28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

REID v. EVANS · filed 2023-01-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims after it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on a balance of judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state law issues.

Hildebrand 897543 v. Ouellette · filed 2023-01-23(c)(3)

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 a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy and comity relevant to that choice.

Steffen v. St. Paul Eye Clinic, P.A. · filed 2023-01-23(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state-law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Steffen’s remaining state-law claim and dismisses this claim without prejudice.

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

Simmons v. Detroit, City of · filed 2023-01-24(c)(3)

Because the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the State claims. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing that choice.

Alston v. Anderson · filed 2023-01-25(c)(3)

Moreover, this case is in the early stages of litigation, so the “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” weigh in favor of dismissing the state law claims. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Alston’s state law claims and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Dale v. State of North Carolina 26th Judicial District · filed 2023-01-25(c)(3)

To the extent that the Plaintiff asserts a defamation claim under North Carolina law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as no federal claim has passed initial review. See Artis v. Dist. Of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594, 595 (2018) (when a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the defamation claim is 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.

Allen v. City of Citrus Heights Police · filed 2023-01-26(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Allen’s state law claims.

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

Smeraldo v. Jamestown Public Schools · filed 2023-01-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Smeraldo’s NYSHRL claims.

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

Schneider v. Molina · filed 2023-01-26(c)(3)

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The motions to dismiss [Doc. Nos. 13, 20] are GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's claim under the FDCPA; 2. The FDCPA claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 3. Having dismissed the sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims;7 4. The state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being refiled in state court; and, 5. Plaintiffs motion to add parties and exhibits [Doc. No. 12] is DENIED AS ... MOOT.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims after the claims supporting federal jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Asociacion Puertorriquena de Profesores Univ. v. University of Puerto Rico · filed 2023-02-14(c)(3)

Having concluded that section 106(e) precludes review of plaintiffs' claims against the Oversight Board, and having agreed that all claims under Commonwealth law against the UPR defendants must also be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), we need not consider the question of constitutional standing.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain related state law claims after disposing of federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify doing so.

Halchak v. Dorrance Township Board of Supervisors · filed 2023-02-17(c)(3)

In the instant case, the Court exercised and retained its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims because the state claims are inextricably intertwined with and arise out of the same set of operative facts as the federal claims, and because the parties have spent significant time and effort litigating this case in federal court.

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

Johnson v. Stanonik · filed 2023-02-22(c)

At screening, the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s state law negligence claim; however because the court has dismissed the § 1983 claim, the court declines to continue to exercise that jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c); Bailey v. City of Chicago, 779 F.3d 689, 696 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

LEWIS v. DMH INVESTMENTS LLC · filed 2023-02-22(c)(3)

Having considered judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, we conclude that remanding Lewis’s claims against DMH to state court is the most appropriate course in this case.

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

DAWKINS v. STALEY · filed 2023-01-27(c)(3)

The court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim now that all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

LURCH v. KAISER · filed 2023-01-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines in its discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's New Jersey common law claims and dismisses the remainder of his Complaint without prejudice.

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

Shapiro v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing · filed 2023-01-30(c)(3)

Without any surviving federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Shapiro’s state claims for breach of contract, gross negligence, and fraud and remands them to the state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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 claims without prejudice.

Caudill v. Southwest VA Regional Jail Authority · filed 2023-01-31(c)(3)

I do not address these deficiencies, however, because, having found that Caudill’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim under § 1983, I will decline to exercise jurisdiction over these state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice so that Caudill may, if he chooses, elect to pursue these claims in Virginia state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); UMWA v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-27 (1966) (if federal claims are dismissed before trial, pendent state law claims should be dismissed without prejudice and left for decision by state court).

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

Giddings v. Charriez · filed 2023-01-31(c)(3)

As the case is not proceeding with regard to Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims he seeks to add. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that dismisses the federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Jackson v. Watts · filed 2023-02-01(c)(3)

To the extent plaintiff raises state law claims of medical malpractice and negligence, the Court ... declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and thus will dismiss such claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Underwood v. Coinbase Global, Inc. · filed 2023-02-01(c)(3)

Here, no circumstances counsel in favor of the Court’s exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims. The Court has not invested the resources necessary to resolve these non-federal claims, and factors of convenience, fairness, and comity do not require the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The Court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Carlos v. The Geo Group Inc · filed 2023-02-01(c)(3)

The statute provides that the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim” if, among other things, the claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction—here, the federal question claim—is no longer present in the suit.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing the only claim within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the case has not progressed beyond the pleadings.

