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.

Hayward v. Mundy · filed 2023-03-21(c)(3)

Since Hayward has not alleged any viable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law tort 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.

Lyon III v. Aron · filed 2023-03-21(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. 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”). Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Brown v. Haupert · filed 2023-03-21(c)(3)

Because Brown has not stated a viable claim against any of the Defendants within the original jurisdiction in federal court, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brown’s state law 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; those state claims are ordinarily dismissed without prejudice.

Armijo v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Socorro · filed 2023-03-22(c)(3)

Upon dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court must decide whether or not it will adjudicate any remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim... if... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]”). When all federal claims have been dismissed from a case, supplemental state claims are ordinarily dismissed without prejudice. See Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conf. Resort, 124 F.3d 1221, 1237 (10th Cir. 1997). As the Court sees no reason to depart from the ordinary rule, it will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claim and dismiss it 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.

Olson v. Grant County · filed 2023-03-22(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). ... This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim, which is dismissed without prejudice.

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

KANABLE v. RAJOLI · filed 2023-03-23(c)

The Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Weber v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · filed 2023-03-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed that claim, the Court elects not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining State law claims. The Court does not find that keeping Plaintiff’s claim in this District would promote economy, convenience, fairness, or comity.

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

Witcher v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2023-03-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed Witcher’s federal claims, this Court agrees with Judge Netburn’s recommendation. Accordingly, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Witcher’s pendent 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.

SL-X IP S.A.R.L. v. Bank of America Corporation · filed 2023-03-24(c)(3)

Having properly dismissed SL-x’s federal claims and state law antitrust claims, the district court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the state-law claims may be dismissed without prejudice.

Oliva v. City of Chicago · filed 2023-03-24(c)(3)

A federal court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because Plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed, his remaining state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Sifuentes v. Avvo, Inc. · filed 2023-03-24(c)(3)

Without any viable federal claims, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under Section 1367(c)(3), as recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Sifuentes v. TruthFinder · filed 2023-03-24(c)(3)

Without any viable federal claims, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under Section 1367(c)(3), as recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

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

Sifuentes v. Slickwraps · filed 2023-03-24(c)(3)

Without any viable federal claims, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under Section 1367(c)(3), as recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

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

Sifuentes v. Twitter Inc. · filed 2023-03-24(c)(3)

Without any viable federal claims, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under Section 1367(c)(3), as recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

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

Sifuentes v. Adobe · filed 2023-03-24(c)(3)

Without any viable federal claims, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under Section 1367(c)(3), as recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

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

Sifuentes v. Aptoide · filed 2023-03-24(c)(3)

Without any viable federal claims, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under Section 1367(c)(3), as recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

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

Clendenin v. Keeley · filed 2023-03-27(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, upon consideration of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Judkins v. The Brooklyn Hospital Center · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

Having considered judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental 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.

Person v. Mulligan Security Corp. · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

Because I dismiss all of the plaintiff’s federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims, which 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.

Doe v. Golden Krust Caribbean Bakery & Grill Inc. · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the Moving Defendants and dismisses those claims 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, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Francis v. Village of Potsdam · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

Here, after carefully considering the relevant factors, i.e., economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims.

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

Villafane, Jr. v. City of New York · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

For the reasons outlined above, the federal law claims are dismissed. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the battery claim and does not consider its merits. 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.

Vaughn v. Metropolitan Transit Authority · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to assert any state law claims based on the allegations contained in the AC, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c) of any such claims in light of the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, and his state law claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice to pursuit in an appropriate forum.

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

Rosen v. N.Y.C. Department of Education · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

The 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). Where all federal claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the supplemental jurisdiction doctrine point toward a federal court declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state and city law claims. Cohen v. Postal Holdings, LLC, 873 F.3d 394, 405 (2d Cir. 2017) (Calabresi, J., concurring). Because the NYCHRL sets out a different, more liberal standard for discrimination claims, which the Court has not considered in this opinion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rosen’s remaining claims under the NYCHRL.

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.

Bray v. Bon Secours Mercy Health, Inc., INC. · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

As the Court is dismissing all of the claims against the United States, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against the remaining Defendants.

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.

Pinckney v. Mason · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court having dismissed all federal claims, will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims of profession negligence against Defendants 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 the claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed, considering fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity.

Perez-Arritola v. Garcia-Muniz · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

Altogether, the interests of fairness and the like are best served by this Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanding Plaintiff’s state law claims to the Commonwealth court.

