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.

Anderson v. Law Firm of Shorty, Dooley · filed 2010-08-26(c)(3)

Because all of Anderson’s federal claims were properly dismissed, the district court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Anderson’s state law claims. See Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 226-27 (5th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

When all federal claims fail, a court presumptively should decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims absent a justification or alternative basis for federal jurisdiction.

Myers v. Asset Acceptance LLC · filed 2010-09-07(c)(3)

Moreover, in light of the failure of these federal claims, this Court presumptively should not address the state law OCSPA claim. ... Plaintiff has failed to assert any justification or alternative basis for exercising jurisdiction over Claim Three should the Court grant summary judgment on her federal claims. Therefore, the Court expresses no opinion as to the merits of the OCSPA claim and DISMISSES this claim without prejudice.

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

John Webber, Jr. v. Griffin · filed 2010-10-29(c)(3)

The district court properly dismissed Webber’s remaining state law claims against the Individual Defendants because it had discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them after dismissing all of Webber’s federal law claims against the Individual Defendants.

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

Dorsey v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-11-02(c)(3)

The court, however, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims and dismisses them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Joseph v. Curtin · filed 2010-11-24(c)(3)

Furthermore, district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim if they have properly dismissed all of the federal law claims in the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In this case, the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplement jurisdiction over any possible state-law claims was well within its discretion.

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

Stroby v. Egg Harbor Township · filed 2010-12-10(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and this case is remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County.

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

Pérez-González v. Municipality of Añasco · filed 2010-12-30(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of plaintiffs whose federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Keller v. Greater Augusta Ass'n of Realtors, Inc. · filed 2011-01-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed the Sherman Act claim, the Court will exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

McClendon v. Bronx County District Attorneys Office · filed 2011-02-03(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to McClendon’s related state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Alki Partners, L.P. v. Vatas Holding GmbH · filed 2011-02-17(c)(3)

As all of Plaintiffs federal claims must be dismissed, all that remains are Plaintiffs’ Washington state and common law claims. Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Washington state and common law claims is premised on the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims are dismissed when the state law claims rest on unsupported conclusory allegations.

Turner v. NYU HOSPITALS CENTER · filed 2011-03-04(c)(3)

Here, exercising supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate because unsupported conclusory allegations such as those alleged by Plaintiff are necessarily insufficient to withstand dismissal under the NYHRL and NYCHRL.

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

Draper v. Darby Township Police Department · filed 2011-03-07(c)(3)

In addition, because plaintiffs federal claim against PennDOT is barred, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that plaintiff may have against PennDOT.

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

Ghaith v. Rauschenberger · filed 2011-03-10(c)(3)

The Court is not obligated to address Plaintiffs state-law claims if there are no remaining federal claims.

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

Lewis v. FMC Corp. · filed 2011-03-29(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and will dismiss them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

United States Ex Rel. Digital Healthcare, Inc. v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. · filed 2011-04-20(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed the lone federal claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissal of the federal claims, and exercising it at this stage was unwarranted.

Segreti v. Borough of Wilkinsburg · filed 2011-07-11(c)(3)

Remand for consideration of that issue is not necessary, however, because the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction after the dismissal of Segreti‟s federal claims at this stage plainly was not warranted.

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

Whittaker v. County of Lawrence · filed 2011-07-15(c)(3)

Further, as we agree that all of the federal claims were properly dismissed, the District Court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Basis Yield Alpha Fund v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. · filed 2011-07-21(c)(3)

As there are no remaining federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same facts as federal claims after the federal claims are dismissed, when deciding the claims together promotes judicial efficiency.

Brown v. Chiappetta · filed 2011-08-23(a)

Having determined that summary judgment is warranted on Brown’s federal claims, the court must determine whether to dismiss or exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brown’s state-law claims. ... Because Brown’s federal and state claims derive from the same facts, deciding both claims in one proceeding promotes judicial efficiency.

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

Lorah v. Home Helper's Inc. Delaware Respite · filed 2011-09-26(c)(3)

When a complaint alleges federal and supplemental State claims, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claims survive. ... To the extent that the amended complaint (D.I. 8) raises supplemental State claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Elek v. Incorporated Village of Monroe · filed 2011-09-27(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff intended these causes of actions to be state common law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and denies Plaintiffs motion without prejudice to allow Plaintiff leave to file these claims in state court.

