law 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.

Swanson v. CITY OF CHETEK · filed 2010-02-16(c)(3)

Now that plaintiffs’ class of one claims have been dismissed, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims.

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

Krug v. McNally, Jr. · filed 2010-03-08(c)

As to Krug’s state law claims, a district court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over Krug’s state law claims, in light of the fact that it had dismissed all of Krug’s federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court discretion to hear related state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, but requires a considered decision.

Miller v. Herman · filed 2010-03-25(c)(3)

But a district court is never required to relin- quish jurisdiction over state law claims merely because the federal claims were dismissed before trial. Nightingale, 589 F.3d at 883; Sharp Elecs., 578 F.3d at 514-15. The only requirement is that it make a considered determination of whether it should hear the claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims on which its jurisdiction was based.

Terrell v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-03-29(c)(3)

When the federal law claims on which a court’s jurisdiction is based have been dismissed, the court has discretion in deciding whether 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 dismissing all federal claims.

International Media Films, Inc. v. Lucas Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2010-03-31(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims because the Court has dismissed all of the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the federal claims are no longer viable, absent exceptional circumstances favoring their retention.

Kalick v. Northwest Airlines Cor · filed 2010-03-29(c)(3)

As the parties have pointed to no exceptional circumstances favoring the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, we find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the remainder of Kalick’s state law claims.

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

EcoDisc Technology AG v. DVD Format/Logo Licensing Corp. · filed 2010-04-22(c)(3)

The Court will not address the sufficiency of the state law claims until Plaintiff has adequately pleaded a federal claim. In the absence of a viable federal claim, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Paulsen v. Local No. 856 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters · filed 2010-04-28(c)(3)

Without any remaining federal claims to support supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court’s dismissal of the remaining state law claims was proper.

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

Perkins v. CITY OF CREOLA · filed 2010-05-14(c)(3)

Because the two remaining claims are supplemental claims under state law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

McIntyre v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-06-14(c)(3)

Any other claim McIntyre has against his former attorney for deficient performance arises under the laws of the District of Columbia, not federal law, and this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any other intended performance claims against Rochen. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Blair v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services · filed 2010-06-22(c)(3)

Because the court has now dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over remaining defendants after the claims against the United States are dismissed.

Gray v. WACKENHUT SERVICES, INC. · filed 2010-06-25(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction over these defendants is appropriate even after the dismissal of the claims brought against the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), et seq.

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

Gehman v. Argent Mortgage Co. LLC · filed 2010-07-08(c)(3)

When all federal claims have been dismissed in an action based on federal-question jurisdiction, I may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law 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 all federal claims have been dismissed.

Schneller v. Crozer Chester Medical Center · filed 2010-07-20(c)(3)

Because Schneller’s federal claims were all dismissed, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Schneller’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 law claims.

Comiskey v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. · filed 2010-08-06(c)(3)

The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims following its dismissal of plaintiffs’ federal law claims.

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

Baker v. City of Hollywood · filed 2010-08-10(c)

But the court was permitted to decline supplemental jurisdiction where it already had dismissed Baker’s federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Whalen v. LANGFELLOW · filed 2010-08-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.