28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it resolves all federal claims before trial.

Hamann, Jack v. Magno, Conrad · filed 2023-10-04(c)

The general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Burritt v. Diflefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015). Here, because the court is dismissing plaintiff’s federal claim against defendant, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim against defendant.

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.

Lazarou v. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology · filed 2023-10-04(c)(3)

Because all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims have been dismissed, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim.

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

MURRAY v. OSTROWSKI · filed 2023-10-04(c)(3)

WHEREAS, because judicial immunity bars Plaintiff’s federal claims, this Court, in the absence of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims (Civil Conspiracy against all Judicial Defendants and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against Defendant Ostrowski) under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Harris v. Denully · filed 2023-10-04(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Demaree v. Castro · filed 2023-10-04(c)(3)

But as the only federal claims have been dismissed at the outset of the case, there is no requirement that any state law claims be adjudicated here, and I decline to do so.

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

WISSMAN v. PGM REAL ESTATE LLC, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT · filed 2023-10-04(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Wissman’s federal claims, it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. If she alleges valid federal claims, the court will consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over viable state claims under 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.

TALBERT v. BEAL BANK USA · filed 2023-10-04(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Talbert's state law claims because we dismissed all claims over which we have original jurisdiction.

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

Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers, Inc. · filed 2023-10-05(c)(3)

Because the only claim over which the Court would have jurisdiction must be dismissed, the Court should not retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state claims.

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

Koel v. Citizens Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2023-10-10(c)(3)

But a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when the claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims 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.

Muzumala v. The City of New York · filed 2023-10-10(c)(3)

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

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

Hayes v. 48-52 South 2nd Ave. L.L.C. · filed 2023-10-10(c)(3)

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

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

Washington v. Tocco · filed 2023-10-10(c)(3)

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

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

Powell v. New York City Comptroller · filed 2023-10-10(c)(3)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Andrich v. Adel · filed 2023-10-11(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Andrich’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

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

Moon v. Nash · filed 2023-10-11(c)(3)

As a final matter, to the extent Moon is asserting state law claims against the defendants [DE 23 at 5; DE 24], they will be dismissed without prejudice, because in the absence eof a federal claim, it is prudent at this early stage of the litigation to relinquish jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Hubbard 535974 v. Schroeder · filed 2023-10-11(c)(3)

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

Orosco v. Bannister · filed 2023-10-12(c)(3)

However, “[w]hen all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim and thus dismisses it without prejudice.”

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

Harris v. Suffolk County Corr. Facility · filed 2023-10-12(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.

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

Brown v. Ukeiley · filed 2023-10-12(c)(3)

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 state court.

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

Taylor v. Dodd · filed 2023-10-12(c)(3)

The court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s slander and defamation claims.

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

Darvin v. Correctional Development Center/Male · filed 2023-10-12(c)(3)

And because the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any possible state-law claims. Any such claims will be dismissed without prejudice. 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Weekly v. United States of America · filed 2023-10-13(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may “decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and need not state its reasons for dismissal.

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

Kittle v. Duneland School Corporation · filed 2023-10-13(c)(3)

However, § 1367(c) specifically provides that a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... In the absence of any circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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.

Warner v. Lund · filed 2023-10-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal law claims, 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.

GRAVES v. PHILADELPHIA FAMILY COURT · filed 2023-10-16(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Graves’s state law claims because we dismiss all claims over which we have 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.

Oakes Farms Food & Distribution Services, LLC v. The School District of Lee County, Florida · filed 2023-10-17(c)(3)

Because the federal claims were dismissed, the Court, in its discretion, chooses to not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Florida state law claims.

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

Wilson (ID 70525) v. Wallace · filed 2023-10-17(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s only remaining claim arises under state law and Plaintiff fails to plead facts required to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s negligence 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.

Hutten v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC · filed 2023-10-17(c)(3)

Accordingly, where plaintiff’s federal claim is dismissed, 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ferguson v. State of New Mexico Corrections Department Central Office Administration · filed 2023-10-17(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims without considering their merits after the federal claims have been dismissed.

LaDeaux v. JL Property Management · filed 2023-10-17(c)(3)

That LaDeaux’s state-law claims of slander, defamation of character, deceit, fraud, and uninhabitable conditions are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without considering the merits of the claims, because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

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.

