28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to dismiss remaining state claims without prejudice after it dismisses all claims within its federal question jurisdiction.

Preston · filed 2026-05-08(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and has discretion to dismiss any remaining state claims without prejudice where, as here, it has dismissed all claims over which it has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the sole remaining federal claim is dismissed at an early stage.

Perez-Serrano · filed 2026-05-12(c)

That claim is therefore dismissed, and because no federal claim survives and the case is at an early procedural stage, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Puerto Rico 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.

Nevius · filed 2026-05-14(c)

In the interest of judicial economy, I will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Nevius’s state law claims.

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

Garrett · filed 2026-05-20(c)(3)

The Court’s broad discretion on whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is justified by the “considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants,” and the Court concludes that the unique circumstances of this case merit the Court’s continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Control Technology & Solutions, LLC v. Omni Energy Partners · filed 2026-05-22(c)(3)

The Court has continued to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims after summarily granting Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Leave to Voluntarily Dismiss. Doc. [27]; see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting—but not requiring—district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

New Mexico Trappers Association v. Torrez · filed 2026-06-08

District courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction on a discretionary basis. ... Finding no argument to the contrary, we reject that the court erred in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims, considering delay and the overlap between the claims.

A.M. · filed 2026-06-18(c)

This winding procedural history figures prominently into this Court’s decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Murry’s state-law claim, though it finds Murry’s federal-law claims must be dismissed. See Est. of Parker v. Miss. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 728 F. Supp. 3d 372, 392 (S.D. Miss. 2024) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). After three years, the police-protection immunity question—which should be resolved as early in the litigation as possible—is finally teed up for a judicial determination. And the Court finds no good reason for further delay.

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

Smith v. Camden Development Inc. · filed 2026-06-23(c)

After the Court’s dismissal of the federal claims, then, the question is not whether it has jurisdiction over the remaining claims, including those claims against Mancilla—it does—but whether it should exercise its discretion to maintain that supplemental jurisdiction over them.

When all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, the court must reassess whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in light of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Estate of Shefner v. Beraudiere · filed 2014-08-19(c)(3)

When “a federal court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it must reassess its jurisdiction over the case by considering several related factors—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” and we review that decision for “abuse of discretion.” Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39, 56 (2d Cir. 2004). This is not a situation where the District Court had no basis on which to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

After dismissing the claims supporting original jurisdiction, a court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Segrain v. Coyne-Fague · filed 2023-09-20(c)(3)

Though the Court has the discretion to decline jurisdiction once the claims giving it original jurisdiction are dismissed, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it must balance factors under the “pendent jurisdiction doctrine” - judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity - to determine whether it should continue to hear the remaining claims.

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

Lee v. R&R Home Care · filed 2025-10-16(c)

The Supreme Court has made clear that this statute confers discretion: “Even if only state-law claims remained after resolution of the federal question, the District Court would have discretion . . . to retain jurisdiction.”

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

Dr. Mark G. Turner, DDS, PC v. Va. Dep't of Med. Assistance Servs. · filed 2018-03-19(c)

Now that the sole federal question presented in this case has been dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims when the state-law claim’s outcome is obvious.

RILEY v. EWING · filed 2020-03-03(c)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim because it is obvious how this claim should be decided.

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

Arroyo v. Huskies Owner LLC · filed 2021-07-01(c)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Arroyo’s Unruh Act claim after dismissing his ADA claim.

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

Martin v. City of Mobile · filed 2019-10-15(c)(3)

Additionally, Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) as this Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim and dismiss it without prejudice.

The City of Berkeley, Missouri v. Ferguson-Florissant School District · filed 2019-11-04(c)(3)

With respect to Plaintiffs’ state law claim that Defendants violated the Missouri Constitution, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and will dismiss that claim without prejudice.

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

Favourite v. 55 Halley Street, Inc. · filed 2019-05-23(c)(3)

With regard to the remaining state law claims, after balancing all the relevant factors, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction. While the Court recognizes that some judicial resources have been utilized on this case, given the nature of the remaining claims, they are best left for the state courts to resolve. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to re-file them in state court.

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

Fields v. Tennessee Department of Corrections · filed 2019-05-30(c)(3)

Because all of the federal claims are being dismissed, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law. Those state law claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Davis v. Nail · filed 2019-06-21

To the extent that Mr. Davis asserts state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and dismisses any state law claims without prejudice.

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

McGee v. Bossier Parish · filed 2019-06-26(c)(3)

To the extent McGee did assert such a claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and the claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after all federal claims are dismissed.

