28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Gallego-Pagan v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation of Puerto Rico · filed 2024-09-05(c)

Since the totality of Plaintiff’s federal claims are being dismissed at the pleading stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor doing so.

Fay v. City of Newburgh · filed 2024-09-12(c)(3)

Here, though the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, it finds that the “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350, 108 S.Ct. 614, support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, taking account of the case’s progress and comity.

Guidry v. Guidry · filed 2024-09-17(c)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Highley v. BAART's Clinic · filed 2024-09-18(c)

Finally, having recommended dismissal of all of Plaintiff's federal law claims, the Magistrate Judge recommended the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims. See Matican v. City of New York, 524 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding where plaintiff “has no valid claim under § 1983 against any defendant, it is within the district court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims[]”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 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[.]”). The court agrees with this conclusion in the facts and circumstances of this case.

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

BORDEN v. WELLPATH CARE · filed 2024-09-19(c)

I will dismiss all of Mr. Borden’s federal claims with prejudice. I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his negligence claims.

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

Ramirez v. Anvil Builders, Inc. · filed 2024-09-23(c)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, as is the case here. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and remands the case to state court.

A court may dismiss related state-law claims after the primary federal claims have ended.

Alexsam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group (Texas), L.P. · filed 2024-09-24(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court’s application of the Fifth Circuit’s normal practice of dismissing collateral state law claims is not inequitable to Simon.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on the balance of relevant considerations.

Gauthier 505828 v. Muskegon County Jail · filed 2024-09-26(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Here, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Poulin, and the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims; judicial economy and fairness may favor retaining related state law claims.

Wooding v. Hartford · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Following dismissal of all federal claims in an action, the Court could decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for negligence, recklessness, and Connecticut constitutional violations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). But because the state law claims are based on the same set of facts as the federal claims, and because this action has been pending in federal court for some time, the Court believes that the values of judicial economy and fairness weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Raskin v. Dallas Independent School District · filed 2024-09-30(c)

Further, having determined that Plaintiffs’ federal GINA claims should be dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining state law claims and dismisses without prejudice these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) for the reasons previously explained in the court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 17, 2021 (Doc. 31 at 8-9).

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

ENTY v. BENNETT · filed 2024-10-04(c)

Having dismissed all of the federal question claims raised in Enty’s Complaint, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to retain related state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction; retention is discretionary.

Great West Capital, LLC v. Payne · filed 2024-10-08(c)(3)

This Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the related state law claims even after dismissing the federal claim. ... Whether to do so is a matter of discretion, not subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

Washington 592797 v. Berrien, County of · filed 2024-10-16(c)

Here, because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed in their entirety, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to raise those claims in the state courts.

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

Parduhn v. Bonneville County · filed 2024-10-18(c)

However, because the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted under federal law, 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 state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Stevenson v. The County of Orange · filed 2024-10-18(c)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, the state claim is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy outweighs comity concerns.

Newton v. Kardashian · filed 2024-10-22(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to proceed to the State-law claims raised.

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

Jean-Baptiste v. Froehlich · filed 2024-10-25(c)

Because all of federal claims have been dismissed against Defendants Sawaryn, Goddu, Seidel, Formiglio, Harsley, and Mastroianni, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims for assault and battery against them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) .

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

Doe 1 v. United States · filed 2024-10-29(c)

Because plaintiffs’ only remaining claims will be their state law claims asserted against Dr. Zhu, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claims are resolved on summary judgment.

MOORE v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY · filed 2024-11-06(c)

Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all remaining state law claims and therefore dismisses them.

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

WILLIAMS v. PENN DENTAL MEDICINE · filed 2024-11-22(c)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims, having dismissed all of Williams’s federal claims.

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

Thompson v. Pass Christian Public School District · filed 2024-11-30(c)(3)

The remaining factors of convenience and comity would not overcome the prejudice and loss of resources that would occur if the Court dismissed the case at this late stage. Therefore, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

JONES v. HARRY · filed 2024-12-02(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 when the federal claims are dismissed early in the case.

