28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Buehler v. City of Austin/Austin Police, e · filed 2016-06-01(c)(3)

Also, because we affirm dismissal of Buehler’s federal claims and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over Buehler’s state-law claims, see Noble v. White, 996 F.2d 797, 799 (5th Cir. 1993), we do not address Buehler’s claims under Texas law.

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

Rodriguez v. California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. · filed 2016-06-13(c)(3)

In light of Rodriguez’s failure to state a federal claim, the district court acted within ... its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rodriguez’s state law claims.

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

Holland v. City of New York · filed 2016-06-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed his 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 state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, upon consideration of the statutory and common law factors.

Riggins v. City of Indianola · filed 2016-07-25(c)(3)

The third statutory factor weighs in favor of remand because the federal claim will be dismissed by this order. ... 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.

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

Smith v. Rick McKelvey · filed 2016-08-04(c)

Upon careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we conclude that all of Smith’s federal claims were subject to dismissal, see Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 553, 557-58 (2000); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); Jones v. Frost, 770 F.3d 1183, 1185 (8th Cir. 2014), and that the district court was warranted in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Smith’s state-law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Johnson v. Dobry · filed 2016-09-12(c)(3)

Finally, because the district court correctly dismissed all of Johnson’s federal claims, it was entitled to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Biggs v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · filed 2016-09-22(c)(3)

With the dismissal of the only federal claim asserted in the Complaint, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs related state law claim. It will be dismissed without prejudice at this time for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Castagnozzi v. Phoenix Beverages, Inc. · filed 2016-09-26(c)(3)

Since all federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining four causes of action in Plaintiffs complaint.

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

Home Builders Ass'n of Greater Chicago v. City of Chicago · filed 2016-09-30(c)(3)

Until and unless Plaintiffs succeed in stating a federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims, and dismisses them without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Mira v. Kingston · filed 2016-11-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her claims under state and city law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decide a supplemental state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims when the state-law claim plainly fails.

Hilton v. Mish · filed 2016-12-13(c)(3)

Although the Court would normally dismiss the state-law claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), in light of the obvious failings of the state-law claim, the Court exercises its discretion decide the claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court broad discretion to dismiss supplemental state law claims after the only claim supporting original federal jurisdiction is resolved.

Malhotra v. Copa De Ora Realty, LLC · filed 2016-12-14(c)(3)

Because the § 1962(c) claim was the only remaining basis for original federal jurisdiction, the district court did not abuse its broad discretion by dismissing Rajinder and Veena’s state law claims after entering summary judgment for Rakesh on the § 1962(c) claim.

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

Garrett v. Stephens · filed 2017-01-12(c)(3)

The circumstances do not call for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Rhyne v. Henderson Cty., 973 F.2d 386, 395 (5th Cir. 1992).

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

Tara Long v. County of Armstrong · filed 2017-02-14(c)(3)

Because the District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim under federal law it appropriately declined to exercise jurisdiction over their state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the federal claims, taking into account the state’s interest in resolving its own law.

Kendall v. Olsen · filed 2017-02-17(c)(3)

Given this guidance from the Tenth Circuit, and given Utah’s interest in the remaining legal issues arising under state law, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kendall’s remaining state claims.

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

Van Dusen v. City of Oakland · filed 2017-02-27(c)(3)

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

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

McKenzie ex rel. C.M. v. Talladega City Board of Education · filed 2017-03-06(c)(3)

Because all federal claims in this case are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Those claims will be dismissed without prejudice and the Plaintiff may reassert them in state court.

Section 1367 leaves a court with supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, but the court may decide whether to exercise that jurisdiction.

Burley v. Miller · filed 2017-03-13(c)

The defendants mistakenly believe that this court would lack jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claim if the federal claims are dismissed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, ■ this Court has jurisdiction over claims that are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,” However, “[a] district court’s decision whether to exercise that jurisdiction after dismissing, every claim over .which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary,” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639, 129 S.Ct. 1862, 173 L.Ed.2d 843 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)).