Patton v. Williams · filed 2023-10-18(c)(3)

Because the court will dismiss the sole federal claim, only the claims arising under Alabama law remain. A “district court[] may 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). The Eleventh Circuit encourages district courts to do so if all federal claims are dismissed before trial. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004); accord Silas v. Sheriff of Broward Cnty., 55 F.4th 863, 866 (11th Cir. 2022) (“A district court . . . will rarely err by declining supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims that supported its jurisdiction are dismissed.”). The court therefore DECLINES to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining 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, considering judicial economy, fairness, and comity.

Tucker v. City of Valdez, Alaska · filed 2023-10-18(c)(3)

The Court now has dismissed the claims for which it had federal question jurisdiction, leaving only Mr. Tucker’s replevin claim. Considerations of judicial economy, fairness, and comity do not counsel that this Court should retain jurisdiction over Mr. Tucker’s final, narrow claim. This Court has not made previous rulings in this case. Moreover, a state court is better placed to analyze Mr. Tucker’s state tort claim. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Tucker’s replevin claim.

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

Estate of Jason Waterhouse v. City of Lakewood, Colorado, The · filed 2023-10-18(c)(3)

While a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if there is otherwise a jurisdictional basis for doing so, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) states that a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over such a claim if the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Id. ... The Court thus finds it appropriate to decline jurisdiction over the state law claim in this case.

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.

Cathlin v. The City of New York · filed 2023-10-18(c)(3)

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

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

Alcantar v. Ingram · filed 2023-12-08(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted dismissal of all federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and dismisses them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gill v. Hammond The City of · filed 2023-12-11(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the 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 has not engaged in any meaningful review of the merits of the state law claims and has not otherwise committed substantial judicial resources to them. ... Therefore, 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 a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the case is still in its earliest stages.

Webster v. St. Louis County · filed 2023-12-11(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim asserted against Defendants St. Louis County and Tamara S. Lemke in Count Two.

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, with statutory and common-law factors guiding that choice.

Rubin v. De La Cruz · filed 2023-12-12(c)(3)

Having considered the statutory and common-law factors, the Court will follow the general rule, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, and dismiss Plaintiffs’ state-law claims without prejudice.

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

Nelson v. Foster Poultry Farms · filed 2023-12-12(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction, and this case is ... REMANDED forthwith to the Madera County Superior Court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed while retaining it over state law claims against a defendant whose federal claim remains pending.

White 838737 v. Chippewa Correctional Facility · filed 2023-12-12(c)

Here, the Court has determined that Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants URF, URF Healthcare Services, URF Housing Unit Level 4 Housing, and Warden J. Corrigan are subject to dismissal. Accordingly, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against those Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law medical malpractice claims against Defendants URF, URF Healthcare Services, URF Housing Unit Level 4 Housing, and Warden J. Corrigan will be dismissed without prejudice. Because Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Russo remains pending, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law medical malpractice claim against her.

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

MOSLEY v. WELLS FARGO SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR · filed 2023-12-12(c)

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

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

Tiberiu Kiss v. Best Buy Stores · filed 2023-12-13(c)(3)

The district court, having properly dismissed each of Kiss’s federal claims, was within its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Moon v. Sam Scism Motors · filed 2023-12-13(c)(3)

Because plaintiff’s FCRA will be dismissed, all remaining pendent state claims will be dismissed, as well.

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

New v. Jolly Pirate Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2023-12-13(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, guided by judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

CARROLL v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN PASCACK VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2023-12-14(c)(3)

When a “district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” the remaining claims. ... Relator does not suggest that any of these considerations weigh in favor of this Court exercising jurisdiction over the remaining CEPA claim, and accordingly, this Court declines to do so.

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

Loftis v. Tucker · filed 2023-12-14(c)(3)

Magistrate Robertson found that Plaintiff has not met the standard for his § 1983 federal claims and recommends that the District Judge decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The court finds that the R&R is well-supported by the evidence and the prevailing legal authority. Accordingly, the R&R [Docket No. 40] is hereby AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as this court’s Findings and Order.

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

DUNNIGAN v. ORTIZ · filed 2023-12-15(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, including any asserted negligence claims.

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.

LEWIS v. DIAZ-PETTI · filed 2023-12-15(c)(3)

THEREFORE, it is on this 14th day of December 2023, ... ORDERED that this Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ingram; and it is finally ... ORDERED the Clerk shall mark this matter CLOSED.