Fitch v. The St. Paul's School for Girls · filed 2024-12-11(c)

After considering the Carnegie-Mellon factors, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims.

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

BRUMBACK v. CENTURION HEALTH OF INDIANA, LLC · filed 2024-12-12(c)

Having resolved all claims within its original jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion and relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Brumback's state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims are dismissed when shared state-law issues favor keeping the cases together.

Does v. Presley · filed 2024-12-16(c)

Keeping all these claims together for pretrial purposes makes good sense. The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Reed Jr. v. Garosimowicz · filed 2025-01-03(c)

For the reason set forth above, Reed’s complaint fails to state any viable claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to § 1983, and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendent state law claim(s) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

SCHROCK v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (IDOC) · filed 2025-01-06(c)

The Court must determine whether it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. For the reasons that follow, the Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

POWELL v. HARRY · filed 2025-01-16(c)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over such claims, having dismissed all federal claims.

Section 1367 does not preserve supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in a removed case after the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the federal claims that enabled removal.

Garcia-Lumbano v. Marsh Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2025-01-24

Therefore, given Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of her federal law claims, the Court no longer has jurisdiction over the remaining Puerto Rico law claims, and remand is proper.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy favors retention.

Price 362584 v. Carson City Correctional Facility · filed 2025-01-24(c)

Here, judicial economy favors retaining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

OKPOR v. CBS NEWS BROADCASTING · filed 2025-02-03(c)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims, having dismissed all of Okpor’s federal claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and city claims after dismissing the federal claims, particularly when the case is still in its early stages.

Shin v. NBC Universal Media, LLC · filed 2025-02-07(c)

This case is in the early stages, and no discovery has been taken. Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claim under Title VI, the FMLA, and Sections 1985 and 1986, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state and city law claims.

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

American Conservative Union v. Institute for Legislative Analysis · filed 2025-02-13(c)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims and will dismiss those claims on that basis.

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

Simons v. Galipeau · filed 2025-02-18(c)(3)

In the absence of a federal claim, this Court relinquishes jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain related state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; substantial work already done on those claims can favor retention.

Rogers v. Western Governors University · filed 2025-02-20(c)(3)

The Court has considered the relevant factors and finds that it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case because of the substantial work the Court has done on those claims and their patent lack of merit under Illinois law, which both parties assume applies to this case.

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

Lipscomb v. Brumleve · filed 2025-02-24(c)(3)

As to the remaining state law claims (Counts 2 and 4), the Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain a related state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, finality, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retaining it.

Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund v. Publicis Health, LLC · filed 2025-02-26(c)(3)

Here, these factors present a rare case favoring the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction will significantly advance the interests of judicial economy, finality, and the convenience of the parties without compromising fairness or comity.

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

Gu v. Salem · filed 2025-02-27

Second, this Order dismisses all federal claims, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Magnolia Island Plantation L L C v. Lucky Family L L C · filed 2025-03-04(c)(3)

In exercising this wide discretion, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims asserted against Defendants. Considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weigh in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

LaMie v. Morgan · filed 2025-03-04

Because the Court DECLINES to exercise supplement jurisdiction over LaMie’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Hokenson v. Lansing, City of · filed 2025-03-06(c)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), that this Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims against the City Defendants, which are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain related state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Woun Jae Shin v. Party Well Rest. & Oriental Bakery, Inc. · filed 2025-03-12(c)

We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Shin’s NYLL claims.

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

Tin Quoc Phan v. Orange County Social Services · filed 2025-03-12(c)

In the absence of any viable federal claim, the Court declines ... supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Webb v. Providence School Department · filed 2025-03-13(c)

Because Webb’s federal claims have all been dismissed, and because there is no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. See Cannarozzi v. Fiumara, 371 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2004); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Exum v. Kane · filed 2025-03-17(c)

Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and the state law claims against Crestleigh will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Johnson v. Laporte County Sherriffs Dept · filed 2025-03-19(c)

Because he has not stated a plausible federal claim, such claims cannot proceed in federal court. ... Any state law claims contained in the amended complaint will be dismissed without prejudice to his right to pursue them in state court.

