28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Hudson v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation · filed 2019-09-09(c)(3)

And because the court has rejected all of Hudson’s federal claims, the court in its discretion may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law counterclaims after it grants summary judgment on all federal claims.

Klein v. Newly Weds Foods, Inc. · filed 2019-09-10(c)(3)

If the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... As summary judgment has been granted on all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law counterclaims and dismisses them as such.

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

SHANDA HARRIS. v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH · filed 2019-09-10(c)(3)

Lastly, because the Court has dismissed all federal claims in this matter, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Harris’s state law claims, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bryant-El v. Corcoran · filed 2019-09-11(c)(3)

To the extent plaintiff has raised any claims premised on state law against Corcoran and Nines, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

WILLIAMS v. CHILDFIRST SERVICES, INC. · filed 2019-09-13(c)(3)

Stated differently, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a district court may, in its discretion, exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to that section even if it has dismissed all federal claims. Id. Here, however, given the multitude of disputed facts bearing upon Plaintiff’s state-law claims, cf. Pl. SUF, with Def. SUF, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction given its dismissal of Plaintiff’s ADA claim.

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

Merrick v. Franey Medical Lab, Inc. · filed 2019-09-19(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s only federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Brown v. Griffin · filed 2019-09-25(c)

Alternatively, because Plaintiff’s federal claims have all been dismissed, the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Diederich, Jr. v. James · filed 2019-09-25(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines Defendants’ request and will remand Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

SOTO v. CITY OF PATERSON · filed 2019-09-26(c)(3)

This Court again declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and will dismiss Counts Four through Ten.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the state law analysis should substantially track the federal law analysis.

Brown v. Alexandria · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

The Court continues to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the remaining state law claims against Defendants, as the state law analysis should substantially track the federal law analysis.

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

Muhammad 242898 v. Neher · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Kasher and Neher’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 171) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as moot; specifically, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Kasher and Neher are dismissed, and the Court DECLINES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim against Defendant Neher.

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

Flynn v. Papst · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

To the extent Mr. Flynn raised any state law claims in this matter, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

DOE v. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Therefore, upon dismissal of the federal claims, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)3).

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

Castillo v. Hudson Theatre, LLC · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Because Castillo’s federal claims have been dismissed, and because Castillo does not argue this Court should retain jurisdiction over her remaining state and city law claims, this Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. 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 claims.

Davis v. Charlottesville Department of Social Services · filed 2019-10-03(c)(3)

To the extent that the complaint could be construed to assert claims under state law, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ehrenfeld v. Wells Fargo NA · filed 2019-10-07(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims in this case before commencing or even scheduling trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claim.

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

Whiticar v. New Orleans City · filed 2019-10-08(c)(3)

When all claims which conferred federal subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see Priester v. Lowndes County, 354 F.3d 414, 425 (5th Cir. 2004). Here, to the extent that Whiticar’s Complaint makes any state law claims, the Court declines jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims; dismissal before trial generally favors doing so.

Andaz v. Building Service 32BJ Health Fund · filed 2019-10-09(c)(3)

Generally, where, as here, all of the federal claims in an action are dismissed before trial, the balance of factors will favor 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 all federal claims.

Carson v. Willow Valley Communities · filed 2019-10-10(c)(3)

The District Court’s decision to do so after ... dismissing all of Carson’s federal claims was not an abuse of discretion.

After all federal claims are dismissed, the court should consider whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, including whether those claims would be time-barred in state court.

Wilke v. Stublaski · filed 2019-10-21(c)(3)

Because Wilke now lacks any federal claims, the district court on remand should consider whether it is appropriate to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Howlett v. Hack, 794 F.3d 721, 728–29 (7th Cir. 2015). This includes examining whether Wilke’s claims would be time-barred in state court.

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

Reynolds v. Semple · filed 2019-10-22(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims for reasons other than lack of jurisdiction.