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

SNEED v. WATSON · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is DISMISSED. Accordingly, with respect to Plaintiff’s state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. 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 all federal claims have been dismissed.

Grenadyor v. SN Servicing Corporation · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the FDCPA claim in Count I (Dkt. 18) and the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s RESPA claim in Count II, the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the pendent ICFA state-law claim.

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

Bolen v. Philemon · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim for negligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court, therefore, will dismiss this claim 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.

RAMNANAN v. KEIFFER · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

As all of Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed and there is no diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and remaining Defendants in this case, 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Moore v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

A district court “‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Adam Senese v. Longwood Cent. Sch. Dist., 330 F. Supp. 3d 745, 770 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). ... Here, because all of Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under New York law.

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

Levy v. Lawrence Gardens Apartments Del, LLC · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Broccoli v. Ashworth · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

In light of the Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial, particularly at an early stage of the case.

Hurckes v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

Second, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Hurckes’s claims under state law for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant.” After all, it is well established that, “[i]Jn general, where the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998). Here, there is no basis to depart from that general rule given, among other things, the relatively early stage of the case.

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

Washburn v. Kingsborough Community College · filed 2023-03-29(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s New York law claims, which 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.

United States of America v. Senseonics Holdings, Inc. · filed 2023-03-30(c)(3)

... all of Plaintiff's federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim and Plaintiff's state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 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.

Graves, Esq v. Foulger-Pratt Companies, LLC · filed 2023-03-30(c)(3)

Lacking subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court declines to address the sufficiency of these state law claims because there is no basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

GOFF v. VIGO COUNTY POLICE OFFICER · filed 2023-03-30(c)(3)

Having previously granted summary judgment for Officer Bourbeau on Mr. Goff's federal claim, dkt. 43, the Court has discretion whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Vigo County.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after it disposes of the only federal claim.

LePage v. Salina, Kansas, City of · filed 2023-03-30(c)(3)

The Court finds that there are no substantial grounds for jurisdiction over the remaining claims for retaliatory discharge and defamation and that the state court is in a better position to evaluate LePage’s claims under state law. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and will therefore remand those claims back to state court.

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

Browning v. Franklin Precision Industry, Inc. · filed 2023-03-30(c)(3)

To the extent that the state law claim is still pending, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and the state law claim of retaliatory wrongful discharge is 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.

Serna v. Keleher · filed 2023-03-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed the Sernas’ only federal law claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ pendent 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.

Piotrowski v. the Rocky Point Union Free School District · filed 2023-03-30(c)(3)

With Piotrowski’s federal claims dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his one remaining state-law claim for disability discrimination in violation of the NYSHRL against all individual defendants. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state-law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Pappas v. James Madison University · filed 2023-03-31(c)(2)

Because the court is dismissing the only federal claims in the case, the court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and to dismiss them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

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

Ford v. Northam · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

In light of the court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s federal claims, it will decline to exercise jurisdiction over any state-law claims, such as all of his state-law tort claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts wide discretion to dismiss state law claims without prejudice after all federal claims are dismissed.

Williams v. City of Greenwood · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

Finally, the district court appropriately exercised its discretion to dismiss without prejudice Gianni’s state law claims after concluding that Appellees were entitled to summary judgment on their federal claims.

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

Becoat v. PNC Bank NA · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) is discretionary, and “a court may exercise its discretion to dismiss or retain state claims after dismissing claims subject to its original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).” Knowles v. Hart, 825 F. App’x 646, 650 (11th Cir. 2020). ... Because Becoat has not stated a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the statutory and common law factors favor dismissal.

Hudson v. Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) · filed 2023-03-31(c)

In making this determination, the Court “look[s] to the statutory factors set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and to the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” ... Thus, taken together, the statutory and common law factors weigh in favor of dismissing Plaintiffs pendant claims.

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.

United Source One, Inc. v. Frank · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

Having disposed of the federal claims in this action, the Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over US1’s sole remaining claim for breach of contract. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when all claims over which court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed).

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

Mid-America Carpenters Regional Council v. Bond · filed 2023-03-31(c)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff’s LMRDA claims, as well as its LMRDA-predicated declaratory judgment claims, for failure to state a claim. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law unjust enrichment claim or Defendant Bond’s state-law counterclaims; the state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

WYSOCKI v. WARDLAW-HARTRIDGE SCHOOL · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed the sole federal claim asserted in this matter, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) C[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]”).