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

LU v. KERRY · filed 2025-03-21(c)

Having dismissed Lu’s federal law 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 claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Luxton v. Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2025-03-24(c)

Having granted dismissal of Luxton’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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.

Faulk v. General Electric Company · filed 2025-03-25(c)(3)

In granting the Stipulations, this Court dismissed all federal law claims and defenses. Therefore, supplemental jurisdiction persists and may be exercised pursuant to §1367(c)(3).

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

Patterson v. Bryan County Fire and Emergency Services · filed 2025-03-28(c)

Thus, the Court finds it appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims (all of which are based on the Georgia Whistleblower Act) and to remand to state court.

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

GARCIA II v. CRUZ · filed 2025-03-28(c)

Because I am dismissing all of Mr. Garcia’s claims under federal law, I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Reynoso v. Anaya · filed 2025-04-07(c)

Finally, Plaintiff's state-law claims are subject to dismissal because, in the absence of a viable federal claim, it is appropriate for the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.

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

OKPOR v. CBS NEWS BROADCASTING · filed 2025-04-11(c)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims, having dismissed all of Okpor’s federal claims.

Section 1367(c) gives courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim that supported it.

Haller v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. · filed 2025-04-14(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), courts have wide discretion in deciding whether to continue to exercise jurisdiction if the underlying federal claim that supported supplemental jurisdiction is dismissed. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims and the case is REMANDED to the Allen County Court, Indiana.

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

GROSSBERGER v. CORMACK · filed 2025-04-24(c)

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

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy and comity weigh against hearing them.

Crawford v. Weirich · filed 2025-04-25(a)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Crawford’s claims arising under state law because the Court is dismissing the second amended complaint’s § 1983 claims with prejudice, and it is not in the interest of judicial economy or comity for the Court to hear and determine Crawford’s state law claims.

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

Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2025-05-06(c)(3)

However, declining to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims once federal claims are dismissed is “discretionary;” although the district court is permitted to remand lingering state law claims on this basis if it sees fit, “supplemental jurisdiction persists.” Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc., 604 U.S. at 27. Thus, this court retains subject matter jurisdiction over Kruglyak’s fraud in the inducement claim.

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

Santoyo v. United States · filed 2025-05-07(c)

Without a federal claim remaining, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when the state claim's resolution is absolutely clear.

WITHERSPOON v. TRINKLE · filed 2025-05-09(c)(3)

Here, it is absolutely clear how Mr. Witherspoon's negligence claim should be decided so the Court, in its discretion, exercises supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.

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

Rusk v. City of Birmingham, Alabama · filed 2025-05-12(c)

Under § 1367(c), however, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Consistent with the Eleventh Circuit’s guidance and finding no substantial federal interests to be served by retaining supplemental jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Rusks’ ARFA claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims; courts typically do so absent considerable investment in the case.

McDuffy v. Montes · filed 2025-05-16(c)(3)

In the absence of a federal claim, the court typically relinquishes jurisdiction over state law claims, absent considerable investment. ... Here, it wouldn’t be appropriate to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 does not preserve supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the federal claims after removal; remand is required.

Gerran v. City of Ferguson · filed 2025-05-21

The Court agrees with the court in In re Dividend Solar Finance that because there is no substantive difference between Plaintiffs’ post-removal voluntary dismissal of their federal claims and the post-removal amendment to eliminate federal claims addressed in Royal Canin, Royal Canin mandates remand here.

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

Trimm v. New York State Dept. of Corr's and Community Services · filed 2025-05-27(c)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims related to medical negligence, failure to operate/maintain/correct, and infliction of intentional emotional duress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, any remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Gille v. The State of New York · filed 2025-05-27(c)

The Court has considered whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c) and declines to do so. For the reasons stated by Judge Dunst in the R&R, see R&R at 21, there is no basis to depart from the general rule that a district court must typically return a case to state court where, as here, all claims over which it may have had original jurisdiction have been dismissed from the case.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after all federal claims are dismissed when the relevant factors favor retention.