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

Ashford v. Edmond Public School District · filed 2011-09-28(c)(3)

Because all federal claims are subject to dismissal, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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 after dismissing the federal claims.

Muhammad v. Rubia · filed 2011-10-13(c)(3)

The district court properly dismissed Muhammad’s state law claims without prejudice after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Snelling v. Haynes · filed 2011-11-28(c)

As to the remaining issues raised by Mr. Snelling on appeal, we conclude that reversal is not warranted based on the district court’s decisions to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims, see Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 342 (8th Cir. 2005) (Congress has unambiguously granted district courts discretion in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to dismiss supplemental state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed); ... Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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

Hung Ha v. Sweet · filed 2011-11-29(c)(3)

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

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

Johnson v. Randle · filed 2011-12-20(c)(3)

Yet the district court, having disposed of Johnson’s federal claims, acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Bloom v. Palos Heights Police Department · filed 2012-01-04(c)(3)

Because the federally-grounded theories against the individual Officers have been dismissed, this Court will exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state 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 dismissing the federal claim.

Sorota v. Sosa · filed 2012-01-31(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sorota’s remaining state law claims in Counts Two through Seven, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367 supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims survives dismissal of the federal claim, and the district court then has discretion whether to exercise it.

Orton v. Johnny's Lunch Franchise, LLC · filed 2012-02-21(a)

Such supplemental jurisdiction does not disappear when the federal claim that gave rise to original jurisdiction in the first place is dismissed. Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 129 S. Ct. 1862, 1866-67 (2009). Following such a dismissal, the district court in its discretion may properly choose whether to exercise § 1367(a) jurisdiction over the supplemental state-law claims; however, such a decision is “purely discretionary.”

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

Santos v. New York City · filed 2012-03-06(c)(3)

Since all of Santos’s federal law claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the additional state law claims against Macy’s and Made.

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

Richardson v. Capital One, N.A. · filed 2012-03-16(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court dismisses the federal claim, it may nevertheless decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole remaining federal claim and to give the plaintiff an opportunity to show cause before doing so.

Hickson v. Associates · filed 2012-03-28(c)(3)

The Court, having now dismissed Plaintiffs sole remaining federal claim, again questions whether the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate in this case, but will, in the interests of justice, provide Plaintiff with one last opportunity to demonstrate why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. ... Plaintiff is hereby on notice that if Plaintiff fails to respond within the time specified above, the Court will decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, will dismiss those state law claims without prejudice, and will direct the Clerk of Court to close this case.

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

Rojas-Velazquez v. Figueroa-Sancha · filed 2012-03-29(c)(3)

Because the only federal claims in this suit were properly dismissed, see supra Part II(B), the court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent claims cannot seriously be questioned.

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

Brown v. City of Utica · filed 2012-04-12(c)(3)

As all of the federal claims will be dismissed, the only claims that remain are the state law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state claims is declined.

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

Huling v. City of Los Banos · filed 2012-04-19(c)(3)

Where all federal claims are dismissed in an action containing both federal and state law claims, a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities · filed 2012-05-16(c)(3)

As all of the federal claims will be dismissed, the only claims that remain are the state law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state claims is declined.

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

Raynes v. Keene, NH · filed 2012-06-05(c)(3)

Because the federal claim is dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim, which plaintiff is free to pursue in state court.

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

Dominion of Cab Drivers v. D.C. Professional Taxicab Drivers Association · filed 2012-07-30(c)(3)

The Court’s dismissal of Count XI, combined with the plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of Count X, leaves the plaintiffs with no remaining federal claims. “Since all of the federal claims are being dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).”

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

Compass Construction v. Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & J · filed 2012-08-20(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.

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

Chavez v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2012-09-30(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain in this case, the Court will 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.

Brantley v. Muscogee County School District · filed 2012-10-30(c)(3)

Given that today’s Order disposes of all of Plaintiffs’ federal law claims and given the nature of the remaining state law claims, 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 the federal claims.

Campbell v. Brentwood Union Free School District · filed 2012-11-13(c)(3)

In view of dismissal of the federal claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction of any state law claim alleged against either the individual School Defendants or the McNeils.