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

Serna v. Webster · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ahmad v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the Defendants and dismisses those 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.

Moss v. Brentwood Union Free School District · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims against the Trustee Defendants.

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

Jackson v. Clinic Security & Logistics Inc. · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

When the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. ... I conclude no such circumstances exist in this case and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Jackson’s remaining breach of contract claim.

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

DEFORTE v. THE BOROUGH OF WORTHINGTON · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)

The Court concludes that no “extraordinary circumstances” exist such that the Court should invoke supplemental jurisdiction to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case.

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

Hoff v. County of Siskiyou · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

The balance of factors in this case weighs toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Judicial economy does not weigh strongly in either direction, as this action is still in the initial pleading stages. Convenience tips slightly in favor of the state forum, given the locations of Siskiyou County and plaintiff relative to this court. Fairness weighs equally toward both fora as there is no reason to doubt that a state court would provide an equally fair adjudication of the issues. Finally, comity weighs in favor of declining jurisdiction because all the remaining claims in the latest complaint are state law claims. These claims are of the kind of common property disputes routinely dealt with by the state courts, which are likely to have a better understanding than this court of the relevant state laws. Accordingly, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these 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.

Harris v. Doe · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that “[t]he fact that the district court has the power to hear these supplemental claims does not mean, of course, that it must do so. Instead, it may decline to exercise its power based on the factors laid out in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).”).

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

Doe v. City of Boston · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in light of its dismissal of the federal claims. If a complaint fails to state a viable claim under federal law and jurisdiction over the remaining claims depends solely on supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a “district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.” Uphoff Figueroa v. Alejandro, 597 F.3d 423, 431 n.10 (1st Cir. 2010); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the related federal claims have been dismissed, while retaining it when federal claims remain pending.

Nunnally 181375 v. Fisk · filed 2024-03-29(c)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Fisk, Peterson, Schultz, Hansen, Broin, Forton, Pelky, Mackey, Bassett, Cloust, and Erway have been dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against these individuals without prejudice. Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Benson and Clark, the Court will not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against those two Defendants at this time.

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.

Estate of La'Mello Parker v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

Second, regarding the Section 1367(c) factors, the Plaintiffs’ claims under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act might raise complex or novel state law issues, and the only claims over which original jurisdiction existed 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.

Craig v. The City of New York · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

However, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s claims under federal law, it “decline[s] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [Plaintiff’s] state law claims [because] it 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.

Booth v. New York Presbyterian Hospital - Behavioral Health Center · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

A district court may, however, “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). ... That is the exact situation at present, and therefore, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims when no federal claims remain for a merits determination.

Cheong v. The Bank of East Asia, Ltd · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain that are subject to a merits determination by this Court, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate Cheong’s state and city law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Schill v. Lake County Department of Job and Family Services · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

Rather, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Rather than remand, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss their remaining claims 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 and to remand those claims in a removed action.

Urban Necessities 1Stop Shop, LLC v. Cleveland · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and concludes that the case should be REMANDED to state court.

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

BIROS v. SNYDER · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

Pending any such amendment, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims at this time.

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

FORD v. MORRIS · filed 2024-03-30(c)(3)

Putting aside for the moment that those statutes likely do not provide for a private cause of action, because this Court has already dismissed all federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, this Court must decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will therefore not consider any state law claims Plaintiff may have intended to raise, See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Borough f. W. Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995).

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

Teri Woods Publishing, LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc. · filed 2024-03-30(c)(3)

However, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Smith v. Lorain County Veterans Service Commission · filed 2024-03-30(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim…if…the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Therefore, this Court concludes, after balancing the factors relevant to exercising its supplemental jurisdiction, that the remaining state law claim is dismissed.

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

Cook v. Boss · filed 2024-03-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cook’s remaining state law claims.

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

Snedeker v. State of Colorado · filed 2024-03-31(c)(3)

Magistrate Judge Prose recommended dismissing the federal claims against Ms. Paswaters without prejudice. Recommendation at 54. And because of that recommendation, Magistrate Judge Prose recommended declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against Ms. Paswaters. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)); see also Smith v. City of Enid ex rel. Enid City Comm’n, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir. 1998) (when a district court dismisses all federal claims, in its discretion, “the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims”). ... Consistent with the above analysis, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and accepts, adopts, and affirms Magistrate Judge Prose’s Recommendation in its entirety.