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, taking comity and judicial economy into account.

Little v. City of Valley, Alabama · filed 2023-12-15(c)(3)

Having concluded that each of the federal claims are due to be dismissed, comity and judicial economy are both served here by declining to needlessly decide a matter of state law. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), Count V of the SAC is due to be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Sutter & Gillham PLLC v. Henry · filed 2023-12-15(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine requires abstention from hearing plaintiffs’ federal claims, which are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims is declined and those claims are also dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim, with judicial economy, comity, and the stage of discovery informing that choice.

Juice Creative Group, LLC v. UncommonGood, Inc. · filed 2023-12-15(c)(3)

Having dismissed the copyright infringement claim, the court is left only with state law contract claims. Although the parties are in the middle of discovery, the relevant factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Meade v. Lorain County, Ohio · filed 2023-12-15(c)(3)

Instead, the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” where, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because Defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff’s claims arising under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising exclusively under State law.

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

Flannery v. District of Columbia Department of Health · filed 2023-12-18(c)(3)

Since the Court has dismissed both of the federal claims on the grounds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear them, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

Tulio v. Lansdale Borough · filed 2023-12-18(c)(3)

Having tossed out the federal claims, the District Court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law one. 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.

Hazzard v. Schaaf · filed 2023-12-18(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over Hazzard’s state law claims.

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

Giddings v. Commissioner of MD Prisons · filed 2023-12-18(c)(3)

To the extent that Giddings raises state law claims of negligence and intentional torts, 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Moore v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority,Inc. · filed 2023-12-18(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, if Moore does not amend his federal claims and those claims are dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice without further order.

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

COLLAZO v. ROSENTHAL · filed 2023-12-18(c)

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

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

Meeks v. McClung · filed 2023-12-19(c)(3)

Second, what to do with Plaintiffs’ state-law claims now that their federal claims have been dismissed? The Court thinks dismissal is appropriate here, too. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) allows federal courts to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction when all original jurisdiction claims ... have been dismissed.

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

RODRIGUEZ v. ATLANTIC COUNTY JAIL · filed 2023-12-19(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, including any potential negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

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

Town of Babylon, NY v. James · filed 2023-12-19(c)(3)

Because this Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it may properly “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

COX v. PA. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2023-12-19(c)

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

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

Thomas v. Affordable Loan Company · filed 2023-12-20(c)(3)

In conclusion, the Court does not have original jurisdiction, and 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 related state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy may favor that choice.

Hayes v. Kern County · filed 2023-12-20(c)(3)

As the Court has 4 || dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court will exercise its discretion in 5 || declining to adjudicate Plaintiff’s related state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses the federal claims before trial, considering judicial economy and whether deciding state law issues is necessary.

Davis 369621 v. Shafer · filed 2023-12-20(c)(3)

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction. Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. ... 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 all federal claims have been dismissed.

Hawes v. Macy's, Inc. · filed 2023-12-20(c)(3)

Given the earlier inclusion of a federal claim, the Court could perhaps instead exercise ongoing supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court declines to do so, though, because federal courts should generally decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Dalton v. Miller · filed 2023-12-21(c)(3)

As to Plaintiff’s purported claims under North Carolina law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as no federal claim has passed initial review.

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.

Little v. County of Nassau · filed 2023-12-21(c)(3)

The Court would decline to exercise jurisdiction over additional state law claims even if the SAC asserted them. A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” a state-law claim if, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Goney v. SuttonPark Capital LLC · filed 2023-12-21(c)

Unless diverse citizenship is adequately pled, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over T.N.’s state-law claims given the dismissal of the claims with independent federal jurisdiction.

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

Williams v. Parikh · filed 2023-12-21(c)(3)

To the extent that the immunities discussed do not require a dismissal of any state-law claims Williams brought against Defendants—an issue the Court does not answer—the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, to which Williams did not object, that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over those state-law claims, (Doc. 5, #78).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim that supplied original jurisdiction, particularly at an early stage of litigation.