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

Entler v. Rob McKenna · filed 2012-11-20(c)(3)

The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Entler’s state law claims after dismissing his federal claims.

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

Chen Hale v. Vacaville Housing Authority · filed 2012-11-29(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hale’s state law claims after dismissing her federal claims without leave to amend. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) lets a district court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over associated state law claims after the federal claim is dismissed.

Phaneuf v. Collins · filed 2012-12-19(c)(3)

Rather, in such a circumstance, the district court “may” choose to exercise jurisdiction over associated state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Zito v. Donahoe · filed 2012-12-20(c)(3)

All of Zito’s federal law claims have been dismissed. However, the Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court declines to do so. Accordingly, Zito’s remaining state law claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) provides no ground to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims while viable federal claims remain.

Rivera-García v. Román-Carrero · filed 2013-01-03(c)(3)

But since there are viable federal claims that “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,” there is no occasion to decline jurisdiction on that ground.

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

Rodriguez v. Village of Ossining · filed 2013-01-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal causes of action, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state-law claims.

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

Stringer v. Doe · filed 2013-01-15(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed Stringer’s federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004).

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

K.D. ex rel. Duncan v. White Plains School District · filed 2013-02-05(c)(3)

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

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

Burton v. Kakani · filed 2013-02-12(c)

In light of the dismissal of Burton’s federal claim, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Arnold v. City of Columbus · filed 2013-02-20(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims after dismissing all of their federal claims.

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

Suschanke v. Neske · filed 2013-02-26(c)(3)

Having properly dismissed the federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Suschanke’s state-law false-imprisonment claims against Neske and the Board. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(d) gives a 30-day grace period after dismissal of a federal action before the remaining limitations period for a supplemental state claim resumes.

McKeever v. Security Consultants Group CA5 · filed 2013-02-26(d)

Thus, when a federal action is dismissed, there is a 30-day “grace period” added to the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the days left in the statute of limitations period at the time the federal claim was filed begin to run on the 31st day after the federal claim is dismissed.

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

Jallali v. National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, Inc. · filed 2013-05-15(c)(3)

Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining 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 the federal claims.

Orcilla v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2013-05-21(c)(3)

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

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

Corcel Corp. v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2013-06-24(c)(3)

Lastly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Feldman v. Law Enforcement Associates Corp. · filed 2013-06-28(c)(3)

The governing statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), permits a district court, in its discretion, to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all federal claims. ... Having now resolved all of the claims asserted in plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the court declines to retain and exercise supplemental jurisdiction over LEA’s counterclaim and will dismiss that claim without prejudice.

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

Howell v. Young · filed 2013-07-03(c)(3)

Finally, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Howell’s state law claims.

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

League of Women Voters v. Wolf · filed 2013-08-16(c)(3)

This Court has dismissed all of the federal claims in the Complaint and thus declines to entertain the remaining state law claims in Count II and Count VI. 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 claims remain.

Glemser v. Sugar Creek Realty, LLC · filed 2013-09-09(c)(3)

To the extent the Plaintiff has asserted any supplemental state law claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction because no federal claims remain.

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

Cosby v. First Tennessee Bank National Association, Inc. · filed 2013-10-15(c)(3)

Because the district court dismissed properly Cosby’s federal claims, it abused no discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cosby’s remaining state law claims.

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

Boldrini v. Wilson · filed 2013-10-18(c)(3)

Finally, having dismissed Boldrini’s federal claims, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Boldrini’s state-law claims.

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

MOORE v. COUNTY OF BUTTE · filed 2013-11-14(c)(3)

A federal district court has discretion to dismiss supplemental state claims once it dismisses all federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2012); Peng v. Mei Chin Penghu, 335 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court properly declined to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Moore’s state claims after dismissing her federal claims.

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

Norwood v. Ruhle · filed 2013-11-21(c)(3)

In light of its dismissal of all of Norwood’s federal law claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim.

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

United States v. Deming Hospital Corp. · filed 2013-11-21(c)(3)

Because all federal claims have been dismissed, I will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Han-sen’s remaining state law claims.

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

Hecking v. NH Conjunctive Parties · filed 2013-11-26(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.3 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.

Hoelscher v. Huff · filed 2013-12-10(c)(3)

Having properly dismissed the federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Hoelschers’ state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), or in denying their motions for default judgment and for post-judgment leave to amend their complaint.