Baker v. City of McKinney, Texas · filed 2025-06-05(c)

Accordingly, given the vast judicial resources already expended to arrive at this current stage and the minimal state law analysis needed to finally resolve this dispute, the Court will exercise its “wide discretion” to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Baker’s Texas Takings claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Kovachevich v. National Mortgage Insurance Corporation · filed 2025-06-16(c)(3)

That is not quite right. When a district court has jurisdiction over a federal claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). Whether a district court exercises that jurisdiction after dismissal of all federal claims is a matter of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009).

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

Snipes v. Bellamy · filed 2025-06-17(c)

The Court has now dismissed those claims that would have provided the Court with federal question jurisdiction, and there is no diversity jurisdiction, given that all of the parties reside in Maryland. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (providing that “[t]he 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”).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not justify retaining them.

WEALTH v. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP · filed 2025-06-27(c)

The Court concludes that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties do not provide an “affirmative justification” for retaining jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Esqueda, M.D. v. NYU Langone Hospitals · filed 2025-06-27(c)

Because all of the claims of which the Court has original federal question jurisdiction are being dismissed and state and local law claims clearly dominate what would remain of this litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of these claims and dismisses them without prejudice to litigation in a forum of competent jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Hollenquest v. City of New York · filed 2025-07-02(c)

Having dismissed as insufficient Plaintiffs’ federal Section 1983 claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ state and local law claims, because exercising jurisdiction would not promote “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims without expressly discussing the statutory factors.

Kemp v. Powers · filed 2025-07-09(c)

Kemp’s assertion that the district court erred by not discussing the § 1367(c) factors lacks merit.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims as time-barred.

Pardo v. The County of San Diego · filed 2025-07-10(c)(3)

Consequently, the Court’s authority to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims is discretionary, not mandatory.

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

Hodge v. White · filed 2025-07-11(c)

The Court further agrees that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Armour v. Dolce · filed 2025-07-11(c)(3)

Because the Eighth Amendment claims are now dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, the Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Jordan v. Doe · filed 2025-07-14(c)

Insofar as the Court has now dismissed every claim and Defendant over which it had original jurisdiction, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ancillary 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.

Rodriguez v. Westchester County Department of Corrections · filed 2025-07-15(c)

Because Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims – the only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction – must be dismissed, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Gomi Mak Transportation Inc. v. American Expedited Inc. · filed 2025-07-18(c)

Because the Court dismisses the only federal claim before it, and diversity jurisdiction does not exist in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law breach of contract claim at this time.

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

WILLIAMS v. HUNER · filed 2025-07-22(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 of Williams’s state law claims.

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

Rothermel v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2025-07-25(c)(3)

Although all of the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the Court will exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the amended complaint and in Plaintiff’s oppositions to the motions to dismiss.

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

WALKER-BORDEN v. CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2025-07-31(c)

Because I am dismissing Mr. Walker-Borden’s federal claims, I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor doing so.

Riccio v. Examsoft Worldwide, Inc. · filed 2025-08-01(c)(3)

Because this case does not involve any matters of first impression under state law, and given the potential of later removal to federal court, the Court finds that “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Riccio’s state law claims, and will address the merits of her claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, but a court may decline to exercise it after dismissing the federal claims.

Erdmann v. State of Alaska Department of Corrections · filed 2025-08-04(a)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims raised in the Complaint.

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

Ralston v. Clarke · filed 2025-08-04(c)

In light of my conclusion that the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to the federal claims must be granted, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the inmate’s conclusory claims under state law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

McClain v. Kavic · filed 2025-08-08(c)

Once the only potential federal claim is dismissed, this court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. ... Accordingly, any state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy and convenience favor doing so.

Lynch v. The Mayor and City Council of Ocean City · filed 2025-08-11(c)

In this case, the values of judicial economy and convenience weight in favor of keeping the case in federal court, given that discovery has been concluded and the case is ready for trial. ... Accordingly, this Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and set this case for trial.