Coley v. Boyett · filed 2019-10-22(c)(3)

If the claims initially conveying jurisdiction upon the federal court ate dismissed for reasons other than a lack of jurisdiction, the court has discretion to continue exercising jutisdiction over the supplemental claims. ... Although the federal claims have now been dismissed, the Court exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Rowell v. Muskogee County Board of County Commissioners · filed 2019-10-22(c)(3)

“When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” ... Plaintiff’s state-law claim is remanded to the District Court for Muskogee County, State of Oklahoma.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissal of the related federal claims and consideration of the relevant discretionary factors.

Coats v. Pope · filed 2019-10-30(c)(3)

With regards to the state claims against the Greenwood Police Department, this Court declines, after consideration of the relevant factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims considering the Court’s dismissal of the federal claims against Arresting Officers.

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

Estruch v. Stich · filed 2019-11-08(c)(3)

Nevertheless, the Court will dismiss that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), since it is dismissing all of Plaintiff’s federal claims.

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

Sanders, Jr. v. Wolff · filed 2019-11-21(c)(3)

Absent any federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Banks v. McLaughlin · filed 2019-11-21(c)(3)

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

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

Morris v. AHRCNYC · filed 2019-11-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, and as the parties here are not diverse of citizenship, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s other claims to the extent they arise under the state constitution or common law.

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

Hinton v. Atkins · filed 2019-11-26(c)(3)

To the extent that Hinton’s Complaint raises state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

Section 1367 permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed when prior state-court proceedings and the clear insufficiency of the remaining state-law claims warrant deciding their merits.

Arias v. City of Everett · filed 2019-12-04(c)(3)

However, in light of the fact that this case has been through a motion to dismiss in the state court already, and because this court finds it clear that there are no facts alleged to support a claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress against the Home Depot Defendants, this court concludes that this is “an instance in which the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is warranted[.]” Freeman v. Town of Hudson, 849 F. Supp. 2d 138, 143 (D. Mass. 2012). Thus, this court will address the merits of the motion to dismiss the state law claims.

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

Crandell v. Department of Corrections and Community Supervison · filed 2019-12-13(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will dismiss this action; the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's federal-law claims as frivolous, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and for seeking monetary relief from a defendant that is immune from that relief, see § 1915(e)(2)(B)(), (11), (iit), and the Court will decline to consider Plaintiff's state-law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Vasquez v. Garcia · filed 2019-12-16(c)(3)

Because the Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.

Supplemental jurisdiction cannot be exercised over a state claim when no federal claims remain.

Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools · filed 2019-12-19

Accordingly, there are no remaining federal claims and the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim.

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

Courser v. Allard · filed 2019-12-19(c)(3)

With the entry of default set aside, the Court will dismiss the Federal Wiretapping Claim against Cline and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) supports relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of the federal claims when refiling is timely, little judicial effort has been spent on the state claims, and their resolution is not clear.

Hollstein v. City of Zion · filed 2019-04-16(c)(3)

There is no good reason to hang onto the state claims: there will be no statute of limitations bar because of Illinois’s savings statute, 735 ILCS 5/13-217, and the Court has not spent significant judicial resources on the state claims; nor is it crystal clear how they should be decided. ... Because the federal claims have been dismissed, this Court will also relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims (with the exception of the conspiracy claim (Count Six), which the Estate concedes should be dismissed, see supra n. 6).

Section 1367 permits a court to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City Of San Jose · filed 2022-09-30(a)

As an initial matter, the Court notes that, although it has dismissed all of HJTA Plaintiffs’ 23 claims over which it has original jurisdiction (i.e., HJTA Plaintiffs’ first and second claims), the 24 Court nonetheless has discretion to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the 25 remaining state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Cook 290601 v. Corizon Inc. · filed 2022-10-11(c)

With respect to Defendant Corizon, because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Corizon will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Corizon.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed.

Rice 490612 v. Bryce · filed 2022-10-17(c)

With respect to Defendants Kellogg, Unknown Party #1, Unknown Party #2, Miller, Blair, Kavanaugh, Rewerts, and Russell, because Plaintiff’s federal claims against these Defendants will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against them.

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

Bartole v. Hughes · filed 2022-10-18(c)(3)

Without commenting on the validity of such claims, due to the absence of any federal claims, I will relinquish jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to address state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when it allows the plaintiff to seek leave to amend.