UNITED GRANITE & QUARTZ, INC. v. EMURO TRANSPORT, LLC · filed 2023-12-22(c)(3)

Therefore, given the dismissal of the federal claim against TQL over which this Court had original jurisdiction and the relatively early stage of this litigation, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law counts of Plaintiffs’ Complaint against TQL and the matter will be remanded to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Taylor v. Nations Direct Mortgage, LLC · filed 2023-12-22(c)(3)

As the Court’s original jurisdiction was based on a federal question, and the amended complaint includes only a single state law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Broecker v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ. · filed 2023-12-26(c)(3)

To the extent that any state-law claims remain, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Dangerfield v. Trzbiatowski · filed 2023-12-27(c)(3)

But because the court is dismissing the plaintiff’s only putative federal claim, it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. 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 the only claim supporting federal jurisdiction.

White v. Park Forest-Chicago Heights School District 163 · filed 2023-12-28(c)(3)

Moreover, because Count IJ is the only claim that would provide federal jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim for tortious interference of contract in Count I. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Riddle 811130 v. Facebook Inc. · filed 2023-12-28(c)(3)

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

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

JENTIS v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2023-12-28(c)(3)

Given that the Court will be dismissing all of the Third Amended Complaint’s federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Count II.

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

Nutter v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, LLC · filed 2023-12-28(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, 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 law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

McKnight v. Nevada Department of Administration · filed 2023-12-29(c)(3)

Because Ms. McKnight has no remaining federal claims, the Court elects to avoid exercising jurisdiction over her state law claims.

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

Roberts v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2024-01-31(c)(3)

Given my disposition of Plaintiff's Title VII claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims when no federal claim survives initial review.

Baker v. Bauman · filed 2024-02-13(c)(3)

To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks relief under North Carolina law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as no federal claim has passed initial review.

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

Tieu v. New York City Economic Development Corporation · filed 2024-02-13(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment to Defendants on all of the Tieu’s federal claims, however, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims.

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

Higgs v. Repay · filed 2024-02-14(c)(3)

With all of the federal claims having now been dismissed, I will exercise my discretion and relinquish jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claim of defamation.

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

(PS) Rigor v. Sacramento LGBT Community Center · filed 2024-02-28(c)(3)

To the extent there exists state law claims in these pages (including claims for breach of contract, defamation, negligence, and the like), the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims.

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

JTH Tax LLC v. Cortorreal · filed 2024-03-01(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed the only federal claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction. Thus, the Court will exercise its discretion not to address the state law claims Plaintiff brought.

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

Fleming v. Wayne County Jail · filed 2024-03-01(c)(3)

The Court also agrees with the recommendation that the state-law claims be dismissed without prejudice, as the federal claims are being dismissed.

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.

Baldwin v. American Van Lines, Inc. · filed 2024-03-04(c)(3)

As such, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction... over this partial, and sole, remaining count.

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

Idlibi v. Connecticut Department of Public Health · filed 2024-03-04(c)(3)

In the absence of federal diversity jurisdiction, and because there are no facially plausible federal claims against the defendants, I decline at this early stage of the litigation to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Idlibi’s state law claims. 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); Leftridge, 2023 WL 4304792, at *12.

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

Leach v. Hicks · filed 2024-03-04(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing all of Mr. Leach’s other claims leaving no claims premised on federal question jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and in an exercise of its discretion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

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.

REDO v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2024-03-04(c)(3)

Because all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Parks v. Montefiore Medical Center · filed 2024-03-04(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Parks’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state and city claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction before trial, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide no affirmative reason to retain them.

PURDUM v. AMERICAN EXPRESS · filed 2024-03-04(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the anchor of our jurisdiction, we must consider whether to retain Plaintiff’s state law claims. “[W]here the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district courts to decline exercise of supplemental jurisdiction when the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). Here, given the early stage of the proceedings, we cannot conclude, and the parties do not contend, that there is any affirmative justification for retaining jurisdiction where Plaintiff’s only remaining claims arise under state law. Accordingly, we remand both actions to the Lancaster CCP.

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

Thomas v. Maguinuss · filed 2024-03-04(c)(3)

And, because the Court is dismissing all Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to 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, and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Farnsworth v. Northam · filed 2024-03-05(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of the federal claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any claims under state law and will dismiss 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.

Hall v. Reliant Realty Services · filed 2024-03-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining unspecified tort claims that arise under state law, without prejudice to Plaintiff asserting these claims in state court.

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

Doe v. Currey Ingram Academy · filed 2024-03-05(c)(3)

Instead, the Court has the discretion to decline to exercise (or, perhaps to be more precise, continue to exercise) jurisdiction over the state-law claims despite the fact that it would have lacked jurisdiction had they been brought by themselves at the outset (rather than having supplemental jurisdiction over them as it did in the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c))).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims in a third-party complaint after dismissing its federal claims.