Wiley v. Vea · filed 2019-07-17(c)(3)

If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, the court will decline jurisdiction over state-law claims pursuant to § 1367(c) and dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Pantastico v. Department of Education, State of Hawaii · filed 2019-08-06(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment on all the federal claims asserted against the State Defendants, and because there is no diversity jurisdiction, there is no basis for the Court’s continued jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Souch v. Howard, 27 F. App'x 793, 795 (9th Cir. 2001) (“When all federal claims have been dismissed before trial, the interests promoted by supplemental jurisdiction are no longer present, and a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims.”). Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all remaining state law claims (Counts 3–8) against the State Defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) 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.

Stewart v. Shelby County Government · filed 2019-08-13(c)(3)

Because all of the federal claims are being dismissed, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law. Those state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Sanders v. Pennsylvania's State System of Higher Education · filed 2019-08-14(c)(3)

I will therefore treat Sanders’s state law claims as supplemental, and dismiss them without prejudice, given the dismissal of Sanders’s federal claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining them.

Green 189440 v. Smith · filed 2019-08-22(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims against Defendants Thompson and Peller. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims against them will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

East Side Plating, Inc. v. City of Portland · filed 2019-08-22(c)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, it has discretion to decline or retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim in claim one. ... Here, having eliminated all federal-law claims at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim in claim one. Claim one is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) 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.

Jorgensen v. Oklahoma Juvenile Affairs Office · filed 2019-08-26(c)(3)

With the dismissal of the federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... The court therefore shall dismiss the state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claim is dismissed and no amended complaint states a cognizable federal claim.

Islands Hospice, Inc. v. Duick · filed 2019-09-23(c)

If Islands Hospice does not file an amended complaint, the court will decline jurisdiction over state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Hanson v. Badger Medical · filed 2019-09-24(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s asserting them in state court, as the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

London v. Loyola High School of Baltimore, Inc., t/a Loyola Blakefield · filed 2019-09-25(c)

This court may, however, decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where the federal claims are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). When, as here, the federal claims are eliminated early in the case, the federal courts are inclined to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice rather than retain supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Reapers Hockey Association, Inc. v. Amateur Hockey Association Illinois, Inc. · filed 2019-09-26(c)(3)

For the same reason, Reapers, Inc.’s state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice. See Domanus v. Locke Lord LLP, 847 F.3d 469, 483 (7th Cir. 2017) (“[t]ypically, when a case is dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court will relinquish jurisdiction over [state law] claims and allow the state courts … to take over if that is proper under their rules”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bethea v. JP Morgan Chase & Co · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, and dismisses them without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McGriggs v. Dunavant · filed 2019-10-01(c)(3)

To the extent McGriggs sought to assert state-law claims in this action, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims because it is dismissing all federal claims. Those state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Under § 1367(c)(3), courts ordinarily relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial unless limitations, substantial duplication of judicial effort, or an obvious disposition of the state claims warrants retention.

Dawkins v. Boston University Trustees of · filed 2019-10-15(c)(3)

In sum, the Court concludes that none of the exceptions to the “usual practice” applies in this case. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice and dismisses Count III with leave to refile in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court, in its discretion, to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Manstrom v. Lane County Parole and Probation · filed 2019-12-23(c)(3)

The Court’s decision on whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is “purely discretionary.” ... If the parties cannot reach a mutual decision, it is the intention of the court to decline jurisdiction and dismiss without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after it dismisses the federal claims.

McCall v. United States Marshal Service · filed 2022-12-22(c)(3)

Additionally, to the extent Mr. McCall asserts state-law claims against the defendants, the Court will dismiss those claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bhattacharya v. Southeast Missouri State University Board of Regents · filed 2022-12-22(c)(3)

Finding no factor that distinguishes this case from the usual case in which all federal claims are eliminated before trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case under § 1367(c)(3) and will dismiss Count Six and all state law claims contained in Count Five without prejudice.

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

GUAMAN v. WETZEL · filed 2022-12-22(c)(3)

In this case, Plaintiff’s federal claims are no longer viable and no extraordinary circumstances warrant the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims 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.

Moya v. San Juan County Adult Detention Center · filed 2022-12-29(c)

Under § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... To the extent that the Court construes the Complaint as alleging tort claims under New Mexico law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the State law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Rodriguez-Arango 747888 v. Pancheri · filed 2023-03-17(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction because all of Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Pancheri, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

When federal claims are dismissed early, § 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Sims-Lewis v. Warden Frederick Obello · filed 2023-04-25(c)

To the extent that Sims-Lewis raises state law claims of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims and dismisses them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). When, as here, the federal claim is dismissed early in the case, the federal courts are inclined to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice rather than retain supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal constitutional claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Plantan v. Smith · filed 2023-05-10(a)

Although all counts against the HCSD and Payne have been dismissed, the Court exercises its discretion to invoke supplemental jurisdiction over Plantan’s state law claims because the constitutional claims against Payne were dismissed without prejudice.