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

NIMCO Real Estate Associates, LLC, et al. v. Nadeau, et al. · filed 2017-03-23(c)(3)

The federal claims that provide federal question jurisdiction in this case are dismissed. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Vargas-Medina v. Ortho Biologics, LLC · filed 2017-03-30(c)

Since Vargas’s federal claims have been dismissed and there are no other grounds for jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining Puerto Rico claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss state law claims within its discretion when no plausible federal claims remain.

Thermuthis Lee v. 4326 Broad Street LP · filed 2017-04-07(c)(3)

Because no plausible federal claims exist, dismissal of Lee’s state law claims was within the District Court’s discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

VR Acquisitions, LLC v. Wasatch County · filed 2017-04-10(c)(3)

Instead, we conclude that the district court should have simply declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over VRA’s state-law claims after it dismissed VRA’s federal claims.

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

Northeast Revenue Services, LLC v. Maps Indeed, Inc. · filed 2017-04-12(c)(3)

In any event, we note that because the District Court properly dismissed Northeast Revenue’s federal claims, the District Court acted within its discretion when it declined to exercise jurisdiction over its state law claims.

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

Barnes v. Oldner · filed 2017-04-13(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all of the claims that arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Out of deference and comity to the state courts, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Barnes’s state-law claims.

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

Curtis Phillips, Jr. v. Northampton CO., P.A. · filed 2017-04-26(c)(3)

Moreover, it would also have been appropriate for the District Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state law claims once it determined that the federal claims should be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Messano v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. · filed 2017-05-08(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiff's federal claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state claim under California Civil Code § 1785.25(a) against Bank of America, See C'ompl, ¶¶ 134-Í43; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010).

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

Ronald Bass, Sr. v. State of New Jersey · filed 2017-05-09(c)(3)

The District Court did not expressly address the issue but, in the absence of any plausible federal claim, we understand the District Court’s opinion to have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Kime v. Adventist Health Clearlake Hospital, Inc. · filed 2017-05-22(c)(3)

Because no remaining federal questions, will remain as a result of this order, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), over the remaining state law claims and the related anti-SLAPP motion.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves a district court discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a surviving state law claim after all federal claims are dismissed.

Miller v. County of Centre · filed 2017-08-02(c)(3)

Having affirmed the dismissal of the federal claims, we leave to the discretion of the District Court the decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the surviving state law claim.

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

Hammoud v. Wayne County · filed 2017-08-24(c)(3)

And, with no federal claims remaining, the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims was not an abuse of discretion.

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

Doe v. Brown University · filed 2017-09-06(c)(3)

Now, the Court must determine whether .to retain supplemental jurisdiction over those state claims in the absence of any federal claims because it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... As such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. They are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when an unresolved state-law question is better decided in state court.

Sargent v Town of Hudson · filed 2017-09-27(c)(3)

The sole basis for this court’s jurisdiction over Janelle’s state claim is supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... In the court’s view, at least one of the questions Janelle wishes to have certified to the NHSC presents an issue of New Hampshire law better left to the state court in the first instance. ... Accordingly, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim and remands this case to the Hillsborough County Superior Court South.

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

Richardson v. New York City Board of Education · filed 2017-10-02(c)(3)

And, because the district court was correct in dismissing Richardson’s lone federal claim—the procedural due process claim—it did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Richardson’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Delaney v. Bank of Am. Corp., 766 F.3d 163, 170 (2d Cir. 2014).

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

Salazar v. San Juan Cnty. Det. Ctr. · filed 2017-10-13(c)(3)

Here, all of the federal claims have been dismissed pursuant to the Stipulated Dismissals. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

McCall v. Department of Motor Vehicles · filed 2017-10-26(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court dismisses the federal claims, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law counts.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed, which is the usual practice in the Seventh Circuit.

Marmarchi v. University of Illinois · filed 2017-11-07(c)(3)

Second, we review for abuse of discretion the judge’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The “usual practice in this circuit” is for district courts to dismiss state-law claims when all federal causes of actions have been dismissed. Hagan v. Quinn, 867 F.3d 816, 829–30 (7th Cir. 2017). Marmarchi offers no reason to depart from that normal course.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with a strong presumption favoring that choice when the federal claims were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

Martinez v. City of Cleveland · filed 2017-11-08(c)(3)

The district court’s misapplication of Ohio law demonstrates why there is a “strong presumption” in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state-law claims after dismissing federal anchor claims under Rule 12(b)(6). See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1255 (6th Cir. 1996).