State of Ohio v. Norfolk Southern Corporation · filed 2024-03-06(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed Norfolk Southern’s CERCLA claims, and therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Jones, Leroy v. Foster, Brian · filed 2024-03-07(c)(3)

While the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), the court will decline to do so here because plaintiff's related federal claims against these defendants are being dismissed before trial, and as explained above, the court has not considered the merits of those state-law claims under a different evidentiary standard.

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

Lakic v. Idaho Department of Correction · filed 2024-03-07(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs have not asserted a viable § 1983 claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over their state-law claims for negligence and wrongful death.

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

Beddoe v. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. · filed 2024-03-07(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s federal and state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining city law claim.

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

Weightman v. OBrien · filed 2024-03-08(c)(3)

Finally, Weightman was allowed to proceed on state law claims, but because the Court has concluded that he has no federal claims, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Beggs v. Ambrose · filed 2024-03-08(c)(3)

Nevertheless, for completeness of the record and having dismissed Plaintiffs’ ADEA claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim. 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.

Harris v. Wesley · filed 2024-03-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims against defendants other than Fayne.

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

Allen v. Clinton HMA LLC · filed 2024-03-08(c)(3)

Although the pretrial proceedings before this Court have been extensive, the Court does not think judicial economy, convenience, and fairness would be served by retaining jurisdiction in this case.’

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.

Picazo dba Salinas Farms v. Aptos Berry Farms, Inc. · filed 2024-03-11(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the PACA claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims, all of which arise under state law.

After all federal claims are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Vincent Pastore-v-County of Santa Cruz · filed 2024-03-11(c)(3)

Balancing the above considerations, the Court finds that the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity together favor declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Mr. Pastore’s state law claims without prejudice to their refiling in state court.

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

Shields, Jr. v. Verizon Maryland, LLC · filed 2024-03-11(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining MFEPA claim because all of his federal claims under Title VII will be dismissed.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FILLMORE CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC · filed 2024-03-11(c)

Since Relator’s federal FCA claims are 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially when the case is not in its late stages.

Goad v. Lyde · filed 2024-03-12(c)(3)

Since the Court has dismissed all federal claims for which the Court had original jurisdiction, and because this case is not in its late stages, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state tort claims against the Defendants.

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

Rockwell v. Tuolumne County, California · filed 2024-03-12(c)(3)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim absent a cognizable federal claim. 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 remaining state law claims after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Muhammad v. Vectrus Systems Corporation · filed 2024-03-12(c)(3)

Further, when a “district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction,” the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state law claims. ... In this case, the Court dismisses all the claims based in federal law, leaving only the claims premised on state law. Having considered the foregoing policy considerations, the Court concludes dismissal of the state law claims is warranted.

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

Torres-Jurado v. United States of America · filed 2024-03-12(c)(3)

comity counsel heavily in favor of declining to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and the Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Cyrus v. Lockheed Martin Corporation · filed 2024-03-12(c)(3)

In any event, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these NYCHRL claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[W]here the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well.”).

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

Save R Hood v. Galveston County · filed 2024-03-13(c)(3)

Finally, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Save R Hood’s only remaining claims—its state-law claims.

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

Smith Land Company, Inc v. City of Fairlawn, Ohio · filed 2024-03-13(c)(3)

Because this Court dismisses all federal claims against Defendants, 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 no federal claims remain.

Plessinger v. Primecare Medical, Inc · filed 2024-03-13(c)(3)

As no federal claims remain, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in Counts II and IV.

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

Williams v. Village of Alsip · filed 2024-03-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims over which the Court purportedly had original jurisdiction, the Court has discretion on whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count III. 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.

Lopez v. COMPA Industries, Inc. · filed 2024-03-14(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lopez’ State law claims, because the Court is dismissing Lopez’ federal law claims.

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

Francis v. City of New York · filed 2024-03-14(c)(3)

Having granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the early stage of litigation and comity can favor dismissal without prejudice.

Anglin Automotive LLC v. EBF Holdings, LLC · filed 2024-03-14(c)(3)

Finding that the balance of the relevant factors points toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claim, the Court dismisses Count Three without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ refiling that claim in state court.