Section 1367(d) tolls the limitations period for filing a claim in state court for an additional 30 days after dismissal of the initial federal action.

Artanda v. Harris CA3 · filed 2013-12-30(d)

On appeal, the parties agree the trial court erred in its first conclusion that Aranda’s complaint was untimely.4 We agree: accordingly, we concern ourselves with whether the trial court otherwise properly sustained the demurrer. ... Aranda’s action was in fact timely, defendants admit, and their argument to the contrary on demurrer failed to take into account that the limitations period for Aranda to file his civil action in state court was tolled an additional 30 days after the dismissal of Aranda’s initial federal court action.

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

Brooks-McCollum v. Aspen Property Management Company · filed 2014-01-08(c)(3)

Finally, in the absence of a federal question, the district court did not err by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Fouch v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-01-08(c)

In the absence of a federal claim against defendants, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Chavez v. County of Bernalillo · filed 2014-01-31(c)(3)

The Court will dismiss with prejudice Chavez’ federal claims against the Defendants; the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will thus remand the remaining state law claims to the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico.

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

Anctil v. Ally Financial, Inc. · filed 2014-02-10(c)(3)

Having determined that all of the federal claims in this case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law causes of action (Claims Ten through Fifteen).

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

Olson v. City of Chicago · filed 2014-02-13(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed the Olsons’ federal claims, the court was free to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claim.

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

Kaufman v. All Seasons Marine Works, Inc. · filed 2014-02-19(c)(3)

The district court, in fact, had supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, although given its disposition of the federal claims, it had discretion to decline to exercise such jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, taking its investment of judicial resources into account.

Seals v. Mississippi · filed 2014-02-20(c)(3)

Here, the present case has been pending a little over eighteen months, but has required little judicial interposition thus far. Additionally, although discovery is complete, the Court has dismissed a number of Plaintiffs claims on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the Court has no significant expertise on the particular facts of the dispute and the Plaintiff may well attempt to file those causes of action in a separate forum regardless. As such, the Court declines to depart from the norm of declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Viveiros v. Town of Easton, et al. · filed 2014-02-28(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that remain after the claim that conferred subject matter jurisdiction has been dismissed.

Section 1367 leaves a court without supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all federal claims.

Buran v. Riggs · filed 2014-03-11

All federal law claims asserted by Mr. Buran are dismissed. The Court need not analyze Mr. Buran’s state law claims because the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Fishing Rock Owners' Ass'n v. Roberts · filed 2014-03-18(c)(3)

Upon dismissal of the Roberts’ counterclaims, no federal claims remain in this case and diversity among the parties is absent. Accordingly, I exercise my discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand the Association’s claims to the state circuit court.

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

Star Multi Care Services, Inc. v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield · filed 2014-03-19(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against the Sarrises given the absence of any federal claims that survive the motion to dismiss.

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

Albite v. Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2014-03-25(c)(3)

Given that no actionable cause was found under ADEA, the Court shall not exercise supplemental jurisdiction in the instant case, therefore, the state claims may be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Rossi v. Quarmley · filed 2014-03-25(c)(3)

Because I determined that the sole federal claim must be dismissed, the only' remaining claims sound in state law. Therefore, there is no federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, particularly when the state claims raise issues beyond those resolved under federal law.

Kruger v. Hamilton Manor Nursing Home · filed 2014-03-26(c)(3)

Particularly because the resolution of Plaintiffs federal claims only involves consideration of the disability-based claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining causes of action under the NYSHRL.

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

Latour v. Columbia University · filed 2014-03-31(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the balance of considerations favors doing so.

LaBorde v. City Of Gahanna · filed 2014-04-01(c)(3)

Second, upon granting the motions to dismiss the federal claims on which federal jurisdiction was premised, the court correctly recognized that the balance of considerations weighed in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Frank v. Government of the Virgin Islands · filed 2014-04-09(c)(3)

Finally, because the District Court rightly dismissed Frank’s federal causes, we conclude that the District Court did not err by dismissing the remaining claim against the Virgin Islands for a refund of tax overpayment.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2014-05-07(c)(3)

... state-law claim, but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it had discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over this claim after dismissing Williams’s federal claims. We review such an act for abuse of discretion, see De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 311 (3d Cir. 2003), and find none here.