Weathers v. Region VI Community Health Commission · filed 2022-10-26(c)(3)

Because the Court has found dismissal of the federal claims proper such that no federal claims remain, ordinarily it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.4 But since Weathers will be allowed to seek leave to amend certain claims, the Court will proceed to address the state law claims.

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

McWilliams v. Unknown · filed 2022-10-31(c)

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to pursue a common law action, such as one for defamation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim.

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

Pruit v. State Of New Mexico · filed 2022-11-01(c)

Under § 1367(c), the district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... This Court is dismissing all federal claims in this case. To the extent the Complaint and Amended Complaint allege any claims under New Mexico law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Pruit’s remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits, but does not require, a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Henderson v. Mahally · filed 2022-11-08(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) is permissive, not mandatory.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when the remaining state claims raise novel state-law issues and predominate.

Baxter v. State of Louisiana · filed 2022-11-18(c)

Here, all factors favor dismissing Plaintiffs state law claims. These remaining claims raise novel issues of Louisiana law and obviously predominate over the nonexistent federal claims.

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

PERRY v. O'DONNELL · filed 2022-11-22(c)

The Court, having dismissed Perry’s federal claims, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

Whittman v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC. · filed 2022-12-13(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of all federal claims at this early stage in the litigation, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law causes of action, which are best adjudicated in Maryland state court.

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

Daroya v. Daroya-Lushina · filed 2022-12-12(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Bray v. Mazza · filed 2022-12-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed Bray’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 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 that supplied the jurisdictional basis for the suit.

Henning v. Fentress · filed 2022-12-21(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff alleges a separate claim of medical negligence, having determined that the federal claims, which provide the jurisdictional basis of this suit, should be dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.

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

Wallace v. Choctaw Nicoma Park School District · filed 2022-12-21(c)(3)

Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law negligence claim 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Linz v. Core Values Roadside Service, LLC · filed 2022-12-22(c)(3)

Given that the Court has resolved all federal claims giving rise to this Court’s original jurisdiction in favor of Defendant, the Court declines 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 it dismisses the federal claims.

DORSAINVIL v. PEIM · filed 2022-12-23(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants under Count One, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendants for negligence pursuant to state law under Count Two.

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

Harris v. City of Aurora, The · filed 2022-12-27(c)

The Court found above that Plaintiff has failed to state any claim under § 1983 and that, therefore, his federal claims should be dismissed. Therefore, the Court further finds that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims should be declined.

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

Lee v. Savage · filed 2022-12-27(c)(3)

With Lee’s federal claims dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims against Savage.

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

Masters v. Mack · filed 2022-12-27(c)(3)

Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Plaintiff’s state law claims because all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Artuso v. Felt · filed 2022-12-27(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion with respect to Plaintiff’s federal claims, which are the only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’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 within its original jurisdiction.

Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee, Inc. v. Dragon Springs Buddhist, Inc. · filed 2022-12-28(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), having dismissed the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff s remaining state-law claim for private nuisance.

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

White v. UT Southwestern Medical Center · filed 2022-12-28(c)(3)

But even if he had, the court would decline in its discretion to exercise supplement jurisdiction over his state-law claims now that his federal-law claims have all been dismissed.

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

Ortiz v. County of Trinity · filed 2022-12-29(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims at this juncture.

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

St Clair v. Ohio Dept. Rehab and Corrections · filed 2022-12-29(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff's complaint does not allege any cognizable federal claim, and there is no basis in this action for original diversity jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim Plaintiff may also be attempting to assert.

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

Deonna v. Centre Hills Country Club · filed 2022-12-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over DeOnna’s PHRA claim because it has dismissed all federal claims.

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

Webb v. Davis · filed 2022-12-30(c)(3)

Because all Plaintiffs’ federal claims will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, including when the state and federal claims use identical standards.