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

Estate of Amanda Bews v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2024-03-15(c)(3)

Here, the Court has resolved all of the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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.

Howell v. Wells · filed 2024-03-15(c)(3)

Because Mr. Howell’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state- law claims at this juncture.

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.

Biggs-Leavy v. Lewis · filed 2024-03-15(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

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

The Estate of William Scales v. ATU Local 1181 · filed 2024-03-15(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting. 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.

Palencia v. United States · filed 2024-03-15(c)(3)

A federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, the Court agrees with the sound reasoning of the Report and this claim is DISMISSED.

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

Rhoda v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. · filed 2024-03-16(c)(3)

A district court may, however, “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). In this instance, the Court chooses to dismiss the state law 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.

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS Subscribing To A Policy Of Insurance v. GUYANA NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COMPANY INC. · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3)

After considering the § 1367(c) factors and the Gibbs factors, which weigh in favor of dismissal, the Court declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3)

Accordingly, because the court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts I-IV, the court dismisses all federal claims at issue. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law counts ([V—VIII) of plaintiff's complaint, and defendants’ counterclaim for eviction pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/9-101. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Anderson v. The State of North Carolina · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3)

To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks relief under North Carolina law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as no federal claim has passed initial review.

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.

Rael v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3)

Therefore, this Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Toran v. The County of Nassau · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of any viable federal claims, 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 a remaining state law claim after dismissing the federal claims, with comity supporting dismissal without prejudice.

Terry v. Ms. Lt. Crawford · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3)

The Court finds that comity concerns weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to avoid needlessly deciding state-law issues. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claim is dismissed without prejudice.

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

SINGLETON · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3)

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

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

BGH Holdings, LLC v. DL Evans Bank · filed 2024-03-19(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... In light of the above considerations, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Kaufman v. CDCR · filed 2024-03-19(c)(3)

As all of Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Adams v. Garrett · filed 2024-03-19(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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gray v. AquaTerra Contracting, LLC · filed 2024-03-19(c)(3)

After consideration of the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining claims, which solely involve questions of state law that would be better determined by the Missouri state courts.

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

Lorenzo v. 12 Chairs BYN, LLC · filed 2024-03-19(c)(3)

The Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over Plaintiff’s related state-law claims, if, among other things, it has already “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” i.e., Plaintiff’s FLSA claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Defendants, dismissing the only federal claims in this case (i.e., the First and Second Causes of Action), and because the values of judicial economy and comity would best be served by dismissal of Plaintiff’s state-law claims, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s state-law claims without prejudice to re-file in state 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.

Gibson v. St. Elizabeth Medical Center Hospital Executive Director · filed 2024-03-19(c)(3)

With respect to the state-law claims against the MVMH Executive Director, the Court agrees that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

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.

Diallo v. New York City Police Department · filed 2024-03-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff's federal claims, only Plaintiff's state law claims remain. 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 remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all federal claims.

Denious v. City of Newton Falls Police Dept. · filed 2024-03-19(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

BROOKS v. STEBERGER · filed 2024-03-19(c)

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

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

Doe v. Varsity Brands, LLC · filed 2024-03-20(c)(3)

The court thus declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against USAFS and Coaches Burris and Wilson.

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.

Broccoli v. Ashworth · filed 2024-03-20(c)(3)

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

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.

Directv, LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. · filed 2024-03-20(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over DIRECTV’s 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction and to dismiss those claims without prejudice to renewal in state court.

Brown v. Prove Identity, Inc. · filed 2024-03-20(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Brown’s only federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims for breach of contract, fraud, promissory estoppel, conversion, and unjust enrichment, and such claims shall be dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court.

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

Kolak v. Backerville · filed 2024-03-21(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) a federal court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over such state-law claims if the court has dismissed all federal claims. ... There are no such compelling reasons here, so under any standard of review, state law claims also must be dis- missed.

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.

Barthe v. Wetzel · filed 2024-03-21(c)(3)

Accordingly, because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims against ABC Guard Services.

Section 1367(c) permits dismissal without prejudice of related state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Cook v. Pike County, Missouri · filed 2024-03-21(c)

To the extent Plaintiff’s complaint contains any state law claims relating to the federal claims that are dismissed for failure to state a claim, those claims will also be dismissed, without prejudice, 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Scelza v. Department of Suffolk County Corrections · filed 2024-03-21(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.