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

GIBSON v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON · filed 2023-07-28(c)(3)

Because this case has not progressed past the motion to dismiss stage, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its discretion and dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has granted summary judgment on all federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Germany v. Watkins · filed 2023-08-04(c)(3)

For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Watkins’s motion as to the federal claims against him, denies Germany’s motion, and dismisses without prejudice Germany’s state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gilmore v. Washington County Memorial Hospital · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

In light of this conclusion, and because for further federal claims remain, the undersigned declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Gregoire v. Class, 236 F.3d 413, 419-20 (8th Cir. 2000). They are accordingly dismissed without prejudice.

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

Allen v. Gomez · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

In any event, to the extent any state-level claims remain after the state court judgment, this Court declines to entertain such claims. A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, any remaining state-level claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Fleming 802151 v. Davids · filed 2023-08-22(c)

Here, because the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims against all Defendants, 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.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the claims supporting original federal jurisdiction are dismissed, especially when the litigation is at an early stage.

Bailon v. Pollen Presents · filed 2023-09-13(c)

Having found that Plaintiff cannot prevail in any of the claims that would provide the basis for federal question jurisdiction, and that Plaintiff failed to allege damages necessary to support diversity jurisdiction, the Court finally considers Bieber’s argument that it would be inappropriate for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. (Bieber Br. 9). The Court agrees, and therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims against Bieber without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

BOVA v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC. · filed 2023-09-28(c)(3)

Because both of Plaintiff’s ERISA claims must be dismissed, as explained above, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s state law breach of contract and fraud claims.

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

Wood v. North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

With no federal claims remaining, the Court could refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice. The Court declines to do so.

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

Skycoin Global Foundation Limited v. Stephens · filed 2024-03-05(c)

Because the Court dismisses the DTSA and RICO claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.’ See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is the well-established law of this circuit that the usual practice is to dismiss without prejudice state supplemental claims whenever all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.”).

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

Bradbury 246508 v. Lewis · filed 2024-03-18(c)

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction. Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. See Experimental Holdings 503 F.3d at 521 (“Generally, once a federal court has dismissed a plaintiff’s federal law claim, it should not reach state law claims.” (citing United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966))); Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). In determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues.” Landefeld, 994 F.2d at 1182; see also Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply, 465 F.3d 719, 728 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Residual jurisdiction should be exercised only in cases where the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation outweigh our concern over needlessly deciding state law issues.” (internal quotations omitted). 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)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, 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.

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

Adeshile v. Jacksonville Transportation Authority · filed 2024-05-01(c)

In the exercise of its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to continue to exercise jurisdiction over these claims, and Counts II, IV, and V are dismissed without prejudice to Adeshile refiling those claims in state court if she so chooses.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed, after weighing judicial economy and related considerations.

Chappell v. Unknown Party 1 · filed 2024-05-07(c)

Here, all of Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed. Under the circumstances presented, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Kuperman v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2024-07-11(c)

Because all of the claims of which the Court has original federal question jurisdiction are being dismissed, state and local law claims clearly dominate what would remain of this litigation, Plaintiff has not yet made clear which of the many potential claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL he intended to raise against Principal James, and the parties have devoted little argumentation as to whether Plaintiff’s claims meet the differing standards under these laws, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of these claims and dismisses them without prejudice to litigation in a forum of competent jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice when the federal claims against those defendants are dismissed.

Marshall 303868 v. Brickman · filed 2024-07-12(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)). With respect to Defendants Lyons and Faulds, because Plaintiff’s federal claims against these Defendants will be dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants 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.

Cook v. Chief Grievance Officer · filed 2024-08-14(c)

In this case, it does not appear that any considerations of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness to the parties would justify deviating from the ordinary course of declining to exercise jurisdiction over Cook’s remaining state law claims. The court will accordingly decline to exercise jurisdiction over any state law claims asserted in the amended complaint and dismiss them without prejudice.

After all federal claims are disposed of before trial, § 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of the remaining state-law claims without prejudice when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not support retaining jurisdiction.

Ledford v. Williams · filed 2019-11-05(c)(3)

Upon consideration of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, see Wright, 29 F.3d at 1251, the Court does not find a basis to retain jurisdiction of the case, see Williams Elecs. Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 2007) (identifying three situations in which jurisdiction over supplemental state claims should be retained even though the federal claims have dropped out). The Court’s decision on the federal claims does not implicate the state law matters, and no other consideration of judicial economy make this Court’s retention of the state claims the better choice. Accordingly, the state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may pursue them in state court.

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

Pettus v. Erole · filed 2019-11-08(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of all federal claims in this action, and upon consideration of the pertinent factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after all federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor declining jurisdiction.