Grastorf v. Community Bank, N.A · filed 2023-02-28(c)(3)

With the identical standards for the New York State Human Rights Law claims and Title VII and ADEA claims (alleged jointly in the First and Second Causes of Action) and the dismissal above of Grastorf’s federal discrimination claims alleged therein, this Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over these analogous state law claims, cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

CONDON v. NESTER · filed 2023-03-27(c)

Because the Court has dismissed his federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

Kellogg v. Louisiana Children's Medical Center · filed 2023-04-14(c)

Having determined that the resolution of Plaintiff’s state law claims does not require ... any application or interpretation of federal law, and further having determined that the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

EISENBERG v. NATIONAL DANCE INSTITUTE · filed 2023-04-17(c)

Consequently, without the Title VI claim—Plaintiffs’ sole federal claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims and, therefore, will not analyze the merits of those claims.

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

Gentile v. Latona · filed 2023-04-17(c)

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with the early stage of litigation supporting that choice.

GOSDEN v. ERAZORBITS, INC. · filed 2023-04-25(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of the federal claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction and the relatively early stage of this litigation, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count IV of Plaintiff's Complaint.

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

COULTER v. COULTER · filed 2023-04-25(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Jean’s state law claims because we dismissed all claims over which we enjoyed original jurisdiction based on the federal question posed under the civil rights law.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of a remaining state law claim after the federal claims have been disposed of.

Myrick v. Fulton County, Georgia · filed 2023-06-07(c)(3)

When, as here, the federal claims have been disposed of and all that remains is the state law claim, we have encouraged the dismissal of the remaining state law claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, in its discretion.

Yeomans v. Valdez · filed 2023-06-13(a)

Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and enjoy wide discretion in determining whether to retain such jurisdiction once all federal claims are dismissed.

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

Stewart v. Nottoway County · filed 2023-07-28(c)(3)

Because these claims formed the basis for this Court’s federal question jurisdiction and will be dismissed, 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 state law claims after dismissing the federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Caldwell v. Nottoway County · filed 2023-07-28(c)(3)

Because these claims formed the basis for this Court’s federal question jurisdiction and will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

When all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Johnson v. Zook · filed 2023-07-31(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that the Complaint does not state any constitutional claim, it declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.

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

PALLIPURATH v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2023-07-31(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Nicklaus v. Milstein · filed 2023-08-01(c)(3)

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff's federal claims, Count IV and Count V, are dismissed. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's remaining 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 it dismisses all federal claims in the action.

Drawbridge v. Schenectady County Department of Social Services · filed 2023-08-01(c)(3)

Since the Court has dismissed all of the federal claims in this action, which pertain only to Defendant County,7 the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law negligence claim against Defendant Northeast, as well as all counterclaims and/or crossclaims associated with that claim, 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 all federal claims have been dismissed.

Jurjens III, Ralph v. Niesl, Joseph · filed 2023-08-02(c)(3)

Ordinarily, this court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all federal causes of action.

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

SMITH v. GEORGIA KIDNEY CONSULTANTS LLC · filed 2023-08-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims against Defendant in accordance with the considerable discretion afforded the Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when little litigation has occurred.

Davis v. City of Springfield · filed 2023-08-02(c)(3)

Under these circumstances where no substantial litigation has occurred, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Hernandez v. Blewett · filed 2023-08-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, because Court dismisses the Section 1983 claim against Defendant, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law medical negligence / malpractice claim, to the extent plaintiff has sufficiently alleged such a claim.

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

Matthew v. Arrow Security · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

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

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

Jefferson v. Institute for Community Living · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

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

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

SILVA v. STEBERGER · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

Because we dismiss Mr. Silva’s federal claims, we will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim at an early stage of litigation.

Pollard, Donald v. Johnson, Sr., John · filed 2023-08-15(c)

At this relatively early stage of litigation, the court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and having no subject matter jurisdiction over their remaining state law claims in this case, plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction will be dismissed as moot.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after federal claims are dismissed when the case is at an advanced stage of litigation.