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

TF-Harbor, LLC v. City of Rockwall · filed 2014-05-09(a)

Having dismissed TF-Harbor’s federal-law claims, the court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the only federal claim has been dismissed.

Fuqua v. SVOX USA, Incorporated · filed 2014-05-16(c)(3)

As the only federal claim in this case has been dismissed, the district court properly relinquished supplemental jurisdict- ion over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that all federal claims were dismissed when at least one federal claim survives.

Sherman v. Town of Chester · filed 2014-05-16(c)(3)

Because at least one federal claim has been stated, we VACATE the District Court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sherman’s state law claims on the ground that all the federal claims had been dismissed.

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

Phillips ex rel. B.P. v. City of New York · filed 2014-06-05(c)

With all federal claims dismissed, this Court declines to exercise pendant jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims and therefore dismisses them as well.

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

Jackson v. Unit Manager Whalen · filed 2014-06-16(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it had discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over any such claims after dismissing Jackson’s federal claims. We review such an act for abuse of discretion, see De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 311 (3d Cir. 2003), and find none here.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed and the statutory and common-law factors favor declining jurisdiction.

Baker v. DeShong · filed 2014-06-26(c)

On balance, the statutory and common-law factors weigh against the Court’s assumption of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Sui v. Southside Towing · filed 2014-07-07(c)(3)

The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claim after dismissing their federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim, even if a related but legally distinct federal action remains pending.

545 Halsey Lane Properties, LLC v. Town of Southampton · filed 2014-09-16(c)(3)

In this case, despite the fact that there is a “related” action pending before this Court which survived a motion to dismiss, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York State' breach of contract claim. In this regard, the Court notes that although both actions involve the Grant and the Property, the claims in the two actions are legally distinct, and save for the Town, the identity and jurisdictional authority (the Planning Board versus Zoning Board) of the Defendants are different.

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

Funayama v. Nichia America Corp · filed 2014-09-18(c)(3)

Additionally, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Funayama’s state law claims.

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

American Psychiatric Assoc. v. Anthem Health Plans · filed 2014-09-25(c)(3)

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

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissal of the sole federal claim.

Osborn v. Griffin · filed 2014-09-29(c)(3)

(1)Although the Court has dismissed the sole federal claim in the Holt action, the Court concludes that its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over these plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims is appropriate, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367; ...(13) A status conference be, and is hereby, SET FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2014 AT 1:30 P.M., during which the Court intends to discuss setting a trial date in January, 2015.

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

Burns v. City of Utica · filed 2014-11-07(c)(3)

Because we affirm the dismissal of Burns’s federal claims, we now decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her § 296 claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Kreider v. Philhaven Adolescent Inpatient Treatment Center · filed 2014-11-14(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remained, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to entertain Kreider’s state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Jacobs v. Biando · filed 2014-11-24(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed Jacobs’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her 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.

Ramsay v. Sawyer Property Management of Maryland · filed 2014-12-09(c)(3)

In light of our decision affirming the district court’s dismissal of Ramsay’s federal claims, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

K.W. v. Lee County School Board · filed 2014-12-11(c)(3)

Therefore, if plaintiff chooses not to amend her complaint (or the second amended complaint fails to adequately allege a claim arising under federal law), the Court will not retain jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Garnica v. Edwards · filed 2014-12-11

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Demien Construction Co. v. O'Fallon Fire Protection District · filed 2014-12-11(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiffs federal law claims must be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over 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, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Michigan Corr. Org. v. Mich Dep't of Corr. · filed 2014-12-17(c)(3)

The district court “decline[d] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over those claims because it had dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ federal claims. R. 38 at 4; see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We review that decision for an abuse of discretion. Bright v. Gallia Cnty., 753 F.3d 639, 659 (6th Cir. 2014). Nothing of the sort happened here when the district court dismissed the state law claims without prejudice and permitted them to be refiled in state court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Bright, 753 F.3d at 659.

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

Lilly v. City of Erlanger · filed 2015-01-23(c)(3)

But because the district court dismissed those federal claims, it was within its discretion to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction as well.

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

Smith v. Erie County Sheriff's Dep't · filed 2015-02-26(c)(3)

The district court cited §1367(c)(3) and case law to support its decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. We have reviewed the record, and find no abuse of discretion.