Enyia v. New York City Health And Hospitals Corporation · filed 2019-10-18(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental “if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Here, those factors weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction and dismissing Enyia’s state law claims. ... The Court does so without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed before trial, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and predominance of state issues.

Hockbein v. Ramsey County · filed 2019-01-08(c)(3)

Where all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, the factors to be considered in deciding whether to exercise such jurisdiction—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and predominance of state issues—typically militate against doing so. ... Here, the Court finds that those factors weigh against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hockbein’s malicious-prosecution and negligence claims, and it will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim, with judicial economy and comity favoring remand.

Benson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2019-03-21(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s remaining state law tort claims (Docket 35 at ¶¶ 1-64, 175-77) are remanded to the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court, Pennington County, South Dakota, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Wachter, Inc. v. Cabling Innovations, LLC · filed 2019-05-07(c)(3)

Thus, the Court finds it is in the interests of judicial economy, justice (especially the promptness thereof), and convenience to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims to get this case moving.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy and convenience favor keeping them together.

Benzinger v. Nysarc, Inc. · filed 2019-06-21(c)(3)

Rather than force the refiling of the case against UPS in a separate court, with the attendant risks of inconsistent judgments among the defendants, the Court retains jurisdiction over the state law claims in the interests of judicial economy and convenience, and now proceeds to consider those claims on the merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy favors retaining them.

Funderburk v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company · filed 2019-07-26(c)(3)

Therefore, upon consideration of the foregoing, the court finds that considerations of judicial economy outweigh any concerns about comity and, therefore, the balance of factors weighs in favor of the court retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

After federal claims are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c) allows a court to retain state-law claims when judicial economy favors deciding them, including when they share the federal claims’ legal standards.

Avery v. Difiore · filed 2019-08-06(c)

Despite that general presumption, however, the Court concludes that the interests of judicial economy favor exercising jurisdiction over Avery’s NYSHRL claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed, based on judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Stevens v. Conn's, Inc. · filed 2019-08-07(c)(3)

But, a court may choose to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even after every federal claim is dismissed. ... The Court elects to retain jurisdiction here.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the plaintiff’s federal claims, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Guan v. Long Island Business Institute, Inc. · filed 2019-08-13(c)(3)

Because Yu has no remaining FLSA claims and her NYLL claims would differ from those of the named Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity would not be served by retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Yu’s state law claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Yu’s NYLL claims and dismisses her from this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, guided by economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Morris v. Kernan · filed 2019-09-06(c)(3)

Here the Court concludes that this is a “usual case” where the federal law claim has been eliminated and the balance of factors points toward declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s California state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses all federal claims, including in the interests of judicial economy.

KE v. SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WESTERN DISTRICT · filed 2019-09-12(c)(3)

However, because all of Plaintiff’s federal claims are being dismissed, and in the interests of judicial economy, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Jirak v. Independent Group Home Living Program, Inc. · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

Given the absence of a viably pled federal claim, as explained above, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any state law claims that may be reasonably construed from the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count eight in the Monetti action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Bolin v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. · filed 2019-09-24(c)(3)

After careful consideration of these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims and dismisses the case.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c)(3) calls for dismissal of remaining state law claims absent an affirmative justification based on judicial economy, convenience, or fairness.

NAHAS v. SHORE MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2019-09-24(c)(3)

Thus, Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims (Counts III-VII) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) lets a district court decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness guiding that choice.

Landin v. Visalia Unified School District · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Once all federal claims have been dismissed from a case, whether to retain jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims is left to the discretion of the district court. ... The court concludes that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not warranted in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy and convenience favor resolving the state claim.

Snowden v. County of Calaveras · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Although the usual case in which all federal law claims are eliminated points toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, id. at 1001, here consideration of judicial economy and convenience point toward exercising supplemental jurisdiction because plaintiff’s state law claim is frivolous and the claim need not be remanded to state court in order to be resolved.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a district court must decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness provides an affirmative reason to retain them.

Cole v. Wells Fargo Bank NA · filed 2019-10-09(c)(3)

The District Court dismissed all federal claims in the suit. As a result, “where the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995)). We review a District Court’s decision for abuse of discretion. Here, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties do not provide an affirmative justification for the District Court to hear the state law claim. Particularly, since this case sounds in probate, there is a strong reason for federal courts to not interfere. Thus, the District Court did not err by refusing to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over Appellant’s claims against Hoover and Johnson.

When federal claims are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c) calls for declining supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness affirmatively justifies retaining them.

SUNG v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2019-10-09(c)

Because the claims arising under federal law are not adequately pled and complete diversity is lacking among the remaining defendants, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits retention of state claims after dismissal of all federal claims when their disposition under state immunity law is clear and judicial economy and fairness favor retention.