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

Konarski v. City of Tucson · filed 2017-11-28(c)(3)

Finally, upon dismissal of the Konarskis’ claims arising under federal law, the district court was free to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Konarskis’ state law claims. 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 dismissing the federal claims, considering the stage of the case and whether state courts can address the remaining state-law issue.

Leclair v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. · filed 2018-01-05(c)(3)

Here, plaintiff's claims under the ADA have been dismissed. In addition, this case is still in its early stages, and the state courts are well-equipped to address the state law issue of sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the Court sees no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim in this matter, and Count 2 will therefore be dismissed.

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

Gilgenbach v. Illinois · filed 2018-01-05(c)

In any case, the judge properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after she dismissed the federal claim as frivolous.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing the only federal claim, particularly when the claim requires interpreting state statutes.

Provost v. Department of Correction (DOC) · filed 2018-01-12(c)

Having dismissed plaintiff’s only federal claim, this court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over his remaining state law claim, particularly because the substantive issues will likely require interpretation of the relevant state statutory provisions.

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

Dyson v. City of Calumet City · filed 2018-01-23(c)(3)

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

Section 1367 permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims fail.

Ayoubi v. Dart · filed 2018-02-02(c)(3)

But he gives no reason to question the district court’s relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction over those claims if his federal-law theories failed, and we see none.

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

Larson v. LaSalle County · filed 2018-03-05(c)(3)

As a result, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Larson’s state-law claims.

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

Bozek v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2018-03-15(c)(3)

As there are no remaining federal claims in this action, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bozek’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Mains, 852 F.3d at 679.

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

Fischer v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, Jpmorgan Chase, N.A. · filed 2018-03-26(c)(3)

Nevertheless, pursuant to Section 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because it has dismissed Plaintiff's only federal claim with prejudice.

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

Gonzalez-Camacho v. Banco Popular De P.R. · filed 2018-03-28(c)(3)

Substantive state law claims, or those constituted under statutory laws, against Defendants are to be dismissed without prejudice. ... However, the Court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in a case in which there is no cause of action under a federal statute is discretionary.

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

Hendrickson v. Schuster · filed 2018-04-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claim under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, and it will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 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 dismissing the federal claims.

Markette v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association · filed 2018-04-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed the Markettes’ FDCPA claims against both ALO and HSBC, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and following well-established Seventh Circuit precedent, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ICFA claim set forth in Count VI of the complaint.

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

Brunswick Corporation v. McNabola · filed 2018-04-10(c)(3)

With Brunswick’s federal claims dismissed, only its state-law claims remain. There is no diversity jurisdiction, and I relinquish 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, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Reardon v. Zonies · filed 2018-04-11(c)(3)

Moreover, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Reardon’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Byrd v. Shannon, 715 F.3d 117, 128 (3d Cir. 2013).

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

Valle v. Rusty Rogers · filed 2018-04-12(c)(3)

Because Valle’s federal claims were properly dismissed, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. See Heggemeier v. Caldwell County, Tex., 826 F.3d 861, 872 (5th Cir. 2016); 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 a federal claim survives.

Sam v. Thompson · filed 2018-04-12(c)(3)

Finally, after granting summary judgment on all of Sam’s federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sam’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because at least one of Sam’s federal claims survives, we vacate this dismissal as well.

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

The Chicago Gun Club, Inc. v. Village of Willowbrook, Illinois · filed 2018-06-06(c)(3)

District courts possess “the discretion to decline jurisdiction where all federal claims have been dismissed.” Thurman v. Vill. of Homewood, 446 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2006). We invoke our 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) discretion now and dismiss Count V accordingly.

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

Aranda v. Vega · filed 2018-07-02(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Aranda’s FLSA claim, it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Aranda’s IMWL claim and it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim at this time. See 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.

Sceviour v. McKeon · filed 2018-07-09(c)(3)

The remaining claims all arise under state law and do not present any federal question. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law claims.