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

Down to Earth Organics, LLC v. Efron · filed 2024-03-31(c)(3)

As Plaintiff’s federal claims arising under the Lanham Act are dismissed with prejudice, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Fraser v. Hallmark · filed 2024-04-01(c)(3)

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

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

Miles 237011 v. Quainton · filed 2024-04-01(c)

Here, all of Plaintiff’s federal claims against the Surety Defendants 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 against Surety Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Jenkins v. Minnesota School of Bartending · filed 2024-04-01(c)(3)

Although a federal court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Eighth Circuit has instructed district courts not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all claims for relief under federal law are dismissed prior to trial. Hervey v. Cnty. of Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711, 726–27 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the entirety of this action will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed; it is premature to do so while federal claims remain against other defendants.

Donovan v. Heartland Regional Medical Center d/b/a Mosaic Life Care · filed 2024-04-01(c)(3)

As such, it would be premature to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Nurse Dunston and Dr. Perry because the Court still has federal question jurisdiction in this case given the § 1983 claims that remain.

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.

Zahn v. Flathead County · filed 2024-04-01(c)(3)

When a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” then the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Because the Court dismisses the Monell claim without prejudice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses these claims 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 when there is no affirmative justification to retain them.

CARATOZZOLO v. GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS · filed 2024-04-01(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Having previously dismissed Plaintiff’s ADA claim and determined that Count VIII must be litigated in a state forum, the Court concludes that there is no affirmative justification present for retaining 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.

Cook v. Boss · filed 2024-03-30(c)(3)

Because the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cook’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), Defendants’ motion with respect to his state law claims is dismissed as moot.

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

LEMONS v. BERRIOS · filed 2023-09-18(c)(3)

If the federal claims against Defendant Millin are ultimately dismissed, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, and Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to refile her state law claims in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice after the federal claims are dismissed, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Rodriguez v. Killam · filed 2023-09-18(c)(3)

Alternatively, dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law claims is appropriate under 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.

Solomon v. Dechert LLP · filed 2023-09-18(c)(3)

With the Complaint shorn of its federal claims, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over what remains, and it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Winnon v. Lozano · filed 2023-09-18(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental (or “pendant”) jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; absent compelling reasons otherwise, remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Sgaggio v. Diaz · filed 2023-09-18(c)(3)

In the Tenth Circuit, when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), courts must dismiss pendent state law claims without prejudice “absent compelling reasons to the contrary.” ... Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Sgaggio’s fourth claim and dismiss it without prejudice.

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

Kristoffersson v. Port Jefferson Union Free School District · filed 2023-09-18(c)(3)

Here, given that no federal claims remain and diversity jurisdiction does not exist, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and will dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, particularly when the case has advanced only through motions to dismiss.

In Lux Research v. Hull McGuire Pc · filed 2023-09-19(c)(3)

These factors weigh against retention here. The Court is dismissing the sole federal claim against the Smith Defendants, Hernandez, the Hassan Defendants, the Metcalf Defendants, the Jauregui Defendants, and Pattis. This case has not progressed in federal court past these Motions to Dismiss, and the Court has developed no familiarity with the issues presented beyond the copyright claim it dismisses.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses all federal claims, particularly before discovery has begun.

Harrison v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 2023-09-19(c)(3)

Because Harrison’s federal claims have been eliminated early in this litigation—the case has not proceeded past the pleadings stage, and no discovery has taken place—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Thunderfoot v. United States · filed 2023-09-19(c)(3)

The court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and DISMISSES those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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.

Riggins v. Christian County, Kentucky · filed 2023-09-19(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs medical malpractice claim is DISMISSED 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 it dismisses the federal claims at an early stage.

ARUANNO v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2023-09-19(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed the federal claims at an early stage and declines supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims at this time.

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.

Zhang v. Ichiban Group, LLC · filed 2023-09-19(c)(3)

Because all dismissed claims giving rise to original jurisdiction are dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Shafer v. Carter · filed 2023-09-20(c)(2)

Reviewing this portion of the R&R de novo, however, the court instead declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law defamation claims in light of the dismissal of all federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claim, particularly when the parties provide no reason to retain them.

B.H. v. Krause · filed 2023-09-20(c)(3)

Having failed to do so, the Court presently lacks any information or argument demonstrating that it should exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, with judicial economy and comity supporting dismissal without prejudice.