Murphy v. Industrial Contractors Skanska Inc. · filed 2023-08-15(c)(3)

Because Murphy has also agreed to dismiss her ADEA claim, (Doc. 89 at 8; Doc. 89-20 at 1; Doc. 102 at 3), only state law claims remain pending in this matter. However, because this case is at an advanced stage of litigation, the Court will exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Henderson v. Whitman · filed 2023-08-31(c)

At screening, the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Henderson’s Wisconsin state law claim. Now that the court has granted summary judgment in favor of Whitman and dismissed the federal claim, the court declines to continue to exercise that jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c); Bailey v. City of Chicago, 779 F.3d 689, 696 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

KOSIBA v. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL · filed 2023-09-20(c)

Because the Court has dismissed her federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c) creates a rebuttable presumption favoring relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial.

FLYNN v. CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY · filed 2023-09-27(c)

"When all federal claims in a suit in federal court are dismissed before trial, the presumption is that the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over any supplemental state-law claims." RWJ Management Co., Inc. v. BP Products N. Am., Inc., 672 F.3d 476, 479 (7th Cir. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... In sum, the factors weigh in favor of the Court's relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Flynn's state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially when state law is unsettled and little judicial work has been spent on those claims.

HUFF v. MONROE COUNTY · filed 2023-09-27(c)

Here, the factors weigh in favor of the Court's relinquishing jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Powell v. Cabinet of Health and Family Services · filed 2023-09-30(c)

Although a federal court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing federal claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) & (c), “the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims, or remanding them to state court if the action was removed,” Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254-55 (6th Cir. 1996). “[W]hen a federal court dismisses all pending federal claims before trial, ... it is usually best to allow the state courts to decide state issues.” Kowall v. Benson, 18 F.4th 542, 549 (6th Cir. 2021). That course is appropriate here.

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

Cooke v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office · filed 2023-10-18(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and therefore reserves in part and declines to ... consider whether the Plaintiff may be entitled to relief under state law.

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

Williams v. Adams · filed 2023-10-19(a)

Alternatively, Williams’s claims against Chief Brown and Office Hulsey are subject to dismissal under 18 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim, and the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the remaining claim in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim after disposing of all federal claims when the state claim’s disposition is clearly apparent.

Hatch v. Barrett · filed 2023-10-23(c)(3)

Nevertheless, because “it is clearly apparent” that Plaintiffs’ state law defamation claim is deficient, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and address the claim here.

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

Heidelberger v. Illinois River Ranch Recreational Vehicle Park Property Owners Association Inc · filed 2023-10-30(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), after dismissing all claims over which a district court has original jurisdiction, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Court finds it is appropriate to do so here and accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims (Counts XVII - XXIII).

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

Kilborn v. Amiridis · filed 2023-11-01(c)

But because the Court has dismissed all of the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction with prejudice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kilborn’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to address supplemental state-law claims after dismissing federal claims when it allows the plaintiff to amend the federal pleading.

Picazo dba Salinas Farms v. Aptos Berry Farms, Inc. · filed 2023-11-02(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses those federal claims, it would ordinarily decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over and comment on Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). However, because the Court will permit Plaintiff to amend his FAC, it addresses the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s state-law allegations below, which he may correct in his amended pleading.

Section 1367 permits a court to let a state-law claim proceed while a federal claim remains potentially viable, with the state claim dependent on a plausible federal basis for supplemental jurisdiction.

Dike-Winston v. 1083 East Tropicana LLC · filed 2023-11-15

Dike-Winston’s racial-discrimination claim is dismissed with leave to amend by December 15, 2023; her negligence claim is dismissed without leave to amend; and her breach-of-contract claim may proceed subject to her ability to plead a plausible racial-discrimination claim to anchor jurisdiction for this supplemental state-law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when it is clear how the state claims should be decided.