Moss v. The Pennsylvania State University · filed 2023-02-01(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed Moss’s Title IX claim—the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction. As this matter has not progressed beyond the pleadings, the Court finds it appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Moss’s state-law claims at this time.

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

Vinson Sr, Joshua v. Klepel, Craig · filed 2023-02-03(c)(3)

I will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Vinson’s state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice because Vinson is not proceeding on any federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of the federal claims, and dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

McKinnies v. McCulley · filed 2023-02-03(c)(3)

For the following reasons, plaintiff’s federal claims against the defendants are subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To the extent plaintiff asserts state law claims for relief, 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

MARRARA v. MURPHY · filed 2023-02-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims under the NJCRA and the NJAPA. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court sua sponte remands those claims to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County.

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

SMITH v. ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE NETWORK ANDERSON CAMPUS · filed 2023-02-03(c)(3)

The Court does not reach the merits of the Smiths’ state law claims asserted against Defendants because the Court, in its discretion provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over these claims.

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

SMITH v. MARLINO · filed 2023-02-03(c)(3)

Since the Court will dismiss all three claims over which it has original federal question jurisdiction, it has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which are more suitable for state court disposition.

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

Burke v. Quality Corrections Healthcare · filed 2023-02-07(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed all of the plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court concludes that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Adeniji v. New York City Police · filed 2023-02-07(c)(3)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff's state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the only federal claim, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

DiFonzo v. Niagara County · filed 2023-02-07(c)(4)

Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. DiFonzo’s and Ms. Rogers’ remaining state-law causes of action and dismisses their Amended Complaint in full.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims once it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Anstine v. Adams · filed 2023-02-07(c)(3)

Given the language of section 1367(c)(3), it appears that dismissal of state-law claims is appropriate on the sole basis that the federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Hopkins v. Correct Care Solutions · filed 2023-02-08(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant CCS, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against that entity.

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

Doe v. City University of New York · filed 2023-02-08(c)(3)

Because there are no remaining federal claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state and local law claims.

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

Stanford v. Northmont City Schools · filed 2023-02-08(c)(3)

On balance, the § 1367 factors support declining supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

McCree v. Chester, City of · filed 2023-02-08(c)(3)

“[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction ... if-- ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... On the other hand, the factors of convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of remanding the state law claims. ... Considerations of comity support remand. Therefore, Defendants’ objections are overruled, and the remaining state law claims will be remanded to Chester County Court of Common Pleas.

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

Conley v. Grigsby · filed 2023-02-09(c)(3)

To the extent that his complaint asserts any state- law claims, and in light of the dismissal of all of his federal claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed, with judicial resources, limitations, and comity informing that choice.

TULLIS v. KNIGHT · filed 2023-02-09(c)(3)

The Court finds no reason to deviate from the usual practice in this case. The Court has not expended significant resources on the pending state law claims, the statute of limitations will not have run on those claims, and comity favors allowing state courts to decide issues of state law. For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Tullis' state law claims.

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

Nevius v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-02-09(c)(3)

Given the early stage of this case and the Court’s dismissal of the sole federal claim, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Nevius’s state-law claims and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Burrell v. DOCCS · filed 2023-02-09(c)(3)

Because Burrell's federal claims for deliberate indifference are being ... dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims at this early stage of the case.

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

Pate v. Precythe · filed 2023-02-10(c)(3)

The Court will therefore dismiss this action at this time, without prejudice, and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Plaintiff may be understood to bring.

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

Perry v. State of Colorado, The · filed 2023-02-13(c)(3)

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

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

Jacobson v. Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. · filed 2023-02-13(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claim for common law fraud under New York state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that the district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” once the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Heinrich v. Dean · filed 2023-02-13(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs’ federal claim is dismissed, and the Court does not discern any extraordinary circumstances or federal policy concerns in this action, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Han v. Nutt · filed 2023-02-14(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s individual state law claims because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Bailey v. Lowndes County Commission · filed 2023-02-14(c)(3)

No federal law claims remain. Exercising its discretion, the court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Imus v. Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association, The · filed 2023-02-14(c)(3)

After the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against the United States, there is no basis for federal-question jurisdiction in this case; “[u]nder those circumstances, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) expressly permits a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.” Gaston v. Ploeger, 297 F. App’x 738, 746 (10th Cir. 2008). Thus, in the interest of judicial economy and fairness, and to promote the notions of comity and federalism, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims and will sua sponte remand those claims to the District Court for Montrose County, Colorado.?