McGinnis v. Central Kentucky Management Services · filed 2019-10-15(c)(3)

Thus, the Court finds retention of such claims, for purposes of immunity- based dismissal, appropriate because “the correct disposition of the claim is ‘so clear as a matter of state law that it can be determined without further trial proceedings and without entanglement with any difficult issues of state law.’” See Wright, 29 F.3d at 1252 (citation omitted).

Section 1367 permits retaining a state law claim after disposing of the federal claim when both involve the same facts, the state claim uses a familiar legal framework, and judicial economy favors resolving it.

Smith v. City of Tallahassee · filed 2019-10-16(a), (c)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by deciding the FWA claim on the merits and denying Smith’s motion to remand the action to state court after disposing of the federal claim. ... Because the FWA claim involved the same facts as the First Amendment claim and the familiar burden-shifting framework applied, judicial economy favored the court’s consideration of the FWA claim in its summary judgment order. Rowe, 279 F.3d at 1288. The district court acted within its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Reed v. Charles W. Denny, IV · filed 2019-10-30(c)(3)

As noted, the Court dismissed the federal claim over which it had original jurisdiction, leaving only the state law claims. ... Having considered the above-discussed factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits retaining state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claim when advanced litigation, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and minimal comity concerns favor retention.

Clapper v. American Realty Investors Inc · filed 2019-10-31(c)(3)

None of the common law factors—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—would be offended by the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of the federal claim; indeed, judicial economy and convenience, state and federal, and a conscious regard for the interests of the litigants, point strongly in favor of the retaining supplemental jurisdiction and denying Defendants’ motion. Finally, while the matters remaining in this lawsuit are solely questions of state law, they present no novel or especially unusual questions which cannot be readily and routinely resolved by the court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Simpson v. City of Dearborn · filed 2019-12-03(c)(3)

The court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when “[it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Considering “several factors, including ‘values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,’” this court will exercise its discretion in declining jurisdiction.

After all federal claims are dismissed, declining supplemental jurisdiction is within the court’s discretion when no discovery has occurred, complex state law issues favor comity, and dismissal causes no substantial inconvenience or unfairness.

Morton v. County of Erie · filed 2019-12-19(c)(3)

Here, the district court properly considered these factors in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. No discovery has yet occurred, so the court’s refusal to hear Morton’s state law claims will not engender substantial duplication of litigation efforts. Furthermore, properly allowing the state courts to consider Morton’s state law claims – particularly his claim that County Law 10‐1989 is “ultra vires, invalid, and unenforceable,” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 8 – would serve the interest of comity since the determination of complex state law claims in the first instance is better left to those courts. Finally, Morton fails to proffer any reason why the district court’s refusing to hear his state law claims would lead to a substantial inconvenience or unfairness. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Morton’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits retention of supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Catano v. Capuano · filed 2019-12-19(c)(3)

Therefore, although a district court ultimately has discretion to retain a case, it should consider these factors carefully in making that determination. In this case, the Court has considered the factors articulated above and finds that the better course is to retain jurisdiction. The parties have litigated this case for approximately two years and the Court is well aware of the claims presented.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of remaining state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed when fairness, federal policy, and comity outweigh judicial economy favoring retention.

Ballock v. Costlow · filed 2019-12-23(c)(3)

Therefore, given that all federal claims have been dismissed, the Court concludes that the balance of factors weighs strongly in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), therefore, the Court DISMISSES Counts Eight, Nine, Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Costlow.

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

Drennon v. Blades · filed 2019-12-26(c)(3)

The Court having dismissed all of the federal claims, the question remains whether the Court should entertain any of the state law claims. ... The Court will exercise discretion to rule on Plaintiff’s state law claims to the extent that they shall be dismissed for the following reasons. ... For reasons of judicial economy, to the extent that Plaintiff's state law claims correlate with causes of action that he has been ordered to pursue in new, separate complaints, rather than in this action, those claims are dismissed without prejudice and may be brought in those actions.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed before trial when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide no affirmative justification for retaining the state-law claims.

COLE v. CENTRAL GREENE SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2019-12-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c). “[W]here the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir.1995). No such circumstances exist in this matter.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are eliminated when judicial economy and fairness favor retention, including where the court has already evaluated the merits and remand would impose further delay.

Khan v. SAP Labs, LLC · filed 2019-11-04(c)(3)

While Khan is correct that the cited factors ordinarily will result in the declination of supplemental jurisdiction where all federal claims are eliminated before trial, the Supreme Court made clear in Carnegie-Mellon that this is not “a mandatory rule to be applied inflexibly in all cases.” See id. ... Now that the briefing on the current motion to dismiss finally has been completed – more than five months after it was filed – the Court finds that imposing further delay by remanding the action to state court would be inefficient and unfair to Defendants. Moreover, as this Court necessarily evaluated the merits of the motion to dismiss in order to determine the applicability of the fraudulent joinder rule in connection with Khan’s motion to remand, judicial economy favors the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not favor retaining them.