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

Larson v. Jesson · filed 2018-07-09(c)(3)

Having determined that all of Larson’s federal claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Quick v. Educap Inc. · filed 2018-07-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, the court declines to exercise 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, considering the stage of the case and fairness to the parties.

Turpin v. Ray · filed 2018-07-12(c)(3)

In Mr. Turpin's case, these factors weigh against the exercise of jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims. The federal claims over which the Court exercised federal question jurisdiction are dismissed and the remaining claims are based entirely in District of Columbia law. Furthermore, discovery in this case has not yet begun, and the case has not progressed in federal court past Defendants' motions to dismiss.

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

Marijan v. The University of Chicago · filed 2018-07-18(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs’ federal claims against defendants fail, we decline to exercise suppiemental jurisdiction over her remaining state claim at this time. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering the stage of the case and whether state law issues are better resolved in state court.

Trust Safe Pay, LLC v. Dynamic Diet, LLC · filed 2018-07-27(c)(3)

Despite lengthy motion practice, this case is in its procedural infancy. Discovery has not commenced; it is “well before trial.” Moreover, plaintiff’s claims depend on an interpretation of state law as to misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and unfair and deceptive business practices under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A. This interpretation is appropriately left to the state court. Therefore, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims, Counts IV-VI of the SACC, and DISMISSES the claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed before trial when the disposition of a state law claim is obvious.

Horia v. Nationwide Credit and Collection, Inc. · filed 2018-07-31(c)(3)

As a general rule, when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. ... But an exception exists for a situation when, as here, it is obvious how a state claim should be decided. ... Accordingly, this Court retains jurisdiction for purposes of resolving Horia’s ICAA claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when no exception warrants retaining them.

Vega v. Chi. Bd. of Educ. · filed 2018-08-10(c)(3)

Given all this, relinquishing jurisdiction over the state law claims is the appropriate course under § 1367(c)(3).

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

Knox v. Curtis · filed 2018-08-17(c)(3)

With Plaintiff’s federal claims dismissed, the court exercises its discretion at this early stage of the case to relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Dietchweiler by Dietchweiler v. Lucas, 827 F.3d 622, 631 (7th Cir. 2016); Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 404 (7th Cir. 2007).

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim when it has devoted substantial judicial resources and resolution of the state claim is clear.

Kotaska v. Federal Express · filed 2018-08-21(c)(3)

In this instance, the Court concludes that exceptions (2) and (3) above both apply. The Court has devoted considerable resources to sorting out both the facts and the law in this case, and the federal and state law claims rest on the same core set of operative facts. Prudence dictates that the Court resolve the state law claim to avoid duplication of judicial effort, especially where (as here) the application of state law to the dispositive causation element of the state law cause of action is abundantly clear.

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

Woytowicz v. George Washington University · filed 2018-08-27(c)(3)

After a federal district court dismisses all the federal claims in an action, it may—at its discretion—exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. ... On balance, these considerations compel the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Woytowicz v. George Wash. Univ. · filed 2018-08-27(c)(3)

On balance, these considerations compel the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, this Court remands the remaining state law claims to D.C. Superior Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial, leaving the state claims to be refiled in state court.

Labor One, Inc. v. Staff Management Solutions, LLC, et l · filed 2018-08-28(c)(3)

Should no amended complaint be filed, the court will dismiss state claims without prejudice to re-filing in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when a state refiling rule would likely leave the plaintiffs without a forum.

Foster v. Local Union 8A-28A Metal Refinishers, Painters, Sign & Display Equiptment & Automotive Painters · filed 2018-09-17(c)(3)

This court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims of the Plaintiffs in this case—who were pro se at the time they re-filed their claims in federal court—due to the substantial likelihood that they would otherwise be deprived of any forum to hear those claims.

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

Leisure v. Lancaster County Prison · filed 2018-09-18(c)(3)

As we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed the federal claim, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state-law medical negligence claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the stage of litigation, judicial familiarity, and hardship of refiling favor retention.