SKILES v. HAMILTON COUNTY · filed 2023-11-21(c)

Having dismissed all of Mr. Skiles' federal claims, the Court must determine whether it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... As explained below, this case fits squarely within the third exception because "it is absolutely clear how the pendent claims can be decided." Davis, 534 F.3d at 654. The Court therefore exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

BURGOS v. GAUDENZIA · filed 2023-11-21(c)

Because the Court has dismissed his federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

Mehboob Shah v. Desert Auto Group V LLC · filed 2023-11-29(c)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims––the claims that conferred original jurisdiction––the Court need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

CUSTER v. GREEN · filed 2023-12-01(c)

The Court is dismissing Custer’s federal claims, and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

Gonzales v. Hile · filed 2023-12-05(c)

However, federal statute provides that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §1367(c). As the undersigned recommends dismissing Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, the court has discretion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

VIDAL v. GALAXY 2439 ENTERPRISES, LLC · filed 2023-12-06(c)(3)

Although the Court chooses to briefly discuss Plaintiff's remaining NJLAD claim and Pierce claim below, the Court notes that “[a] district court may [choose to] decline supplemental jurisdiction if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also McCreary v. Redev. Auth. of City of Erie, 427 F. App’x 211, 216 (3d Cir. 2011) (finding that once the district court “dismissed the federal claims, leaving only the state-law claims, ‘the prerequisites for § 1367(c)(3) were met.’” (citing E/kadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 174 (3d Cir. 2009))).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim after dismissing all federal claims when it is absolutely clear how the state claim should be decided.

EVE v. BURTRON · filed 2023-12-11(c)(3)

Here, the Court determines in its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Eve's claim under the Indiana Constitution because, as discussed below, it is "absolutely clear" how that claim should be decided.

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

Martinez-Perez v. Little · filed 2024-01-11(c)

Because the Court has dismissed his federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissal of all federal claims only if the court otherwise has original jurisdiction over those state-law claims.

PETER v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2024-01-26

Even if they were not, however, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s state law claims after now having dismissed her federal claims. When a federal court dismisses all federal claims from a complaint, it may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims if it otherwise has original jurisdiction over those state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 558 (2005).

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over surviving state and local claims after all federal claims have been dismissed when the judicial resources spent on the case favor retention.

Elgalad v. New York City Department Of Education · filed 2024-02-14(c)(3)

All federal claims have been dismissed. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and in light of the judicial resources utilized on this case, I shall exercise my discretion to retain jurisdiction over the surviving NYCHRL and NYSHRL claims.

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

Matios v. City of Loveland · filed 2024-03-01(c)(3)

Although the Court has dismissed all federal claims, the Court—in its discretion—will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s fifth and sixth state law claims.

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

HARRISON-EL v. DR. DOE · filed 2024-03-01(c)

Because the Court has dismissed his federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

BURGOS v. GAUDENZIA · filed 2024-03-01(c)

Because the Court has dismissed his federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

Mizell v. The City of Ozark (MAG+) · filed 2024-03-11

In sum, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned Recommendation that the § 1983 claim is due to be dismissed as time-barred, and that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims asserted by the Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

DJCBP Corporation v. City of Baldwin Park · filed 2024-03-15(c)(3)

While the Court dismisses plaintiffs’ federal claims with prejudice, the Court finds that it would be appropriate to retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to retain a state law claim after dismissing the federal claims when the state law issues are straightforward and the litigation is advanced.

Cenanovic v. Hamdard Center for Health and Human Services · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

Indeed, this presumption is statutorily expressed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides for the discretionary relinquishment of jurisdic- tion over state claims when the claims providing original jurisdiction (here, federal- question jurisdiction) have been dismissed. Here, however, neither side asks this Court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the retaliatory-discharge claim. ... Here, the retaliatory-dis- charge claim is governed by straightforward legal principles; the litigation is over three years old; and the parties have completed discovery.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Melancon v. Walsh · filed 2024-04-01(c)(3)

As Mr. Melancon’s § 1983 claims must be dismissed, the Court need not analyze his supplemental state law claims. ... Dismissal of supplemental state law claims is appropriate.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a defendant after dismissing the federal claims against that defendant, while retaining state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims remain pending.

Bigelow 707469 v. Rutgers · filed 2024-04-12(c)

Here, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Unknown Sergeant, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against that Defendant.

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

Akhtar v. Compound Labs Inc. · filed 2024-04-13(c)

Having dismissed the fraud claim without further leave to amend, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction in this matter. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’ s remaining state law claims.

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

DAVIS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2024-04-29(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Davis’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, but the court must exercise that discretion before dismissing a related state law claim.