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

Dawson v. Brown · filed 2015-02-27(c)(3)

Because all of the federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

J.Q. v. Washington Township School District · filed 2015-03-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims without prejudice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their corresponding state law claim.

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

Rajbhandari v. U.S. Bank · filed 2015-03-17(c)(3)

With the dismissal of the federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the remaining state law claim pursuant to the FCCPA.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, and doing so is within its discretion absent an extraordinary circumstance.

Lucio v. Santos · filed 2015-04-22(c)(3)

But he does not point to any extraordinary circumstance that would call that decision into question, and thus we have no basis to conclude that the court abused its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all of Lucio’s federal claims.

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

Castelvetere v. Messer · filed 2015-04-28(c)

As noted above, the district court dismissed Anthony’s state-law claims pursuant to the discretion granted to it by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... In light of the fact that Messer and the City offer no reason to disturb the district court’s dismissal of the state-law claims, and the fact that generally “[w]hen all federal claims are dismissed . . . the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims,” Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254–55 (6th Cir. 1996), we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing Anthony’s state-law claims.

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

Jackson v. Peekskill City School District · filed 2015-05-01(c)

Having dismissed plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Natu Bah v. Attorney General of the State of Tenn. · filed 2015-05-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed both federal claims and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the African Hair Braiders’ claims asserted under the Tennessee Constitution.

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

Depolo v. Board of Supervisors · filed 2015-05-18(c)

Because we dismiss DePolo’s federal claim, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

A decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) that rests on dismissal of all federal claims must be reconsidered when federal claims are reinstated.

Cordero v. Warren · filed 2015-05-21(c)(3)

Because the District Court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Cordero’s state law claim was premised on its dismissal of all of his federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), we will vacate that aspect of the District Court’s judgment, too, and remand for further consideration.

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

Steele v. Stallion Rockies Ltd. · filed 2015-05-26(c)(3)

Notwithstanding Judge Wang’s analysis of Plaintiffs failure to state a claim for breach of contract, because Plaintiffs federal claims are properly dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction: “When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.”

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

Amiri v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. · filed 2015-06-05(c)(3)

Finally, in light of the dismissal of appellant’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction on its own initiative after dismissing the predicate federal claims when no other basis for jurisdiction remains.

Art and Drama Therapy Institute, Inc. v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-06-23(c)(3)

It is well settled that the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction sua sponte when the plaintiff’s predicate federal law claims have been dismissed and there are no alternative means of establishing jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when it dismisses the federal claims, and those state-law claims are ordinarily reinstated if the federal dismissal is reversed.

Fernandez-Salicrup v. Figueroa-Sancha · filed 2015-06-25(c)(3)

When federal jurisdiction is premised on a federal claim and those federal claims are later dismissed, a district court has the option of declining to exercise its 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 dismissing all federal claims, upon consideration of the statutory and common law factors.

Thompson v. Beasley · filed 2015-07-13(c)(3)

Upon consideration of the statutory and common law factors, the Court will follow the Fifth Circuit’s general rule and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Accordingly, this matter must be remanded to the Circuit Court of Coahoma County.

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

Felmlee v. State of Oklahoma Defendant's · filed 2015-07-14(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of all federal claims, it was proper for the district court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Chavis v. Borden · filed 2015-08-04(c)(3)

“When all federal claims are dismissed from the case or controversy before the district court,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) “permits the district court to exercise ‘wide discretion in determining whether to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.’” 32 As demonstrated above, the district court did not err when it dismissed the sole federal claim in this case, so the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise jurisdiction over Chavis’s state law claims.

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

Colon-Lorenzana v. South American Restaurants · filed 2015-08-21(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed the federal claims, it was well within the district court's discretion to relinquish the supplemental claims brought under Puerto Rico law.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court discretion to decide whether to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed.

Land and Bay Gauging, L.L.C. v. Shor · filed 2015-08-21(c)(3)

Instead, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of the abuse-of-process and tortious-interference and remand so the district court can determine whether the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is warranted and, if necessary, conduct appropriate proceedings incidental to that discretionary determination.

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

Peraica v. Village of McCook · filed 2015-08-28(c)(3)

For the reasons stated in this opinion, this Court grants the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Peraica’s Section 1983 claim but declines the invitation to exercise jurisdiction over his Section 1367 state law claims, which are accordingly dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).