Lillian Roberts Dir. of Dist. Council 37, Afscme ex rel. Situated v. Cuomo · filed 2018-09-24(c)(3)

In the present matter, considering the advanced stage of the litigation and the Court's familiarity with the issues in this case, combined with the likely hardship to both parties should Plaintiffs re-file in state court, the factors clearly weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favors retaining them.

Krey ex rel. All Persons Similarly Situated Formerly Known All Persons Similarly Situated v. Cuomo · filed 2018-09-24(c)(3)

In the present matter, considering the advanced stage of the litigation and the Court's familiarity with the issues in this case, combined with the likely hardship to both parties should Plaintiffs re-file in state court, the factors clearly weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when dismissal occurs early and the remaining issues turn on state law.

Dobbie v. Bremen Police Dep't · filed 2018-09-24(c)(3)

Relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate here. The federal claims have been resolved at an early stage of the case, and the remaining claim involves various issues of state law, such as whether the plaintiffs' allegations give rise to relief under state law, whether the prosecutors are entitled to certain immunities recognized under state law, and whether the claim against the officers would be subject to the state law's lengthier statute of limitations which applies to claims against public officers.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims when the advanced stage of litigation, familiarity with the issues, and hardship of refiling favor retention.

Donohue v. New York · filed 2018-09-24(c)(3)

In the present matter, considering the advanced stage of the litigation and the Court's familiarity with the issues in this case, combined with the likely hardship to both parties should Plaintiffs re-file in state court, the factors clearly weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Ellison v. Hobbs · filed 2018-09-25(c)(3)

Ellison has also alleged a number of state-law causes of action in addition to her federal claims. But now that the Court has disposed of the federal claims, it declines to exercise pendant 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 all federal claims are dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Klaassen v. Atkinson · filed 2018-09-28(c)(3)

Because all the factors favor dismissal without prejudice and there is no compelling reason to the contrary, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Dr. Klaassen's remaining state law claims. The court dismisses the two state law claims asserted in Counts 5 and 7 without prejudice.

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

Byndon v. Pugh · filed 2018-10-04(c)(3)

Lastly, as this claim is based solely on West Virginia law, and as this Court has determined that plaintiff Byndon’s federal claim must be dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and this claim will be dismissed.

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

Whalen v. McMullen · filed 2018-10-30(c)(3)

After holding that McMullen was entitled to qualified immunity on Whalen’s federal claim, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Whalen’s related state-law claims. This was not an abuse of discretion. 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.

Johnson v. Brookings Police Dept · filed 2018-11-02(c)(3)

However, because Johnson’s federal claims should be dismissed, this Court appropriately should ... decline to maintain jurisdiction over Johnson’s 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 the federal claim against those defendants.

McCaskill v. Moore · filed 2018-11-06(c)(3)

The remaining claims against them all arise under state law, and because the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, those claims are dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims after dismissal of the sole federal claim when comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Cencarik v. Navient Solutions, Inc. · filed 2018-11-07(c)(3)

Second, and in the alternative, the interests of “comity, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the like” favor exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the case’s remaining claims notwithstanding dismissal of the sole federal cause of action.

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

Johnson v. McQuistion · filed 2018-11-14(c)(3)

However, because J ohnson’s federal claims should be dismissed, this Court appropriately should decline to maintain jurisdiction Johnson’s state law claims.

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

Keener v. Hribal · filed 2018-11-21(c)(3)

If amendment is not forthcoming within that time, his claims against the school district will be dismissed with prejudice. In that instance, the remaining state law claims will then be remanded.

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

Aquilina v. Wriggelsworth · filed 2018-11-26(c)(3)

Under § 1367(c)(3), that determination was well within the district court’s discretion.

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

Rodriguez v. Nationwide Homes · filed 2018-11-27(c)(3)

Without any federal claims over which to exercise original jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Ms. Rodriguez raises.

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

Marijan v. The University of Chicago · filed 2018-12-17(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs’ federal claims against defendant fails, we will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state claim.

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

Miceli v. Mehr · filed 2019-11-05(c)(3)

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

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

Simmons v. NYS Dept of Social Services · filed 2019-11-05(c)(3)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that Plaintiff is asserting.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed without leave to amend.