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

Callahan v. New Haven · filed 2023-02-14(c)(3)

But in the absence of a claim over which there is federal question jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 117–18 (2d Cir. 2013).

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

Fennell v. Wetzel · filed 2023-02-14(c)(3)

Moreover, because the federal claims in this case are being dismissed, the Court observes that it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over the state-law claims, likewise resulting in dismissal.

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, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Costin v. Glens Falls Hospital · filed 2023-02-15(c)(3)

Here, after carefully considering the relevant factors, i.e., economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

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

Williams v. City of Arvada · filed 2023-02-16(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... This Court respectfully declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim, without substantively passing on its merits.

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

Pate v. Chapman · filed 2023-02-16(c)

Because plaintiff cannot state a cognizable claim against defendant under § 1983, the case will be dismissed on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Furthermore, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Percival Partners Limited v. Nduom · filed 2023-02-17(c)(3)

Accordingly, since the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ only federal claim, the Court deems it appropriate to also dismiss Plaintiffs’ state-law claims6 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.

Chang v. Walmart 4599 · filed 2023-02-17(c)(3)

When a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) expressly authorizes the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining 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 relevant considerations.

Smith 267009 v. Jones · filed 2023-02-17(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)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Babayoff v. Pro Coverage Group, Inc. · filed 2023-02-17(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed Plaintiff's FLSA claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

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

Jones v. Stubbs · filed 2023-02-17(c)(3)

Given the language of section 1367(c)(3), it appears that dismissal of state-law claims is permitted on the sole basis that the federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Mosier v. Evans · filed 2023-02-17(c)(3)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As all of Plaintiff’s federal claims have been terminated, his state claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Williams v. Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2023-02-21(c)(3)

But because the Court is dismissing all federal claims with respect to CUA, the Court is permitted to decline supplemental jurisdiction over all remaining nonfederal claims.

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

Petrochoice LLC v. Amherdt · filed 2023-02-21(c)(3)

But because the Court dismisses the DTSA claim over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over PetroChoice’s state law claims.

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

Izeh v. Correction Officers · filed 2023-02-21(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal district court is authorized to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims once it has dismissed all of the federal claims of which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Ellison v. Warden FCI Pekin · filed 2023-02-22(c)(3)

Since the complaint does not state a basis for relief under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law and dismisses those claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hailu v. Morris-Hughes · filed 2023-02-23(c)(3)

Because the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the court declines to consider the remaining state law claims.

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

Y.M. v. The City of New York · filed 2023-02-23(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their 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.

Tanner v. MTA Long Island Railroad · filed 2023-02-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims under federal law of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any claims under state law that Plaintiff may also be attempting to assert in his amended complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) calls for declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed before trial unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness justifies retaining them.

Cure Consulting, LLC v. Torchlight Technology Group LLC · filed 2023-02-23(c)(3)

When the claims over which the Court would have had original jurisdiction are dismissed prior to trial, the 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) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). No justification exists for keeping these claims, which should have been brought in state court all along, in federal court.

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

Williams v. Francois · filed 2023-02-24(c)(3)

Given Williams’ failure to state a claim under federal law, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental 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 after it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. TD Bank NA · filed 2023-02-24(c)(3)

The District Court also did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s state-law claims. ... 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 after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Morales-Alfaro v. CoreCivic, Inc. · filed 2023-02-24(c)(3)

Because these claims are encompassed by this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise 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 Morales’s state law claims 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.

Compass Marketing, Inc. v. Flywheel Digital LLC · filed 2023-02-24(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here, where it has dismissed all federal claims, the complaint presents no federal policy issues, and the Court has an extensive docket of cases over which it exercises original jurisdiction.

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

Johnson Automotive Sales, LLC v. Blair · filed 2023-02-24(c)(3)

Because Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims arising under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the parties’ claims and counterclaims arising exclusively under State law.

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

Tang v. Grossman · filed 2023-02-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed Tang’s federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is the proper outcome when a court has dismissed all claims “over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Bd. of Trade of City of New York, 464 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir. 2006) (“It is well settled that where, as here, the federal claims are eliminated in the early stages of litigation, courts should generally decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.”).