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

WASHINGTON v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2025-08-11(c)

However, having dismissed Washington’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

LUDWIG v. TERRA · filed 2025-08-12(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Ludwig’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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Wiltz v. Yost · filed 2025-08-15(c)

Because the Court dismisses Wiltz’s federal claims premised on § 1983, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over her state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); (Doc. 128, #4022, 4034 n.16).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

KEHL v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY · filed 2025-08-22(c)

Because the Court will dismiss all of Mr. Kehl’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims for violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution asserted in Counts II and III and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Dotson v. Fayette County Sheriff Department · filed 2025-08-22(c)

Because, as discussed above, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s § 1983 and ADA claims, the Court now declines to reach Plaintiff’s state-law claims and REMANDS the state-law claims to Fayette County Circuit Court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining jurisdiction.

Brown v. Martino · filed 2025-08-25(c)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants will dismissed, and the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

John & Jane Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. · filed 2025-08-26(c)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” grounded in state law if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, after either dismissing or granting judgment on the pleadings on all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims. We find no compelling reason to depart from our usual practice and affirm the district court’s decision to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims under the Ohio Constitution.

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

MITCHELL-BEY v. PRIME CARE · filed 2025-08-27(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 Mitchell-Bey seeks to assert.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves courts discretion to hear remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims over which they had original jurisdiction.

Gonzales v. Marriott International, Inc. · filed 2025-09-04(c)(3)

For this reason, courts technically retain discretion to hear remaining state claims even after they have dismissed the federal claims. This accords with the supplemental jurisdiction statute, which provides that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (emphasis added), if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Frye v. Watson · filed 2025-09-15(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Thus, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Zuniga v. Unforgettable Coatings Inc · filed 2025-09-25(c)

Because plaintiff has no federal causes of action and the parties are not diverse, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction and remands this action to Nevada state court.

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

Marco Antonio Perez Perez v. Escobar Construction · filed 2025-09-25(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ NYLL claims, which now constitute the only remaining claims, and dismisses them without prejudice to litigation in a forum of competent jurisdiction.

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

Anderson v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO · filed 2025-09-26(c)(3)

The state law fraud claim is dismissed without prejudice because the Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over it. 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.

SAUNDERS v. FREEMAN · filed 2025-09-26(c)

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

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

MENKINS v. LETIZIO · filed 2025-09-26(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Menkins’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over the remaining state law claims against Defendants for negligence.

Section 1367(c) requires a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing the federal claim before trial unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness provides an affirmative justification to retain it.

YOHANANOV v. DEVINE · filed 2025-09-29(c)

Having granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the “claim[] over which the district court ha[d] original jurisdiction,” the federal due process claim, the Court “decline[s] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” the Plaintiff’s state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims; ordinarily it should do so when dismissal occurs before trial.

Drew v. Collins · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

The normal practice within the Seventh Circuit is that, if all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over any supplemental state law claims “in order to minimize federal judicial intrusion into matters of purely state law.” ... The Court finds no basis to depart from that general practice. ... The Court relinquishes jurisdiction over Counts III-XXI.

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

Joyce 251901 v. Martino · filed 2025-10-07(c)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, 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 state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Brown-Hyatt v. Brenner · filed 2025-10-08(c)

Because this Court, for the reasons explained below, will dismiss all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, this Court would not exercise its discretion to hear these claims pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction.

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

PACIULETE · filed 2025-10-10(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Paciulete’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over the remaining state law claims, which are best construed as claims for invasion of privacy,12 assault, and property damage to her vehicle.

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

KUZMANN · filed 2025-10-14(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claim when the state claims’ resolution is obvious and deciding them serves judicial efficiency.

Lubner · filed 2025-10-15(c)(3)

Here, as explained below, it’s obvious how the state claims should be decided, so supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate even though I have already dismissed the federal count.

Section 1367 supplemental jurisdiction ends when a self-executing stipulation dismisses all federal claims from a removed case.

Walker v. State of Arizona · filed 2025-10-22

We hold that the district court lost supplemental jurisdiction upon the filing of the joint stipulation, which was self- executing.