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

Davis v. Erving Young · filed 2015-09-02(c)(3)

However, we note that because all federal law claims have been dismissed, the district court may choose to dismiss the state law claims to allow them to be litigated in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Krakow Business Park v. Locke Lord Lord, LLP · filed 2015-09-28(c)(3)

As the RICO claim against Dienner and KFTR is dismissed, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims asserted against those defendants.

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

Spring v. Allegany-Limestone Central School District · filed 2015-09-30(c)

Having dismissed all of the federal claims, the issue of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these causes of action is a matter within this Court’s discretion.

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

Tripodi v. Township of North Coventry · filed 2015-10-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed Tripodi’s federal claims, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims.

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

Mears v. LVNV Funding, LLC · filed 2015-11-05(c)(3)

Since the federal claims have been disposed of and this case now involves solely a question of state law, this Court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over the FCCPA allegations.

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

Carroll Ex Rel. AKC v. Lawton Independent School District No. 8 · filed 2015-11-10(c)(3)

Because we conclude the district court correctly dismissed the Carrolls’ federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

Kates v. Christie · filed 2015-11-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed Kates’s federal claims, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Bretz Ex Rel. Caddell v. Helena Elderhousing, Inc. · filed 2015-11-30(c)(3)

Dismissal of Caddell’s state law claims was not an abuse of discretion in the absence of any cognizable federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering the stage of litigation and other relevant factors.

LaBonte v. Epsom, NH, et al. · filed 2015-12-03(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed all federal claims in plaintiff’s second amended complaint, and given that this case is at an early stage in the litigation, and taking into consideration the remaining factors identified in Camelio, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Pereyra v. Sedky · filed 2015-12-03(c)

For the foregoing reasons,' the Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss [ECF'No. 21] is hereby ALLOWED as to Counts I, II, and III of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and the claims in those counts are DISMISSED. The Court, consistent with discussions with counsel at the November 18,' 2015 hearing, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims alleged in Counts IV-VIII, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), but notes that the Plaintiffs may elect to pursue these claims in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court discretion to exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims after dismissal of the federal claims.

Webb v. Smith · filed 2015-12-07(c)(3)

The district court has discretion to exercise or decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We do not mean to suggest which to do; that decision remains in the district court’s discretion.

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

Verble v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC · filed 2015-12-08(c)(3)

Having found the federal claims should be dismissed on defendants’ motion to dismiss, pursuant to § 1367(c), the Court will decline to exercise continuing supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law claims.

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

Sharp v. Kean University · filed 2015-12-28(c)

Therefore, pursuant to Section 1367, the Court deems it appropriate to dismiss Sharp’s malpractice claim without prejudice to her right to refile the claim in state court.

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

Labiosa-Herrera v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co. · filed 2016-01-05(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3), due to the Court’s dismissal of plaintiff Labiosa’s federal law ADEA claims, supplemental jurisdiction over the Puerto Rico law claims is no longer proper.

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

Sanseviro v. New York · filed 2016-01-25(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of the federal claims, only supplemental state law claims remain. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Davis v. City of Chicago · filed 2016-02-10(c)(3)

Thus, Count I and Count II are dismissed with prejudice. As to the state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Jus Punjabi, LLC v. Iris Media Works, Ltd. · filed 2016-02-22(c)(3)

Finally, because the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Bd. of Trade of City of N.Y., 464 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir. 2006).

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

Bukstel v. Jehu Hand · filed 2016-03-11(c)(3)

Moreover, having dismissed Bukstel’s federal claims, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Cherry v. District of Columbia · filed 2016-03-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claim, the Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s District of Columbia claims.

Section 1367(c) calls for a district court to consider whether to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the federal claim has been resolved.

Coomes v. Edmonds School District No 15 · filed 2016-03-23(c)

However, because we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to Coomes’s claim under federal law, the district court should first consider whether to continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Palmer v. Trump Model Management, LLC · filed 2016-03-23(c)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Valdez v. Roybal · filed 2016-05-12(c)(3)

Furthermore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will remand the state-law claim to state court.

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

Gendreau v. Canario · filed 2016-05-19(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law-only claims, now that the basis for federal question jurisdiction has been dismissed.