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

Baron v. Staff Benefits Management Inc. · filed 2023-02-27(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the Court has dismissed all claims in the Complaint over which it has original jurisdiction (i.e., Plaintiff’s federal claims), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state claims.

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

NAEH Media Group LLC v. City of Lauderhill, Florida · filed 2023-02-27(c)(3)

With the only federal claim now gone, we also decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim (Count II). See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Mitchell v. Nye County, Nevada · filed 2023-02-27(c)(3)

Because I am granting summary judgment on all federal claims and only the state law defamation claim remains, I may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that remaining claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Thus, I dismiss the defamation claim without prejudice so that the Mitchells can pursue it in state court if they wish.

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

Nunez-Polanco v. Capra · filed 2023-02-27(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when 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 relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims before trial, and the state claim may be dismissed without prejudice.

Graveen v. Roberts · filed 2023-02-28(c)(3)

As noted above, Plaintiff has alleged a state-law negligence claim against Roberts, the intricacies of which need not be elaborated on because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. See Al's Serv. Ctr. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 720, 727 (7th Cir. 2010) (“When all federal claims in a suit in federal court are dismissed before trial, the presumption is that the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over any supplemental state-law claims.”). As such, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim, which will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Smith v. Lutheran Life Ministries · filed 2023-02-28(c)(3)

As the court dismisses Smith’s federal question claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice.

Brown v. Wyoming, City of · filed 2023-02-28(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)); 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, Plaintiffs’ state-law claims are properly dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Pope v. Marshall · filed 2023-03-01(c)(3)

The Court will also decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Fernbach v. Hamilton County, Ohio · filed 2023-03-01(c)(3)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state- law claims and DISMISSES such claims without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

LANKO v. WETZEL · filed 2023-03-01(c)(3)

Where, as is the case here, all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction are dismissed, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 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.

Russell v. Killian · filed 2023-03-01(c)(3)

Because the federal claims would be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which would again result in dismissal of the case as a whole.

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

Riddick v. Lambert · filed 2023-03-02(c)(3)

Riddick’s complaint also asserts a claim of willful and wanton negligence under Virginia law based on the same factual circumstances. (Compl. 15.) Because all of plaintiff’s federal claims are being dismissed, the court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over any state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Coker v. Warren · filed 2023-03-02(c)(3)

Upon consideration of the § 1367 factors and the “traditional rationales for pendent jurisdiction, including judicial economy and convenience,” see Palmer, 22 F.3d at 1569, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Coker’s remaining state law claims.

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

Linde v. Envision Healthcare Corp. · filed 2023-03-02(c)(3)

However, given that the only federal claim has been dismissed and Linde’s state-law claims predominate, declining supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of the role of the federal claims and the stage of litigation.

Juric v. USALCO, LLC · filed 2023-03-02(c)(3)

The Court finds that dismissal of the state law claims is appropriate here, given the relatively minor role the ERISA claims play in the Amended Complaint and the early stage of the litigation.

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

Estate of Brandon C. Billups v. Baker · filed 2023-03-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, where all federal claims are dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim.

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.

ROBINSON v. WETZEL · filed 2023-03-02(c)(3)

Where, as is the case here, all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

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

Foster v. Tucker · filed 2023-03-02(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim, the claim on which this Court’s jurisdiction rests, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and dismisses these claims.

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

Cullen v. Mello · filed 2023-03-03(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss all federal claims against Chief Mello, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Officer Cullen’s state law constitutional claims.

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

Longjaw v. Gooten · filed 2023-03-03(c)(3)

To the extent that Longjaw alleges state law claims, such as slander, or Mont. Code. § 45-5-204, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Braithwaite v. United States · filed 2023-03-03(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that may be alleged and dismisses them 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.

Braithwaite v. State of New York · filed 2023-03-03(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that may be alleged and dismisses them 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.

Braithwaite v. Kubetz · filed 2023-03-03(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that may be alleged and dismisses them 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.

Braithwaite v. Suffolk County New York · filed 2023-03-03(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that may be alleged and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Nguyen v. University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

In its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to continue to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims in Counts III–V, and Counts III–V are DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling these claims in state court if he so chooses.

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

Younge v. Berman · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court, using its discretion, declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Lara v. College Police Department · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

The court exercises its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Cline v. Russo · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

Here, all federal claims have been dismissed, and thus the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over any purported state law claims.