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

Whitten · filed 2025-10-23(c)

Having found that Whitten’s federal claims fail to state claims for relief, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Whitten’s remaining state law claim for breach of an oral agreement.

Section 1367(c) generally requires a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify retaining them.

Guggenheimer · filed 2025-10-27(c)

When a federal court dismisses all federal claims prior to trial, it “must decline” to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims “unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties” dictate otherwise.

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

FLEMMING · filed 2025-10-28(c)

Having dismissed Fleming’s federal law claim, 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 the federal claim is dismissed.

Capital Shield, Inc. v. Amwins Access Insurance Services · filed 2025-10-30(c)

Additionally, in the exercise of its discretion the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in the absence of a federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Paul Berry, III, as Next Friend of L.B. v. Pattonville R-III School District Board of Education · filed 2025-11-03(c)

Having determined that Berry’s federal claims are not cognizable, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim. Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 342 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Congress unambiguously gave district courts discretion in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to dismiss supplemental state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed.”).

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

Johnson v. Smith · filed 2025-11-05(c)

The statutory factors support dismissal, as the district court correctly found. By granting summary judgment for defendants, all federal claims would be dismissed. That necessarily means the remaining state claims predominate over the federal claims.

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

Tiger Center for Applied Behavior Analysis Services, LLC v. Marquette University · filed 2025-11-05(c)(3)

The defendant has not rebutted the presumption that the court should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with employee contracts. The court will relinquish jurisdiction over that remaining state law claim and remand the case to state court.

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

Boland · filed 2025-11-05(c)(3)

Finally, because the Court is dismissing Boland’s federal claims against Dr. LaVoie and Barker, the Court will relinquish its jurisdiction over Boland’s state law claims.* See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

LYON · filed 2025-11-10(c)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). All claims brought pursuant to Georgia law are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when proceedings are well underway and the remaining claims involve settled legal principles.

Allen v. City of New York · filed 2025-11-12(c)(3)

Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising jurisdiction over this set of NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims after dismissing the federal claims at the summary judgment stage.

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

Morgan · filed 2025-11-18(c)

Here, having dismissed Plaintiff’s only federal claim, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL, NYSCRL, and NYCHRL claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain a related state claim after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Waldorf · filed 2025-11-24(c)(3)

Because judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all favor retention, the court will retain and decide the FCRA claim.

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

SMALLS · filed 2025-12-02(c)

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

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

McKay · filed 2025-12-03(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, it declines at this time to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in Counts III-V, which are governed by state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim, absent unusual circumstances favoring retention.

Fleming v. Cullen · filed 2025-12-10(c)(3)

Because plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim and neither party identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claim, the court will relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction.

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

LIU · filed 2025-12-10(c)

Because Plaintiff's federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when convenience, fairness, comity, and judicial economy favor retention.

Schoberg · filed 2025-12-16(c)(3)

In this case, convenience, fairness to the parties, comity, and judicial economy strongly favor retention of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims in Counts II, III, IV, and IX.

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

Richard v. Jonathan D. Jeffcoat, Sergeant F.L. Finch, and Michael Wilfong · filed 2026-01-05(c)

The magistrate judge, however, suggests declining jurisdiction because she recommends granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for all of Plaintiff’s federal claims. See ECF No 41 at 12. This reason is legitimate, so the court overrules Plaintiff’s final objection. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (allowing a district court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over a supplemental claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction); United States ex rel. Scott v. Metropolitan Health Corp., 375 F. Supp. 2d 626, 647 (W.D. Mich. 2005) (“[T]he strong federal custom . . . has been to dismiss those claims in order to permit state courts to decide their own law, as is their prerogative.”).

Section 1367 generally calls for declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial, unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify retaining them.

Fakhreddine v. University of Pennsylvania · filed 2026-01-09(c)

And that defect is not curable because even if the amended complaint alleged supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), that would not be grounds for exercising jurisdiction over those claims because the federal claims were dismissed. See Talley v. Clark, 111 F.4th 255, 266 n.6 (3d Cir. 2024) (explaining that when a district court “dismisses the federal claims prior to trial . . . it ‘must decline’ to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims ‘unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness’ justify retaining that jurisdiction” (quoting Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000))); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Thus, the District Court lacked jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367 permits a court that dismisses federal claims to retain jurisdiction over remaining state claims, while giving it discretion to decline to exercise that jurisdiction.