Strunk v. The State of New York · filed 2019-11-06(c)(3)

Because he will not be granted leave to amend, supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims will be declined. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Waller v. City of Spokane · filed 2019-11-08(c)(3)

Without a valid constitutional due process cause of action, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the PECBA claim.

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

Norman v. NIPSCO · filed 2019-11-08(c)(3)

However, because the Court is dismissing the federal claims for failure to state a claim, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Simon v. Manhattan Mini Storage, LLC · filed 2019-11-13(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Harris v. The City of Texarkana, Arkansas · filed 2019-10-17(c)(3)

Judge Bryant recommends that, because Plaintiff has failed to allege any viable federal claim, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Johnson v. City of Sherwood, 360 F.3d 810, 819 (8th Cir. 2004). The Court agrees with this recommendation, and Plaintiff offers no compelling argument as to why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissal of all federal claims, with the predominance of state-law claims supporting that decision.

Loesel v. Cooper · filed 2019-10-17(c)(3)

As the Court has already discussed, Plaintiff has failed to plead any federal claims in his complaint for which relief may be granted, and is unlikely to succeed on the merits of any of his federal claims. The sheer number of state law claims that Plaintiff brings leads the Court to conclude that these claims predominate the case, and thus the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses those claims as well.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses the federal claims.

Danam v. Kelley · filed 2019-10-28(c)(3)

... the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as the court is dismissing plaintiff’s federal claims.

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

Robinson v. Medical Answering Service · filed 2019-10-31(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s only federal claim has been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims.

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

Forjone v. The State of New York (NYS) Department of Motor Vehicles · filed 2019-11-01(c)(3)

And because all of these federal claims will be dismissed without leave to amend, supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims will be declined. 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 claim.

Alston v. Verizon Delaware LLC · filed 2019-01-04(c)(3)

Secondly, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claim and remanding the matter to the state court.

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

Bracken v. County of Allegheny · filed 2019-01-11(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, DeForte failed to state a constitutional claim against Parker and Fitzgerald, and the District Court therefore properly dismissed with prejudice the federal claims in the third amended complaint. In addition, the District Court permissibly exercised its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Chapman v. AFSCME Council 31, Local 3477 · filed 2019-01-16(c)(3)

The remaining claims asserted in the SAC sound in state law and are before the Court via supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Having found no federal basis for relief under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and, therefore, will not analyze now whether they are sufficiently pled.

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

Yates v. Holloway · filed 2019-01-31(c)(3)

To the extent the Complaint can be read to be asserting state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Walsh v. Walsh · filed 2019-02-13(c)(3)

Given that the District Court properly dismissed James’s sole federal claim, the Court acted within its discretion in declining to hear the state claims.

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

Kaul v. Christie · filed 2019-02-25(c)(3)

When a court has dismissed all claims over which it had original federal-question jurisdiction, it has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... I therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Ten, Eleven, and Twelve.

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

Aliperio v. Bank of America NA · filed 2019-02-26(c)(3)

To the extent that they sought relief under state law, the District Court did not err by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after concluding that any such claims could be entertained only though the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel, Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 181 (3d Cir. 1999); see also Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671-72 (1950) (explaining that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide an independent source of jurisdiction); Complaint ¶¶ 4-6, 9.

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

Fusilier v. Zaunbrecher · filed 2019-03-13(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court enjoys “wide discretion” in determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) makes dismissal of all federal claims a strong factor favoring remand of remaining state-law claims.

Johnston v. Dexel · filed 2019-03-14(c)(3)

Johnston's federal-law claims were dismissed in a series of motions to dismiss, and only state-law claims remain. This fact weighs strongly in favor of remand.

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

Lett v. City Of Chicago · filed 2019-03-14(c)(3)

As there are no remaining federal-law claims in this case, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts V–VII, which Lett brings under Illinois law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a remaining state law claim after the court has disposed of all federal claims.

Williams v. DuPage Metropolitan Enforcement Group · filed 2019-03-22(c)(3)

Because the Court has disposed of all of Williams's federal claims, the Court dismisses this claim for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction 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 all federal claims.