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

Cline v. Seal · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

Here, all federal claims have been dismissed, and thus the Court declines to assert supplement jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Ellsberry v. Stewart · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

But the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... For this reason, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ellsberry’s claims against the Enterprise Defendants and will dismiss all claims against them 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.

Herbin v. The City of New York · filed 2023-03-06(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 tort claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Allen v. Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc. · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claim for common law fraud under New York state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that the district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” once the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Johnson v. Bragg · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims under federal law of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any claims under state law that Plaintiff may also be attempting to assert in her second amended complaint.

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

Bethea v. NYCHA Law Department · filed 2023-03-06(c)(3)

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

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

Smith v. Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center · filed 2023-03-07(c)(3)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims because the Court dismisses Plaintiff's EMTALA claim, which is the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Prosper v. Fredrickson · filed 2023-03-08(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed plaintiffs federal claims, has the discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims. ... The Court exercises that discretion here and plaintiff's state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Wilson 453216 v. Gwaltney · filed 2023-03-08(c)(3)

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

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

Monroe v. Conner · filed 2023-03-09(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: ... (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, ... As a result, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Monroe’s pendant state law claims.

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

Malek v. Ingoglia · filed 2023-03-09(c)(3)

In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff raises state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those 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.

Malek v. New York State Unified Court System · filed 2023-03-09(c)(3)

In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff raises state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Malek v. James · filed 2023-03-09(c)(3)

In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff raises state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those 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; the early stage of the case and comity may support that choice.

Kneitel v. Camilo · filed 2023-03-09(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claims.

TULIO v. LANSDALE BOROUGH · filed 2023-03-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over the state law breach of contract claim.

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.

Anderson v. Memphis Union Mission · filed 2023-03-09(c)(3)

Since the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims here, the only claims that remain are state-law claims between apparently non-diverse parties. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims, and REMANDS those claims to the Circuit Court.

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

Joyner v. Prince William County Circuit Court · filed 2023-03-10(c)(3)

Without the § 1983 claim, however, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's remaining causes of action.

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

King v. Nesto · filed 2023-03-10(c)(3)

Because the court is granting summary judgment on the plaintiff’s federal law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims.

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

Ferguson v. Park Slope Food Co-op · filed 2023-03-10(c)(3)

A court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if, among other things, it has already “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, having dismissed Plaintiff's Title VII claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state and municipal law claims.

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

Johnson v. Preston · filed 2023-03-10(c)(3)

Supplemental jurisdiction may be declined over a claim when the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Brown v. Kaufman County · filed 2023-03-10(c)(3)

Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims against Yarborough because it dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction as to the other Defendants.

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

Monroe v. Hayward Unified School District · filed 2023-03-12(c)(3)

The court would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim after further amendment of the complaint.

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

Walker-Swinton v. Philander Smith College · filed 2023-03-13(c)(3)

Once her federal claims were gone, the district court had no obligation to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

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

Wallace v. Crab House, Inc. · filed 2023-03-13(c)(3)

Like in the March 2022 Opinion, because the federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims under state and local law.

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

PLUMMER v. WELLPATH · filed 2023-03-13(c)(3)

Having thus dismissed the federal claim over which it exercised original jurisdiction, the Court in its discretion will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Harris-Billups v. Anderson · filed 2023-03-13(c)(3)

Once it had dismissed the § 1983 claim—the sole claim over which it had original jurisdiction—the district court was well ... within its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Harris-Billups’s state-law claims. Indeed, a federal statute authorizes district courts to do just that. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Thomas v. City of Americus, GA · filed 2023-03-14(c)(3)

Although the district court had supplemental jurisdiction to hear the plain- tiffs’ state law claims related to their section 1983 due process claim, it had discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental juris- diction over a claim” if it had “dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

OU v. Click Labs, Inc. · filed 2023-03-14(c)(3)

The remaining state law claims fall under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, which this Court would typically decline to exercise if all claims based on original jurisdiction have been dismissed as a matter of finality.

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

Spoors v. HCH · filed 2023-03-14(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on the balance of relevant factors.

Weaver v. New York State Unified Court System · filed 2023-03-14(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed the federal claims and the New York Human Rights Law claim at the pleadings stage, the Court finds that the balance of factors counsels in favor of dismissing the state-law claims.