Villarroel · filed 2026-01-15(a), (c)

But when the court (rather than the plaintiff) dismisses federal claims and state claims remain, the analysis is different. In that circumstance, the court retains subject matter jurisdiction over those supplemental claims, but has the discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.”

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

Ferguson v. City of Philadelphia Department of Human Services, et al. · filed 2026-01-26(c)

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

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

SIMMONS · filed 2026-01-30(c)

Since the § 1983 claim against Defendant Wolf-Maloney is being dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any remaining state law claims because there is a lack of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Rushing · filed 2026-02-11

The Eighth Circuit has instructed courts to not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where, as here, all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial. ... There is no reason to deviate from this general rule here, and thus, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims.

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

SANTIAGO v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al. · filed 2026-02-11(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Santiago’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) generally requires a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses all federal claims before trial, unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness warrants keeping them.

Mills · filed 2026-02-26(c)

To the extent Mills asserts violations of “negligence laws” and his “right to be free from an intentional infliction of emotional distress,” the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.

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

BITTENBENDER · filed 2026-02-26(c)

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

Section 1367 generally leaves a court discretion to retain state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims for failure to state a claim.

Alvarado v. CITGO · filed 2026-03-04(c)(3)

Nevertheless, this argument still fails. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (“[W]hen a court grants a motion to dismiss for failure to state a federal claim, the court generally retains discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over pendent 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.

Progin · filed 2026-03-06(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, all of which arise under state law.

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

Pyron · filed 2026-03-11(c)

Having found no federal claims that survive the motion to dismiss, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in Count 4 of the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Jones · filed 2026-03-19(c)(3)

With all federal claims dismissed from this case, the court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law tort claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims before trial, and to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

Jennings · filed 2026-03-23(c)

As such, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state- law claims, which will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Anderson · filed 2026-03-30(c)(3)

As the Court will explain next, it dismisses all of Anderson’s federal claims with prejudice, so it relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Brooks · filed 2026-03-31(c)

Since the Court will dismiss every claim over which it had original jurisdiction, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any ancillary state-law claims.

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

Homeroom, Inc. v. City of Shawnee, Kansas · filed 2026-04-06(c)

Because we affirm the dismissal of Ms. French’s federal claims, we also affirm the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claim.

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

Avery · filed 2026-04-10(c)(3)

Avery’s federal claim would have provided the basis for supplemental jurisdiction for her state law negligence claim, but that claim has been dismissed. Because this claim has no independent basis for jurisdiction, and Avery’s other claims are dismissed, this claim will also be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Davis v. Cook Cnty., 534 F.3d 650, 654 (7th Cir. 2008).

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

Gonzalez-Ortiz · filed 2026-04-16(c)

Hence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Commonwealth law claims and DISMISSES them WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Glatz · filed 2026-04-16(c)

Finally, as to Mr. Glatz’s lone-standing tort claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, having now dismissed all of his federal claims. ... Under § 1367(c), the Court’s discretion arguably crests when it has dismissed all the federal claims in a case, as it has done here.

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

Spurling · filed 2026-04-17(c)(3)

Rather, as the Fourth Circuit has made clear, it is within the Court’s discretion whether to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Hughes · filed 2026-04-22(c)

Having established that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Gardner v. Rodriguez · filed 2026-04-24(c)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Gardner’s state law outrage claim against State Defendants after the district court dismissed Gardner’s federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) provides that a district court “may” decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.”

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

Every · filed 2026-04-24(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Given that this case is in its infancy and no discovery has taken place, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Van Matre v. United States · filed 2026-05-07(c)

The Court finds that none of the exceptions applies to Van Matre's state law claims, and the Court sees no reason to deviate from the "usual practice" of relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.