Pell v. Nunez · filed 2024-04-30(c)(3)

When a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over remaining state law claims. § 1367(c)(3). Here, because the district court ruled that it lacked original jurisdiction, it dismissed all of Pell’s claims without having exercised the discretion afforded by § 1367(c)(3). We may not affirm the district court’s dismissal of Pell’s Unruh Act claim because “[t]he decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is within the discretion of the district court and that court must be given an opportunity to make that decision.”

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

HARRISON-EL v. BUCKS COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER · filed 2024-05-03(c)

Because the Court has dismissed his federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

BORDEN v. WELLPATH CARE · filed 2024-05-03(c)

I have dismissed Mr. Borden’s federal claims, so I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors resolving them.

Porter v. Jackson Township Highway Department · filed 2024-05-15(c)(3)

Thus, in the “ordinary case,” the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is improper after all federal claims have been dismissed. See Moon, 465 F.3d at 728. This is an example of a case where the interests of judicial economy encourage this Court to exercise residual jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain a supplemental state-law claim after resolving the remaining federal claim when convenience, fairness, and judicial economy favor retention.

Casey v. St. Mary's Bank · filed 2024-05-22(c)

Given that this case is now in its final stages, with discovery completed and a trial date imminently approaching, and considering that the state law claim does not present any novel or complex issue of state law, the principles of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy favor continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the stage of proceedings and nature of the issues favor retention.

Smith v. City of Portland · filed 2024-05-29(c)

However, given the late stage of proceedings in this case, the dispositive nature of the pending, fully briefed motion, and the fact that the issues in dispute do not involve complex questions of state law, the Court exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction over Smith’s remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Cucul v. Major Cleaning, Inc. · filed 2024-05-30(c)(3)

“[A] district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). “Once a district court's discretion is triggered under § 1367(c)(3), it balances the traditional ‘values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity’ in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction.” Id. at 122 (citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619 (1988)). Weighing the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Bond 45 and the Westville Defendants in the instant case.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when judicial economy favors doing so.

Addonizio v. Nuvance Health · filed 2024-06-11(c)(3)

Although, in the usual case, the balance of factors would tilt toward dismissing the federal claims on procedural grounds and declining to exercise jurisdiction over the NYSHRL claims, in this particular case, Plaintiff has clearly failed to satisfy her burdens under Title VII and the NYSHRL. Consequently, considerations of judicial economy counsel in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining NYSHRL claims and dismissing them along with the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy favors resolving the remaining claims.

Hall v. Cuyahoga County · filed 2024-06-21(c)(3)

Thus, if the Court were to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Hall’s state-law claims and Hall thereafter refiles them in state court, Defendants would presumably re-assert their immunity in state court. This process would vitiate judicial economy, and therefore, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Hall’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses the federal claims before trial.

Bean v. Marthakis · filed 2024-06-27(c)

“Ordinarily, when a district court dismisses the federal claims conferring original jurisdiction prior to trial, it relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c).” Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir. 2010). Such is the case here. This court will not retain supplemental jurisdiction over these state court claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims fall out when the circumstances favor doing so, including years of litigation and the absence of complex or unsettled state-law issues.

Doucette v. Jacobs · filed 2024-07-02(c)(3)

We agree with the district court's assessment that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction was proper, as the state-law claims litigated in this case for several years do not require us to wade into complex or unsettled areas of state law.

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

Dinh v. Doe · filed 2024-07-09(c)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court had dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction....”).

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

Birkley v. Eade · filed 2024-07-09(c)(3)

Because the court has concluded that the plaintiff has no federal claims against the defendants, the court instead will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Lavite v. Dunstan, 932 F.3d 1020, 1034-35 (7th Cir. 2019).

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

Alvarado v. Beahm · filed 2024-07-09(c)

At screening, the Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Alvarado’s battery claim under Wisconsin state law. Now that the Court has granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines to continue to exercise that jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c); Bailey v. City of Chicago, 779 F.3d 689, 696 (7th Cir. 2015).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim at an early stage after dismissing the claim that supported federal jurisdiction.