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

Ruotolo v. Town of New Paltz · filed 2023-03-14(c)(3)

However, since the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims asserted against the New Paltz Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims asserted against the New Paltz Defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Valencia ex rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. 2003).

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

GORDON v. PASQUARELLO · filed 2023-03-14(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed the federal claim in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In doing so, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Odom v. Boisvert · filed 2023-03-15(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

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

WatsonSeal Marketing LLC v. Crawlspace Ninja IP LLC · filed 2023-03-15(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed that claim with prejudice, see supra Section III.A, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over WatsonSeal’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Kris Lindahl Real Estate, LLC v. RE/MAX Escarpment Golfi Realty Inc. · filed 2023-03-15(c)(3)

With the copyright infringement claim dismissed, the only claim remaining is the breach-of-contract claim (Count I). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

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

MUHAMMAD v. NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON · filed 2023-03-15(c)(3)

Plaintiff's federal claims though have again been dismissed at this early screening stage for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any related state law claims, ... Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

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

Langella v. Mahopac Central School District · filed 2023-03-15(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 asserts.

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

Moffitt v. County of San Diego · filed 2024-11-13(c)(1), (3)

Here, considering the nature of Plaintiff’s state law claim and that no federal claims remain in this case against any Defendant, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim against Defendants at this time and DISMISSES Claim Two without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim, particularly when the remaining issue is better decided by state courts.

Antwine v. Oklahoma City Police Department · filed 2025-06-18(c)(1), (c)(3)

Upon careful consideration, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law negligence claim under § 1367(c). The Court has dismissed the sole federal claim over which it had original jurisdiction. There are no unique compelling circumstances that would lead the Court to try Plaintiff’s state claim in the absence of any federal claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the remaining claims raise issues best resolved by state courts.

Thompson v. Henke · filed 2025-07-16(c)(1), (c)(3)

Upon careful consideration, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims under § 1367(c). The Court has dismissed both federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

McCall v. The County of Lowndes · filed 2023-03-16(c)(3)

Exercising its discretion, the court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against all Defendants, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and it is ORDERED that the state-law claims are 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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Hawkins v. Sanders · filed 2023-03-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed each of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. District courts have discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed.121 Although the “‘general rule’ is to decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims” under such circumstances, the “rule is neither mandatory nor absolute.”122 Rather, a court must consider “both the statutory provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and the balance of the relevant factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”123 Having considered the applicable law, the complexity of Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, and the fact that the trial of this matter has not yet been set, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and dismisses Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims 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.

Ward v. North Stonington · filed 2023-03-17(c)(3)

Having determined that all federal claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction should be dismissed, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims under Connecticut law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 206) (“[A] district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). ... Here, having dismissed all of Mr. Ward’s federal law claims, his state law claims, which originally were brought in state court, should be remanded to state court, and adjudicated there.

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

SMITH v. REAGLE · filed 2023-03-17(c)

For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Smith's state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses all federal claims before trial, after weighing judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state law issues.

Alexander 182285 v. Whitmer · filed 2023-03-17(c)(3)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction because all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims have been dismissed. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claim pursuant to the Michigan Constitution, and such claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Riddick v. Mathena · filed 2023-03-20(c)(3)

Because all of plaintiff's federal claims are being dismissed, the court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over any state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, including when retaining them could require decisions on numerous novel state law issues.

Silbersher v. Allergan plc · filed 2023-03-20(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Relator’s state law claims. ... In declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the Court takes into account the fact that the Relator has asserted claims under the laws of thirty states and insists that the laws in some of those states do not align with the federal false claims act, raising the possibility that the Court would be required to decide numerous novel issues of state law if it were to retain supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Shiheed v. Smith · filed 2023-03-20(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff also brings medical negligence claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (stating that 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.”). These claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not allow a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction solely because the federal claims against one defendant were dismissed when federal claims against other defendants remain pending.

Thompson v. Pass Christian Public School District · filed 2023-03-20(c)(3)

Since some of Plaintiffs’ federal claims against other defendants remain pending, the Court cannot decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at this time.

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

Evans v. The City of New York · filed 2023-03-20(c)(3)

For the reasons discussed above, Evans’ federal law claims are dismissed. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Byron v. Bronx Parent Housing Network · filed 2023-03-20(c)(3)

Because, for the reasons outlined above, Byron’s federal law claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the purported state law claims and does not consider the merits of these claims.