Elbert v. City of Kansas City Missouri · filed 2019-03-26(c)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal law claims and has considered the factors in 28 U.S.C. §1367(c) concerning discretionary supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on 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.

Ruiz-Lugo v. Municipality San Juan · filed 2019-03-25(c)(3)

Finally, since none of the federal claims in this action survives the MSJ's Motion to Dismiss, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's cause of action under local Law 115.

Section 1367 permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the federal claims are dismissed if no independent basis for jurisdiction remains.

Ramirez v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP · filed 2019-03-29(c)(3)

If, however, there is no diversity jurisdiction, and no amended complaint is filed, then the Court will convert the FDCPA dismissals into with-prejudice dismissals and relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the ICFA claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when no reason to retain the state claims applies.

Seymour v. Glenview · filed 2019-04-05(c)(3)

Given all this, relinquishing jurisdiction over the state law claims is the appropriate course under § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to retain related state-law claims after the federal claim is dismissed pursuant to a settlement.

Wert v. Cohn · filed 2019-04-12(c)(3)

The Court concludes that it has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law counts.

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

Daniel Delacruz, Sr. v. State · filed 2019-04-15(c)(3)

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

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

Cohen v. Feiner · filed 2019-04-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Semler v. Eastbay, Inc. · filed 2019-04-29(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), Plaintiff’s Minnesota state law claims are REMANDED to Ramsey County District Court, Second Judicial District of Minnesota.

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

Harris v. Westchester Medical Center · filed 2019-05-03(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all federal claims against the Westchester Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any possible state law claims against those Defendants at this time.

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

Wells v. Loftey LLC · filed 2019-05-08(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges discrimination under state or city law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of those claims.

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

Mitchell v. CIGNA Corporation · filed 2019-05-21(c)

And because Plaintiff’s claims do not give rise to federal subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims.

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim if there is no independent basis for jurisdiction.

Tellez v. OTG Interactive, LLC · filed 2019-06-03(c)(3)

If the parties’ filings are insufficient to demonstrate an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction of Tellez’s remaining claim, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the breach of contract claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state-law claims after dismissing that plaintiff's federal claim when other plaintiffs' federal claim remains and the claims substantially overlap.

Deluca v. Farmers Ins. Exch. · filed 2019-05-15(c)(3)

Even if the Court did not have diversity jurisdiction, the Court would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Laughlin's state law claims. ... In addition, Laughlin's claims almost entirely overlap with the claims of the other Plaintiffs, all of which remain in this case. Thus, while Laughlin's own FLSA claim will be dismissed, the other Plaintiffs' federal claim remains.

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

Leslie Salvage, Inc. v. City of Omaha · filed 2019-06-11(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed Leslie Salvage’s federal-question claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Leslie Salvage’s 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, particularly when the case has progressed no further than the motion to dismiss stage.

Hall-Wadley v. Dep't · filed 2019-06-27(c)(3)

Here, as the case has not progressed in federal court past the motion to dismiss stage, and the Court has developed no particular familiarity with the issues presented, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

MELEIKA v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2019-06-28(c)(3)

For the reasons detailed above, the Court will dismiss all of Plaintiff's federal claims. The Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hinkley v. Envoy Air Inc. · filed 2019-06-28(c)(3)

Because there is also pending the counterclaim of defendant for breach of contract and the court has determined that the only federal law claim asserted should be dismissed, the court is 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 after dismissing the federal claims.

Fox v. Doe · filed 2019-07-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal law claims, to the extent Plaintiff alleges any state law claims, this 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 no viable federal claims remain.

Jiggetts v. Spring Grove Hospital Center · filed 2019-07-11(c)(3)

In the absence of viable claims that come within federal question jurisdiction, I will exercise my discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims under State law.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the federal claims when the relevant factors favor doing so.

Prescott v. Wolff · filed 2019-07-12(c)(3)

In the case at hand, the relevant factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Peterkin v. Cicchiello · filed 2019-07-15(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (if federal court dismisses all federal claims, it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over supplemental 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, absent an affirmative reason to retain them.

MUNS v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES · filed 2019-07-17(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s only claims under federal law have been dismissed, and there is no affirmative justification for this Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim this early in the litigation. As such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses the federal claims before trial.