Touchstone Strategic Trust v. General Electric Company · filed 2022-09-28(c)

Here, there is no basis to depart from that general rule. That is, given the relatively early stage of the case, the traditional “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” that the Court must consider do not counsel in favor of exercising jurisdiction. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling them in state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on the balance of judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state-law issues.

Davis 222490 v. Brown · filed 2022-10-03(c)

Here, 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.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on the balance of judicial economy and avoiding needless decisions of state law.

Tellis 727463 v. Braman · filed 2022-11-04(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it grants summary judgment on all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Walter v. Smith · filed 2022-12-13(c)(3)

Because the court grants summary judgment against plaintiff’s § 1983 claims—the only federal claims plaintiff asserts in this lawsuit—the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. ... Because all the factors favor dismissal without prejudice and there is no compelling reason to the contrary, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

When all claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Watt v. New Orleans City · filed 2022-12-22(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide no affirmative reason to retain them.

TAYLOR v. SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN SERVICES, INC. · filed 2022-12-28(c)(3)

The Court is unable to discern any considerations that provide an affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction in this case. This case is in its early stages. A case management order has not been issued and no discovery has taken place. ... As a result, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in Counts I and II.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the claims that supplied original jurisdiction when judicial economy favors deciding the remaining state-law claims.

Reyes v. ML Enterprises · filed 2022-12-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed the FLSA claims that provided original federal jurisdiction, I have discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). However, I am not required to relinquish jurisdiction. Instead, if I determine that principles of economy weigh in favor of retaining the state-law claims, then I may do so.

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

Beebe v. State of Alaska · filed 2023-03-01(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), permits, but does not require, a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims in an action.142 Here, the Court will continue to exercise jurisdiction over Mr. Beebe’s state law claims because doing so (1) promotes judicial economy, (2) is convenient and fair to the parties given their briefing on these substantive issues, (3) is sensible given the Court’s supervision of this case for over a year-and-one-half, and (4) does not run afoul of comity concerns, as this Court applies Alaska law in evaluating Mr. Beebe’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims before trial, based on the balance of judicial economy, avoiding multiple lawsuits, and avoiding unnecessary state law decisions.

Newland 801232 v. Schroeder · filed 2023-03-23(c)

Here, 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.

Dismissal of federal claims before trial does not automatically end supplemental jurisdiction; a court may retain related state-law claims when fairness and judicial economy favor doing so.

Snell v. State of Washington · filed 2023-04-19(c)(3)

The Court concludes that, as the parties have been litigating this case in federal court since 2020 and trial is less than two months away, dismissing Plaintiff’s state-law claims would be unfair to Plaintiff and an inefficient use of judicial resources. It therefore retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims despite the dismissal of her § 1983 claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy outweighs comity concerns.

Cunningham v. Blackwell · filed 2023-05-09(c)(3)

On balance, the judicial economy concerms outweigh any interest in comity. This Court has benefited from extensive work by the parties to develop the remaining claims. And the remaining issues are substantially similar to matters that the Court has already resolved. The Court will exercise its discretion to keep this litigation.

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

O'Brien v. The City of Chicago · filed 2023-06-12(c)(3)

Ordinarily, with all federal claims dismissed, a district court should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. ... But dismissal isn’t required, and a court can decide state-law claims based on considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness. ... In this case, it makes sense to retain jurisdiction over O’Brien’s state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy and the simplicity of the state-law issues favor doing so.

King v. Shoate · filed 2023-06-26(c)(3)

The balance of interests favors exercising supplemental jurisdiction over King’s state-law claims against Pomeroy. The state-law claims arise from the same set of facts as the federal claims. The state-law claims involve well-established areas of Tennessee tort law. Addressing the state-law claims promotes judicial economy without requiring the Court to resolve difficult questions of Tennessee law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy and convenience among the relevant factors.

Jaiyeola v. Rivian · filed 2023-08-01(c)(3)

In sum, the Court finds that it lacks diversity jurisdiction over Jaiyeola’s claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ELCRA claim in light of the dismissal of the Title VII claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing that choice.

Phillip v. City of New York · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against the City of New York, the Court declines, in its discretion, to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claim enumerated in the Complaint.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor keeping them.

Justman v. Hays Feed Yard, LLC · filed 2023-08-30(c)(3)

The Court determines that maintaining jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims supports judicial economy, convenience, and fairness. Defendants’ request for the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is denied.