William Spencer & Spencer Brothers LLC v. P U.S. Department of Transportation, et al. · filed 2024-07-16(c)

At this early stage in the litigation, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) generally favors relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, including claims under a state constitution.

Hadley v. City of South Bend The · filed 2024-07-18(c)(3)

Generally, “when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims rather than resolving them on the merits.” Wright v. Associated Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... But the presumption of remand still applies when the state law claims are based on the state constitution. Id.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claim over which it had original jurisdiction.

Washington v. Sunflower County · filed 2024-07-23(c)

After the district court dismissed that federal claim, it had discretion under § 1367(c) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c) favors relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, subject to considerations such as limitations, judicial resources, and whether the state-law answer is clear.

DOUGHERTY v. COUNTY OF VERMILLION, INDIANA · filed 2024-07-23(c)

In sum, the factors weigh in favor of the Court's relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Dougherty's state-law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after weighing the relevant interests when the federal claims against those defendants are dismissed.

Williams 674078 v. Frank · filed 2024-07-29(c)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants John Doe #1, also known as Defendant Frank, John Doe #2, also known as Defendant Beauve, John Doe #3, also known as Defendant Grossmon, John Doe #15, John Doe #17, and John Doe #16 will be dismissed and, therefore, the balance of factors weighs against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law counterclaims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Roytlender v. D. Malek Realty, LLC · filed 2024-07-29(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it is in the Court’s discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when all claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... Here, and like Stefanovic, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ counterclaims of fraud, faithless servant, and breach of fiduciary duty because the underlying facts of Plaintiff’s wage and hour claims are intertwined with those of Defendants’ counterclaims.

When federal claims are dismissed before trial or early in litigation, § 1367(c) generally requires a court to decline jurisdiction over related state claims unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness justifies retaining it.

Talley v. Major Clark · filed 2024-08-01(c)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [state] claim[s]” under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). As the District Court explained, however, where it dismisses the federal claims prior to trial or at the early stages of the litigation, it “must decline” to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims “unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness” justify retaining that jurisdiction. ... We perceive no abuse of discretion in its decision to dismiss the state law claims on this basis.

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

Pena v. Board of County Commissioners of Cibola County · filed 2024-08-01(c)

Section 1367 provides that when all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the Court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Following the Court’s dismissal of Counts I and II, the Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Muir 424863 v. Rewerts · filed 2024-08-06(c)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

ANDERSON v. TERRA · filed 2024-08-13(c)

Because the Court has dismissed his federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any associated negligence claim against Jenkins in her individual capacity.

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

TAYLOR v. CO 1 DUNSTON · filed 2024-08-20(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Taylor’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

Demps v. Jones · filed 2024-08-22(c)

The dismissal of Demps's underlying federal question claim does not deprive the Court of supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims.

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

Sheppard v. Village of Robbins, Illinois · filed 2024-08-22(c)(3)

Because Sheppard’s federal claim is dismissed with prejudice, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Vera-Lopez v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · filed 2024-08-26(c)

Where, as here, the federal claims are dismissed at an early stage of the proceedings, a District Court is well within its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pending state-law claims.

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

Gardner-Douglas v. Tunsel · filed 2024-08-27(c)

Having dismissed all federal causes of action in this case, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gardner- Douglas’s state-law claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may retain state law claims when judicial economy favors deciding them and decline supplemental jurisdiction over others.

Allen v. City of New York · filed 2024-08-28(c)(3)

Despite the general presumption, the Court concludes that it is in the interest of judicial economy to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ disparate impact claims under both the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL and their disparate treatment claims under the NYSHRL.

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

Paxton v. Independent School District No. 7 Leflore County, Oklahoma · filed 2024-08-28(c)

Here, based on the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and finds that remand is preferable to dismissal without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim after dismissing all federal claims when common facts and judicial economy favor doing so.

Garry v. County of Schenectady · filed 2024-09-03(c)(3)

The Court understands and appreciates Magistrate Judge Katz' conclusion on this issue, but finds that the most prudent course of action is to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law negligence claim given the common nucleus facts and judicial economy.