EBIN New York, Inc. v. SIC Enterprise, Inc. · filed 2023-09-20(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the sole federal claim in this suit, and because the values of judicial economy and comity would be best served by this outcome, the Court dismisses the state law claims without prejudice.

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

Bythewood v. State of New York · filed 2023-09-21(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bythewood’s state law claims after having dismissed all his federal 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.

Jackson v. Justice and Public Safety Cabinet · filed 2023-09-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over their state law claims, including their claims under KRS § 13A.130.

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

Robertson v. Perkins · filed 2023-09-21(c)(3)

Because all of Robertson’s federal claims against Perkins and Polston are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 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 remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Blitz v. BLDG Management Co., Inc. · filed 2023-09-21(c)(3)

Having determined that no reasonable juror could find in Plaintiff’s favor as to any of his claims brought under the ADA or FHA, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims here, and therefore dismisses the remainder of his Complaint in its entirety.

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

Smith Land Company, Inc v. City of Fairlawn, Ohio · filed 2023-09-21(c)(3)

Because this Court dismisses all federal claims against Wilk, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count Three.

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

(PC) Erbacher v. Robles · filed 2023-09-22(c)(3)

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any cognizable federal claims, and Plaintiff has not alleged compliance with the Government Claims Act. The Court therefore declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims at this time.

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

Tooke v. White · filed 2023-09-22(c)(3)

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

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

Doe v. County Of Rockland · filed 2023-09-22(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment, Monell, and failure to intervene claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims that Plaintiff has not conceded.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all federal claims; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

LaVergne v. Stutes · filed 2023-09-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of LaVergne’s federal claims, the magistrate judge declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We see no abuse of discretion in that decision.

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

Howard v. Children's Network of Southwest Florida, L.L.C. · filed 2023-09-25(c)(3)

After review, the Court employs its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s fee dispute. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (empowering a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after “dismiss[ing] 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.

BRINK v. BORMANN · filed 2023-09-25(c)(3)

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

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

Chenevert v. Kanode · filed 2023-09-26(c)(3)

The court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because the federal law claims have been resolved before trial and the court has not invested significant resources in analyzing or addressing the state law claims, the court will dismiss the state law claims without prejudice in the interests of judicial economy and comity between federal and state courts.

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

BIRD v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA · filed 2023-09-26(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims as 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.

A. v. City of New York · filed 2023-09-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a federal court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [supplemental state-law claim] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 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.

ROBERTS v. STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2023-09-26(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff is unable to state any federal claim against Defendants Nigrini and Walker and no extraordinary circumstances exist, the Court finds it would be appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim against them.

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 judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Babner v. Cumberland County · filed 2023-09-26(c)(3)

Upon consideration of these factors and the record before us, we find nothing to distinguish this from the usual case. Therefore, the remaining state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice 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 against those defendants.

Durbin v. State of Washington · filed 2023-09-27(c)(3)

And without this jurisdictional anchor, the Court need not and will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims ... against these Defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bankhead v. Wintrust Financial Corporation · filed 2023-09-27(c)(3)

The Court need not consider these arguments in detail, however, because, at this juncture, Plaintiff has not stated a viable federal claim to support the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over her 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.

Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government v. United States of America · filed 2023-09-27(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Moreover, the remaining claims appear to involve novel issues of Louisiana law pertaining to SMPG’s Home Rule Charter and the legality of its actions under that charter. Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion under Section 1367(c) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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.

Necaise v. Mississippi Department of Revenue · filed 2023-09-27(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. These claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Thomas v. Pacific County Sheriff's Department · filed 2023-09-28(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of 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.

Bowlin v. Board of Directors, Judah Christian School · filed 2023-09-28(c)(3)

Having determined that the only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction in Counts I and II will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Davis v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2023-09-28(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Zhang v. The City of New York · filed 2023-09-28(c)(3)

Having concluded that no federal claim survives summary judgment, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district courts “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has 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.

Johnson v. City of Toledo · filed 2023-09-28(c)(3)

Nonetheless, the Court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction when the original jurisdiction claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, with summary judgment granted as to all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, all remaining claims, sounding in state law, are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, leaving those state claims to be dismissed without prejudice.

Wade v. Franklin County, Ohio · filed 2023-09-28(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, and dismisses them without prejudice, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Perkins v. Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Perkins’s federal claims, his state law claims, which originally were brought in state court, should be remanded to state court, and adjudicated there.