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

Buie v. District of Columbia · filed 2023-09-20(c)

In deciding whether to retain or dismiss such claims, a court is to be guided by the factors enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) considered within the framework of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... Accordingly, the Court will, in its discretion, continue to exercise jurisdiction over this case; the Court now turns to the merits of the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to keep related state claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors retaining jurisdiction.

Romero v. Core Civic, Inc. · filed 2023-11-09(c)(3)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state claims to maintain judicial economy.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors deciding them.

TALLEY v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2024-03-21(c)(3)

However, since the Third Circuit remanded in part so that the Court could rule on Plaintiff’s state law claims, and for purposes of judicial economy, the Court considers, and ultimately, dismisses, Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Malberg v. Cashen · filed 2023-01-03(c)(3)

Where, as here, all federal law bases cited in the Complaint have been dismissed, the Court may exercise—and will exercise—its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Malberg v. Weiss · filed 2023-01-03(c)(3)

Where, as here, all federal law bases cited in the Complaint have been dismissed, the Court may exercise—and will exercise—its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Spillane v. New York City District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America · filed 2023-01-03(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Spillane’s state law prima facie tort 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.

Komatsu v. The City of New York · filed 2023-01-03(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction while it remains unclear whether a federal claim can proceed.

Izeh v. Arrest Officer · filed 2023-01-03(c)(3)

Because it is not clear whether Plaintiff can state a federal claim, the Court will determine at a later stage whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims; dismissal of the state-law claims is generally appropriate when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Palma-Barillas v. County Jail Medical Staff · filed 2023-01-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court agrees with the Magistat Judge that the appropriate avenue is declination of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims and DISMISS such claims without prejudice. See Harper v. AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 210 (6th Cir. 2004) (although the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is a matter of discretion, when a court dismisses all federal claims before trial, it generally should dismiss the state law claims as well).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy and comity.

DOH Oil Company v. Kahle · filed 2023-01-04(c)(3)

District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Nothing here weighs against the Court’s general practice of dismissing the state claims without prejudice. Dismissal would be economically efficient and would respect the States’ interest in deciding claims arising under their own laws.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the case is at an early stage and comity favors state court adjudication.

Annam v. City of New York · filed 2023-01-04(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as this case is in relatively early stages and allowing state courts to hear state law claims promotes comity between the federal and state courts.

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

Badger v. CUNY Graduate Center · filed 2023-01-04(c)(3)

If Badger fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, his federal claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the Court will decline, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of his state law claims.

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

Skurkey v. Daniel · filed 2023-01-04(c)(3)

Having concluded that Plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, Counts III through V of the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Pranger v. Oregon State University · filed 2023-01-04(c)(3)

The Court finds no substantial reason why it should not continue to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Thus, even though Defendant’s basis for removal and the Court’s original basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the case are no longer present, the Court exercises its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly at an early stage of litigation.

Uddin v. Rock Arch & Eng Corp. · filed 2023-01-05(c)(3)

Having found that the Court no longer has original jurisdiction over this matter, and given the early stage of this litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action arising under New York State and City Law, and remands the case to New York State Supreme Court, County of Queens.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly at the pleading stage when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not favor retaining them.

Bey v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. · filed 2023-01-05(c)(3)

With Bey’s federal claims dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state claims.

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

DARDEN v. LITTLE · filed 2023-01-05(c)(3)

However, because the Court has dismissed the federal constitutional 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 over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking judicial economy, convenience, and fairness into account.

HENDERSON v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY "PHA" · filed 2023-01-05(c)(3)

Therefore, considering 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims also will be dismissed.

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

Talley v. Major Clark · filed 2023-01-06(c)(3)

Finally, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over Talley’s pendant state law claims. See Doe v. Mercy Cath. Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 567 (3d Cir. 2017) (“A court may [decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction] under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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

(PC)Greene v. Price · filed 2023-01-06(c)(3)

Second, even if a cognizable state law claim could be stated, Plaintiff has failed to state a viable federal claim and the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim.

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

Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Presley · filed 2023-01-06(c)(3)

When a court has dismissed all remaining federal claims, it may properly refuse supplemental jurisdiction over the related state claims. ... Accordingly, to the extent the Court has discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, the undersigned recommends declining to do so.

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

Dinh v. Boisvert · filed 2023-01-06(c)(3)

To the extent that he does, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the court has dismissed all claims).

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

G. v. Shawnee Mission School District USD 512 · filed 2023-01-06(c)(3)

The Court finds that there are no substantial grounds for jurisdiction over the negligence claim and the state court is in a better position to evaluate S.G.’s claim under state law.94 Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over S.G.’s state-law negligence claim.