GUEVARA v. ELIZABETH PUBLIC SCHOOLS · filed 2019-07-18(c)(3)

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1367 permits federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims, “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” ... This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and will therefore dismiss Counts One through Twelve, and Sixteen through Eighteen.

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

Edwards v. Penix · filed 2019-07-24(c)(3)

However, since plaintiff's federal claims will be dismissed and she will not be given leave to replead, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that might be found in her pleading.

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

Ally v. Myers · filed 2019-07-24(c)(3)

Finally, since all ... of Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed, we shall decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After dismissing the sole federal claim, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Newell v. Warren County, Kentucky · filed 2019-07-30(c)(3)

Dismissing Newell’s Section 1983 claims removes the sole federal question from this action. Because the remaining claims involve questions of state law, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Newell’s state law claims.

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

Smalls v. Riviera Towers Corp · filed 2019-08-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims against other defendants, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claim.

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

Gilliam v. Galvin · filed 2019-08-06(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the only federal claim, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 leaves a court with supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed and diversity jurisdiction is unavailable.

SCOTT v. SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION · filed 2019-08-13

All federal claims have been dismissed in this matter, and only state law claims remain. Although the language of the SAC is imprecise, it appears that the citizenship of both parties is New Jersey, prohibiting the assertion of diversity jurisdiction. What remains within the Court’s power, therefore, is supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

DiDonato v. Panatera · filed 2019-08-20(c)(3)

If DiDonato chooses not to amend her complaint, or otherwise fails to state a Section 1983 claim again, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over DiDonato’s state-law claims and the case will be remanded back to state court. 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 all federal claims.

Gary v. Nichols · filed 2019-08-20(c)(3)

Because all the federal claims are being dismissed, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law.

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

Conroy v. High Peaks Dental Professional Partnership · filed 2019-08-23(c)(3)

The Court declines, in its discretion, to retain 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 all federal-law claims have been dismissed.

Blessett v. Texas Office of the Attorney General Galveston County Child Support Enforcement Division · filed 2019-08-27(c)

In adherence to the “general rule,” the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state-law claims since all federal-law claims have been eliminated.

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

Sullivan v. Adventist Health Systems · filed 2019-08-27(c)(3)

Thus, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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.

Sullivan v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority · filed 2019-08-27(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if only issues of state law remain after the court has dismissed all federal claims.

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

Primm v. Tennessee Department of Correction · filed 2019-08-27(c)

Having concluded that all Plaintiff’s federal claims are subject to dismissal, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim when the claims are more appropriately adjudicated in state court.

Bates v. Green Farms Condominium Association · filed 2019-08-29(c)

Here, plaintiffs’ state law claims would be more appropriately adjudicated by the state court. See § 1367(c) (1), (c)(4); Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309, 1315 (E.D. Mich.1994). Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

RACIOPPE v. VERONA BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2019-08-29(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(3) and will remand the action to the Superior Court of New Jersey if Plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint in this Court.

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

Beasley v. State of Missouri · filed 2019-09-03(c)(3)

Because plaintiff has stated no federal cause of action, the Court declines to take jurisdiction over any supplemental state law claims plaintiff can be understood to bring.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decide supplemental state-law claims after dismissing federal claims before trial when the state-law claims are easy to resolve.

Brooks-Ngwenya v. Indianapolis Public Schools · filed 2019-09-04(c)(3)

After dismissing federal claims before trial, a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it can easily decide them. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 505, 514–15 (7th Cir. 2009). The district court rightly did so here: Brooks-Ngwenya has not specified who or what defamed her, violated a contract, or intentionally inflicted emotional distress.

When federal claims are dismissed before trial, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

(PC) Coats v. Chaudhri · filed 2019-09-06(c)(3)

As it is recommended that Plaintiff’s federal law claims be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, it also is recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Field v. Hartford · filed 2019-09-09(c)(3)

As to the remaining state law claims, there is no basis to conclude that there is complete diversity of citizenship between Field and the defendants as would be required to sustain federal jurisdiction in the absence of any remaining federal law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. I will otherwise decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see, e.g., Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2013).