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

Radzinskaia v. NH Mountain, LP · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

However, where a court has dismissed all the federal claims in a complaint, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in that complaint pursuant to ... 1367(c)(3).

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

United States of America v. Northwestern Memorial Healthcare · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

But because the Court presently dismisses the federal law allegations on which Count V relies for supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count V. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3).

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

Gakuba v. Swells · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

Nevertheless, because all federal claims against Dr. Birch will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim; Count 5 will be dismissed as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after disposing of all federal claims, especially when it has not substantially reviewed the state claim or devoted substantial resources to it.

Cobbs v. Freeman-Wilson · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

As the Court has not engaged in any meaningful review of the merits of the state law claim and has not otherwise committed substantial judicial resources to it, declining to exercise jurisdiction is proper.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and remand them after disposing of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Jumptastics, LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ failure to procure and failure to advise claims against Lakeland and Russell and will remand them to Pulaski Circuit Court.

After dismissing the federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims; dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) creates a strong presumption in favor of doing so absent unusual circumstances that prejudice the plaintiff.

Lovelace v. McCracken County, Kentucky · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

Nothing specific to this case suggests these state claims ought to be heard in federal court. So the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over them or adjudicate the motions to dismiss.

Section 1367(c) 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.

Cooper v. Solomon · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

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

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

Mid Valley Pipeline Company, LLC v. Rodgers · filed 2023-09-29(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims based on state law here since all federal claims have been excised from this case.28 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Schmitt v. China XD Plastics Company, Limited · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

This is the “usual case” where courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as contemplated by the Supreme Court in Cohill. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in light of its decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a). Count Three and Count Four 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, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Davis v. Ennis · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of a plausible federal claim, 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 any potential state- law claims contained in Plaintiff's complaint and Plaintiff may pursue any such claims in statue court.

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.

Thomas v. Venditto · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

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

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

Gouveia v. Mount Sinai Health Systems · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gouveia’s non-federal claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Urban Necessities 1Stop Shop, LLC v. Cleveland · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the only federal claim brought against Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Conner v. Oklahoma State of · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

“When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” Smith v. City of Enid ex rel. Enid City Comm’n, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Accordingly, the Court declines to proceed with the remaining state-law claims.

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

Williams v. Jones City Town of · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

“When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” ... Accordingly, the Court declines to proceed with the remaining state-law claims.

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

Condron v. McKennan · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

A district court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the claims triggering federal jurisdiction are dismissed. ... Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law defamation 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.

Blandin v. Smith · filed 2023-09-30(c)(3)

Therefore, all the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed with prejudice. Id. As all federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Blandin’s state law claims.

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, especially early in the litigation.

Gordon v. Blinds To Go (U.S.) Inc. · filed 2023-09-30(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This is especially favored when, as here, a court eliminates federal claims early in the litigation. Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Bd. Of Trade of the City of N.Y., 464 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court declines to exercise its 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Vekaria v. MThree Corporate Consulting, Ltd. · filed 2023-09-30(c)(3)

Further, although federal courts are well equipped to examine common law breach of contract and related claims, comity dictates that these causes of action are predominantly issues of state law and accordingly better suited for resolution in state court. The Court thus concludes that the balance of factors to be considered—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—point toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction now that the federal claim has been dismissed.

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

Bowman v. Unibank · filed 2023-10-02(c)(3)

And, lacking this jurisdictional anchor, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Alcantar v. City of Centralia · filed 2023-10-02(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because summary judgment is granted as to all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims under Washington state law.

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

Mendoza v. 26 Federal Plaza Immigration · filed 2023-10-02(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 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

BELL v. SELF INCORPORATED · filed 2023-10-02(c)(3)

The Court, however, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, having dismissed Bell’s federal claims.

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

Copeland v. Kline · filed 2023-10-02(c)(3)

The court may decline to exercise supplement jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, the court has dismissed all the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over which it has original jurisdiction. Therefore, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law negligence claims and will dismiss them without prejudice to Plaintiff raising them in a court of proper jurisdiction.

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

JOHNSON v. HAMLETT · filed 2023-10-03(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims at this time because Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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.

HUDSON HOSPITAL OPCO, LLC v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2023-10-03(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the only Federal claims in this case,12 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 claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Woods v. Kasztl Walsh, LLC · filed 2023-10-03(c)(3)

Finally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state claims. A district court 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).

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.

Kilayko-Gullas v. Doe · filed 2023-10-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims under state law.