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

Betz v. Howard University Hospital · filed 2023-01-09(c)(3)

The Court thus would lack independent subject-matter jurisdiction over that remaining state-law claim, and it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

McCall v. The County of Lowndes · filed 2023-01-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claim brought in this action, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the two state-law claims (malicious prosecution and abuse of process) brought in the Complaint.

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

(PC) Thomas v. Weaver · filed 2023-01-09(c)(3)

In the absence of a viable federal claim, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction to hear the state law claims on their own.

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

Meier v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts Corporation · filed 2023-01-09(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing all of Plaintiff’s federal claims for failure to state a claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims Plaintiff may have under those statutes.

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

ZUBER v. SORBER · filed 2023-01-09(c)(3)

Because we are dismissing Zuber’s federal law claims, we will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over any state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims after the federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

TENNY JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. VERIZON NEW JERSEY INC. FOR THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2023-01-10(a)

As Plaintiff’s federal claims— the bases for this Court's subject matter jurisdiction—have been dismissed, this Court is left with a discretionary choice whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C, § 1367, over Defendant’s pendant state counterclaims. ... Here, the Court agrees with Judge Espinosa’s finding that “declining [to exercise supplemental] jurisdiction and requiring Verizon to institute a new action in state court to recover on its claims against Tenny would not promote judicial economy, convenience, or fairness to the parties and, rather, could contravene those interests.” (See ECF No. 151 at 5-6.) Consequently, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant’s counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Boyd v. Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corporation · filed 2023-01-11(c)(3)

The Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state law claims, however, once it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. ... Consequently, given the totality of the circumstances, the Court is convinced that the principle of convenience and fairness to the parties favors the Court’s declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Boyd’s state claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Carrazco v. Morrison · filed 2023-01-13(c)(3)

Thus, in the interest of judicial economy, and to promote the notions of comity and federalism, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims and will sua sponte dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Doe v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2023-01-17(c)(3)

When a federal court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may, at its discretion, decline 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Tapia v. Muhamed · filed 2023-01-17(c)(3)

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

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

Singh v. Singh · filed 2023-01-17(c)(3)

A district court need not actuate supplemental ... jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has ... original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction over the state law counterclaims, and ... those claims are therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling ... in state court.

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

Branch v. State University of New York Downstate Medical Center · filed 2023-01-17(c)(3)

A district court has discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Tanner v. MTA Long Island Railroad · filed 2023-01-17(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint with the time allowed, or fails to show cause why the Court should excuse such failure, the Court will enter judgment dismissing this action; the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under federal law for the reasons discussed above, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), and will decline to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Jenna in White, LLC v. Fischer · filed 2023-01-18(c)(3)

The remaining claims are State-law claims, see ECF 9, PgID 35, 41, 45–48, and the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Lansbury v. Massey · filed 2023-01-18(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state laws claims Plaintiff may have and any such claims are thus dismissed without prejudice.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when it dismisses the sole federal claim early in the litigation after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Roth v. Walters · filed 2023-01-18(c)(3)

In this case, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity outweigh any interest in maintaining federal jurisdiction over any claims remaining after dismissal of the RICO claim. The litigation is in the early stages, the sole federal claim has been dismissed, and the sole Defendant who is not a resident of South Dakota has been dismissed. ... For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all related federal claims, particularly early in the litigation.

Veldhuis v. GEICO General Insurance Company · filed 2023-01-19(c)(3)

A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). But federal courts ordinarily decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when all federal law claims have been dismissed and it is early in the litigation. See Klein & Co. Futures v. Bd. of Trade of City of N.Y., 464 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir. 2006). I decline in light of the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claim so long as there are no related federal claims.

After dismissing all federal claims before trial, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when judicial economy and comity favor doing so.

Mulac v. Woods · filed 2023-01-19(c)(3)

The Court finds that principles of judicial economy and comity weigh in favor of the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims; therefore, a determination of whether Mulac states a claim for relief under state law is unnecessary.

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

United States of America v. Allstate Insurance Co · filed 2023-01-19(c)(3)

But when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701, 709 (6th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). The Court has dismissed claims one and two against all Defendants. Thus, no claims remain over which the Court has original jurisdiction. The Court will accordingly “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” the State-law claims.

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

Lenoir v. Montana State · filed 2023-01-19(c)(3)

To the extent Lenoir seeks to raise claims under state law, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Komatsu v. United States of America · filed 2023-01-19(c)(3)

For these non- federal claims to survive, the Court would need to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court declines to do so and dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

WAITS v. SPENCER · filed 2023-01-20(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction as to those claims over which it has supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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.

Hernandez v. County of Alameda · filed 2023-01-23(c)(3)

But the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The Court finds this to be “the usual case,” and accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice.