28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Pyles v. Granite City Police Department · filed 2020-04-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, this Court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s miscellaneous state law claims in Count 5, which shall be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Robledo v. State of Ohio · filed 2020-04-27(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 action in its entirety. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff is asserting state law claims the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it disposes of all claims supporting original jurisdiction.

Byrd v. Buckner (MEMBER) · filed 2020-04-28(c)(3)

There is no longer an independent basis for jurisdiction over Mr. Gadsden’s state law respondeat superior claim against the City. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim and DISMISSES Mr. Gadsden’s state law claim against the City WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Greenwood v. Frost · filed 2020-04-30(c)(3)

Because all federal claims have now been dismissed with prejudice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims identified above and alleged in the FAC, and those claims are, therefore, dismissed without prejudice.

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

ADAM TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. DONGGUAN WELL SHIN ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD. · filed 2020-05-05(c)(3)

As discussed, Plaintiff’s federal intellectual property claims are dismissed. Therefore, the Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Scott v. Lazure · filed 2020-05-22(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal causes of action, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Galvez v. Westchester County · filed 2020-05-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that may be construed from plaintiff's complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction against all defendants in the same case or controversy.

Gorenc v. Klaassen · filed 2020-05-28(c)(3)

Given that possibility, the court returns to the scene of that conclusion and now concludes that § 1367(c)(3) is not triggered until the court has dismissed all federal claims against all defendants that form part of the same case or controversy as the state law claims, no matter which party is the target of those claims.

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

Schneider v. Hastings · filed 2020-06-24(c)(3)

Having determined, for the reasons set forth above, that dismissal of all Plaintiff’s claims involving federal employees is warranted, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and instead remands all claims remaining in the Steiger Action to Lancaster Village Court.

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.

Carney v. New Orleans City · filed 2020-06-25(c)(3)

These factors weigh in favor of dismissal without prejudice of the Louisiana state law claims so that the plaintiffs may assert those claims in Louisiana state court. The Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Murguia v. Langdon · filed 2020-06-30(c)(3)

Once 1 all federal claims have been dismissed from a case, whether to retain jurisdiction over any 2 remaining state law claims is left to the discretion of the district 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.

Murray v. N.Y.P.D. Dept of Parole · filed 2020-07-09(c)(3)

The Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s remaining claims brought under state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) is not triggered when a plaintiff amends the complaint to voluntarily remove federal claims rather than having those claims dismissed.

Falconbridge v. Bank of America NA · filed 2020-07-20(c)(3)

The court rejects this argument because Mr. Falconbridge’s federal claims have not been “dismissed.” Instead, Mr. Falconbridge amended his complaint and voluntarily removed his federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed all federal claims to defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims while an amended complaint may be filed.

Maldonado v. County Of Cook · filed 2020-07-30(c)(3)

Counts IV—VII remain until the Court reviews any amended complaint that may be filed and will determine at that time whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that federal claims were dismissed when those claims remain pending.

Chavez v. Won · filed 2020-09-01(c)(3)

As an initial matter, the Court did not find Plaintiff’s ADA claim is moot or dismiss the claim. Consequently, this is not a ground for the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Royal Truck & Trailer Sales v. Kraft · filed 2020-09-09(c)(3)

It did so in accordance with the settled rule that when a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction (here the CFAA claims), it may also dismiss any state-law claims before it based on supplemental jurisdiction.

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 2020-09-11(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiffs fail to state a federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

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

Mason v. Integra Peak Management Inc., et · filed 2020-09-15(c)(3)

Once having disposed of that claim under Rule 12(b)(6), it was within the district court’s discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under any state law claims.

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

Grimes v. U.S. Bank Trust N.A. · filed 2020-11-13(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff is asserting state law claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed. 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 and to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

SILLA v. HOLDINGS ACQUISITION CO., L.P. AND RIVERS CASINO · filed 2020-11-17(c)(3)

And because the Court dismisses Ms. Silla’s federal claims as untimely, the Court will also dismiss Ms. Silla’s state law claims without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed; dismissal early in the litigation strongly favors declining jurisdiction.

Dorest v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. · filed 2020-12-27(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim where, in pertinent part, all claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Dismissal of the Plaintiffs only federal law claim in the early stages of this litigation serves as a powerful reason for the Court not to exercise its powers of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Vigil v. Keller · filed 2023-01-04(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all the federal claims in Plaintiff's complaint, specifically Counts | and II in their entirety, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in Count Ill 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Taylor v. Washington Department of Corrections · filed 2023-01-18(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and so has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under § 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.

BLACKWELL v. LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH NETWORK · filed 2023-01-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Because this Court dismisses Count One of Plaintiff’s Complaint, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over which this Court held original federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Carmona v. Kilgore Industries · filed 2023-01-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court will follow the general rule and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Carmona’s claim for unpaid wages under the Texas Payday Act.

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

Johnson v. Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Clerk's Office · filed 2023-02-02(c)(3)

While not argued by Defendants, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once they have dismissed all claims over which they had original jurisdiction. ... The Court concludes that multiple factors weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim against Defendants Cigic, Carrino, and Spilker.

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

Usevicz v. Weltman Weinberg & Reis, Co. of Michigan · filed 2023-02-10(c)(3)

Here, the Court is not only dismissing all federal claims in this case, it is doing so at a very early stage of the litigation – on motions to dismiss filed prior to discovery. As such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims brought under the MRCPA and shall dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

United States of America · filed 2023-02-15(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all the federal claims in this case. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Relator’s tortious interference claim, and it dismisses the claim 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.

Gravatt v. Montgomery County, Maryland · filed 2023-03-03(c)(3)

When a federal district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims. ... Where this case remains at the early stages of litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and will dismiss the remainder of this case for lack of subject matter 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, and to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

CONSTANTINE v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND INSURANCE · filed 2023-03-24(c)(3)

In circumstances—such as the present case—when all claims over which a court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed before trial, the decision as to whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the other claims remains in the court’s discretion, Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009), but the Supreme Court has long held that generally the remaining “state claims should be dismissed as well,” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726–27 (1966).

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

Radar Sports Management, LLC v. Legacy Lacrosse, LI Inc · filed 2023-03-24(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court, in its discretion, 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 when no federal claims remain.

WASHINGTON v. NJ D.O.C. TRANSPORTATION · filed 2023-06-07(c)(3)

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

Hodge v. Kaufmann · filed 2023-06-12(c)(3)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses these claims without prejudice to Plaintiff’s refiling them in an appropriate forum.

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

Yates v. The Money Source, Inc · filed 2023-06-30(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs fail to state a cognizable federal claim under the Sherman Act and amendment of that claim would be futile, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ quiet title and accounting claims.

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

Johnson v. Los Angeles County · filed 2023-07-07(c)(3)

Here, Plaintiffs have dismissed the sole federal claim over which the Court had original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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.

Harvison v. Little · filed 2023-07-17(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harvison’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.

Hamilton v. New York State Justice Center · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Mason v. Carteret County, North Carolina · filed 2023-08-25(c)(3)

Accordingly, where all federal claims are 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Kransky v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs Denis Richar · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed all Plaintiff’s federal claims for which jurisdiction was premised on, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on Counts IV and V and dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims, but the court cannot exercise it after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Kale v. Aero Simulation Inc. · filed 2023-09-26(c)(3)

Though the court agrees that Kale’s state-law claims form part of the same “case or controversy,” because all other federal-law claims have been dismissed, the court is unable to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Assa'ad-Faltas v. Moye · filed 2023-10-16(c)(3)

All of Plaintiff’s federal claims in this action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc. · filed 2023-11-20(c)(3)

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

Mello v. Page, County · filed 2023-12-08(c)(3)

Finding no factor that distinguishes this case from the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Quinney v. City of Santa Monica · filed 2023-12-13(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because all claims of which this Court has original jurisdiction are being 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.

Moss v. Clark County Title · filed 2024-01-23(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and so has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under § 1367(c)(3).

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

El Chaar v. New York University · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment to Defendant on El Chaar’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); 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) leaves a district court discretion to retain compulsory state-law counterclaims after dismissal of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

SmartLinx Solutions LLC v. Zeif · filed 2024-04-02(c)(3)

In other words, although the Court previously explained that Zeif’s counterclaims “can remain pending for independent adjudication” after the voluntary dismissal of SmartLinx’s claims, such that the Court’s dismissal satisfied Rule 41(a)(2), Zeif is correct that the Court still may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Furthermore, in light of the overwhelming considerations of convenience, fairness to the parties, and judicial economy, as outlined above, and in the absence of any other compelling circumstances for declining jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Zeif’s counterclaims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the case remains in its early stages.

Speth v. City of Reno · filed 2024-06-28(c)(3)

The Court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over CAI’s counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when an amended complaint effectively abandons the claims supporting original jurisdiction.

Nassau County, NY v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2024-07-04(c)(3)

Given the new allegations in the Second Amended Complaint and the additional context in which they were drafted, this Court finds, as other courts have, that Nassau has effectively “dismissed” any federal claims or remedy therefrom by abandonment. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction; dismissal of only some such claims does not satisfy that condition.

Espinosa v. Allen · filed 2024-07-22(c)(3)

Though the court dismisses plaintiff’s federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the City of Hutchinson, the court still exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. That’s so because the relevant statute governing supplemental jurisdiction allows a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(e) (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against defendant Allen remains, so the court hasn’t dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice when the federal claims are dismissed.

Peterson v. David · filed 2024-07-25(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Scott v. Paisley · filed 2024-09-13(c)(3)

Due to the dismissal of the claims for which original jurisdiction lies, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Scott’s state law claims. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims in the case have been dismissed, even if federal claims remain against other defendants.

JACKSON, COOK and QADIR v. HOLCOMB · filed 2024-09-26(c)(3)

This argument misreads § 1367(c)(3), which contemplates relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims in the case have been dismissed. Here, federal claims remain in this case, just not against the Town.

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

Campbell v. Adams · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of plaintiff's federal claims, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over plaintiff’s 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.

Obah v. Department of Education · filed 2024-10-25(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction at the pleading stage.

The Phoenix Company, Inc. v. Castro-Badillo · filed 2024-11-25(c)(3)

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

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

Boyd v. Municipality Robersonville · filed 2024-12-04(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims, and such claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after resolving the original claim when it has spent substantial judicial resources on the supplemental claim and its disposition is obvious.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Holbrook · filed 2025-01-14(c)(3)

Because of the similarity between the original claim and the crossclaim, the Court here has already engaged in a meaningful review of the merits of the crossclaim and thus has committed substantial judicial resources; and it is obvious that the crossclaim for declaratory relief should be granted in the same manner as the original claim for declaratory relief such that retaining supplemental jurisdiction is proper in this instance.

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

Thomas v. International CDL Tractor Trailer Training, LLC · filed 2025-01-24(c)(3)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the surviving breach of contract claim, given that all claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

VASSEGHI v. IBRAHIM · filed 2025-02-05(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed ail of Plaintiffs federal claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, however, this Court must decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim.

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

Rhone v. Schmanke · filed 2025-03-07(c)(3)

As no federal claims remain in this case, 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.

Jean v. HRA · filed 2025-07-21(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims and to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

Price v. GEO Reentry Services, Inc. · filed 2025-07-28(c)(3)

Because the court is dismissing all of Price’s federal-law claims against the Center, the court dismisses his state-law claims against the Center under § 1367(c)(3). This dismissal is without prejudice to Price bringing these claims in an action filed in state court.

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

Leise v. Christie · filed 2025-08-27(c)(3)

Therefore, under these circumstances, we will remand to the district court to consider, given the dismissal of all claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims for defamation and invasion of privacy against Christie and Yang. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Valencia ex rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 304–05 (2d Cir. 2003).

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.

Rakchi v. The City of New York · filed 2025-09-22(c)(3)

Having disposed of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims arising under New York law.

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

Greater Guide, Inc. d/b/a American Service Pets v. SAPS LLC · filed 2025-10-31(c)(3)

Furthermore, because the Court concludes that all of Plaintiff’s claims under federal law should be dismissed, the Court will no longer have 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.

Szala · filed 2025-11-12(c)(3)

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). ... Thus, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Smiley · filed 2025-11-13(c)(3)

Because the court is dismissing all federal claims, it will relinquish jurisdiction over Smiley’s claims under state law.

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

Jenkins · filed 2025-11-26(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss all federal claims, it will also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Jenkins’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.

H.H. · filed 2025-12-10(c)(3)

The basis for original jurisdiction in this case is (solely) federal-question jurisdiction, and the Court is dismissing all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims upon which supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims was based. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, and they will be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice.

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

Thompson · filed 2025-12-31(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed Thompson’s ERISA claim—Thompson’s only claim with original federal jurisdiction—this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state- law claims.

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

Weyrich · filed 2026-01-22(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the sole federal claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... So rather than dispose of the state-law claims on jurisdictional grounds now, the Court holds them in abeyance.

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

Romano · filed 2026-02-26(c)(3)

The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining New York state-law claims under CPLR Article 78 and CPLR § 3001. ... Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where it has dismissed all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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.

Fowler · filed 2026-06-05(c)(3)

Because Fowler’s FLSA claim has been dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his VWPA claim here.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Estate of Susanne Burgaz v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2022-04-14(c)(3)

Once the district court dismissed all the federal claims, it declined to exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction over the two state-law claims at hand and dismissed those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because we affirm the dismissal of all the federal claims, we conclude the dismissal of the state-law claims was proper.

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

Stamatio v. Hurco Companies, Inc. · filed 1995-04-12(c)(3)

the Court holds that it has lacks supplemental jurisdiction ... over the fraud claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 ... and dismisses that claim without prejudice.

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.

Feigel v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 1996-05-22(c)(3)

However, the court has already determined that there is no jurisdiction under FIRREA or any valid constitution claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and therefore, there is no supplemental jurisdiction over 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.

MCCLAIN v. CAUSEY · filed 2021-01-12(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Mr. McClain’s federal claims for lack of prudential standing and failure to state a claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state tort claims, which will be 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.

Favors v. Mike · filed 2021-01-22(c)(3)

Because only state law claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and therefore dismisses the Third Amended Complaint in its entirety.

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

Adame v. Surprise, City of · filed 2021-01-28(c)(3)

Although all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weigh in favor of the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

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

OK Resorts of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Charles Taylor Adjusting, Inc. · filed 2021-01-29(c)(3)

Because the Court has decided that Plaintiffs have ... failed to meet the pleading burdens under the federal RICO violation, the Court shall not exercise ... jurisdiction over the alleged causes of action falling under the Puerto Rico Civil Code and hereby ... DISMISSES the Commonwealth 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.

LeVay v. Morken · filed 2021-02-10(c)(3)

The Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over four state law claims when there is no remaining federal claim in the case.

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.

Blackman v. Omak School District · filed 2021-02-16(c)(3)

First, the Court has determined that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s federal claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction, and this triggers the Court’s discretion to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Cavner v. University of Arkansas Fort Smith · filed 2021-02-26(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s state law claims will be remanded to the Circuit Court of Sebastian County because the Court is dismissing the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3), 1447(c); see Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF BIO, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, (2009) (recognizing district courts may remand state law claims over which they exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing claims over which they exercise 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.

McDaniel v. The City of New York · filed 2021-02-26(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, including when dismissal comes at an exceptionally early stage.

Murphy v. Kenton Ohio Police Dept. · filed 2021-03-02(c)(3)

This Court has discretion to dismiss any state law claims once it dismisses any original jurisdiction claims brought in the same case. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It does so here, because of the exceptionally early stage at which the Court is dismissing the federal law claims.

After all federal claims are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over facially deficient state law claims when judicial efficiency, convenience, and fairness favor resolving them.

Wade v. Tri -Wire Employee Stock Option Trust · filed 2021-03-05(c)(3)

The Court is authorized, in its discretion, to take supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The parties have already prepared and submitted several hundred pages of legal briefing in response to Wade’s two complaints and thus the interests of judicial efficiency, convenience, and fairness point towards resolving at least those of Wade’s state law claims which are obviously and facially deficient, while the matter is ripe.

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.

Stinson v. Tucker · filed 2021-03-10(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed all the federal-law claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims that the Court has not addressed above.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c)(3) calls for declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify retaining them.

BURTON v. CLINGER · filed 2021-03-11(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of Nelson’s sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claim. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed, though, that “where the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995)) (emphasis in original). No such considerations weigh in favor of this Court continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

(PC) Montecastro v. Newsome · filed 2021-03-25(c)(3)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that all federal claims were dismissed when federal claims remain.

WeInfuse LLC v. InfuseFlow LLC · filed 2021-03-26(c)(3)

As the court will deny Rein’s two motions to dismiss, all federal claims have not been dismissed at this stage. Thus, it is improper for the court to dismiss without prejudice pending state law claims because there are federal law claims that remain.

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

CLEMONS v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

And, having dismissed all other federal claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the claim asserted against Jane Doe #2. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Moody v. McCullough · filed 2021-04-12(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and so has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under § 1367(c)(3).

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

Amato v. Elicker · filed 2021-04-15(c)(3)

There are no federal law claims remaining, and there is no diversity jurisdiction based on the citizenship of the parties. Plaintiffs' other claims arise under state law. As such, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Taylor v. Kelety · filed 2021-05-03(c)(3)

The Court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a state law claim if 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Dew v. City of Seaside · filed 2021-05-04(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court, in its discretion, declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the claims supporting original jurisdiction are resolved when judicial economy favors retention.

Ambimjb, LLC v. Strategic Armory Corps, LLC · filed 2021-05-20(c)(3)

Even if this Court did not have diversity jurisdiction, the Court would exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim. See § 1367(c); see also supra Part II. Of the various factors that inform this decision, the Court finds that judicial efficiency compels its retention of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of remaining state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed and no independent jurisdiction remains.

Black v. Gibson · filed 2021-06-09(c)(3)

Black’s remaining claims arise under Kentucky tort law. However, her complaint is based on federal question and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Since the Court has no independent jurisdiction over Black’s remaining state claims, they are dismissed without prejudice. 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.

Moore v. J.W. Marriott, Jr. · filed 2021-06-11(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all of the federal securities claims, which formed the basis of the Court’s original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Miller v. Infinite Percent Partners LLC · filed 2021-06-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court, in its discretion, declines to assert 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Koppenstein v. State of Washington · filed 2021-06-21(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and so has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits, but does not require, a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Harris v. Missouri Department of Corrections · filed 2021-06-22(c)(3)

Courts, however, are not obligated to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissal of all federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that it dismissed one defendant’s federal claims when federal claims against another defendant remain.

Upton v. Vicknair · filed 2021-06-25(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if, inter alia, the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” § 1367(c) (emphasis added). As Plaintiff points out, the Court has not dismissed all claims that confer original jurisdiction because Plaintiff maintains § 1983 and § 2255 claims against Vicknair.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; before trial, the usual practice is to dismiss those state law claims without prejudice unless an exception applies.

General III v. City of Chicago · filed 2021-06-29(c)(3)

In sum, the Court concludes that none of the exceptions to the “usual practice” applies in this case. Accordingly, in view of the dismissal of Count IV on jurisdictional grounds, Counts I, II, and HI will also be dismissed—also without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction because all original-jurisdiction claims have been dismissed when federal claims remain in the case.

Koppenstein v. State of Washington · filed 2021-07-08(c)(3)

The state’s motion to remand the negligence claim (Dkt. 23) should be denied without prejudice. At this stage, the Court has not “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Federal claims remain in the case.

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

Trisvan v. Regal Entertainment Group · filed 2021-07-26(c)(3)

In view of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

When the federal claims are dismissed, a court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Leek (ID 63523) v. Androski · filed 2021-07-29(c)(3)

And the court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the federal law claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss a state law claim without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims.

Johnson v. Anderton · filed 2021-08-03(c)(3)

Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2), Mr. Johnson’s federal claims are dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for seeking monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such suit. Additionally, Mr. Johnson’s state law claim asserted in the complaint 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 when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Solares v. Diaz · filed 2021-08-12(c)(3)

As discussed above, the FAC fails to state any cognizable federal claims. It will therefore be recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Nygard v. LOUIS M. BACON, JOHN DOES 1-20 and DOE CORPS. 1-10 · filed 2021-08-20(c)(3)

Plaintiff does not object to the R&R’s recommendation that, having dismissed the federal claims, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The R&R’s recommendation on this point is adopted.

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

Marin v. Carroll · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of federal law, however, the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss his pendent state law claims without prejudice.

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

GOTHAM CITY ORTHOPEDICS, LLC v. CIGNA · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1367 permits federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims, “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” ... This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows dismissal of a supplemental state law claim after the federal claim supplying original jurisdiction has been dismissed.

Clyde v. My Buddy the Plumber Heating and Air · filed 2021-09-02(c)(3)

And since the court has dismissed Clyde’s FLSA claim, which provided the basis for federal jurisdiction, the state law claim would also be subject to dismissal under § 1367(c)(3).

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

Miller v. Easy Day Studios Pty. Ltd. · filed 2021-09-16(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction merely because it dismissed the federal claims against one group of defendants while federal claims against other defendants remain.

Wilson v. Stewart · filed 2021-09-20(c)(3)

Here, the Court has not dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” To the contrary, the Court still has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the ADOC defendants, Johnson and Mason, as well as supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law wrongful death claims against Johnson and Mason.

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.

Hodges v. State of Minnesota Department of Corrections · filed 2021-09-22(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state-law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Olona v. Warden Mahr · filed 2021-09-23(c)(3)

Because the court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law defamation claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Surpris v. The People of the State of New York · filed 2021-10-12(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction based on dismissal of federal claims against some defendants while a federal claim against another defendant remains pending.

Atkins v. CoreCivic, Inc. · filed 2021-10-12(c)(3)

Moreover, because a federal claim remains pending against defendant Hardeman County, the court will not have “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and, therefore, will not have a basis for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the moving defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claims against some defendants when a federal claim against another defendant remains pending.

Atkins v. CoreCivic, Inc. · filed 2021-10-12(c)(3)

As a result, the Section 1983 claim against Hardeman County remains pending, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at this juncture would not be appropriate. The court, therefore, denies the footnoted request to dismiss the state-law claims asserted against the moving defendants.

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

Whitaker v. Montes · filed 2021-11-03(c)(3)

The Court, however, declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim. 26 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction where it has “dismissed 27 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Kim v. HCA Healthcare Inc · filed 2021-11-12(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims 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 when it grants summary judgment for the defendant on all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Austin v. Metro Development Group, LLC · filed 2021-12-01(c)(3)

Although § 1367 uses the term “dismiss” to describe when this condition is met, the condition can still be satisfied by an order granting summary judgment over all claims which the district court had original jurisdiction.

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

Rigney (ID 118655) v. Trapp · filed 2021-12-09(c)(3)

Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff raises any state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Yeremis v. Charter Communications Inc · filed 2021-12-13(c)(3)

Here, subsection (3) applies because the Court has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Thus, the Court may exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any 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.

CALLAWAY v. SMALL · filed 2021-12-22(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims alleged at Counts I–VI above, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that federal claims were dismissed while the same federal claim remains pending against other defendants.

United States of America, ex rel v. Fife Dermatology PC · filed 2021-12-22(c)(3)

Here, however, the court could not decline to extend jurisdiction over the state law claim without first dismissing the same federal claim against the remaining defendants, Douglas and Heather.

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. Macias · filed 2022-01-14(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed all of Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to federal law, declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims.

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

Peters III v. Cheval Golf Club, LLC · filed 2022-01-19(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs’ only federal claim, § 1367(c)(3) authorizes the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

McCoy v. SJL Auto Group No 1 LLC · filed 2022-01-26(c)(3)

For the reasons stated, all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction will be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over McCoy’s state law claims.

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

Johnson v. Smith · filed 2022-01-26(c)(3)

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) gives a district court discretion to retain or dismiss supplemental claims after it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ash Jr. v. Reynolds · filed 2022-02-07(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses those claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court can exercise discretion when deciding whether to retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claims or to dismiss them.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain or dismiss supplemental claims when it dismisses claims within its original jurisdiction, but the court must dismiss the supplemental claims when it dismisses the original claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Kline v. Fishman Group PC · filed 2022-02-28(c)(3)

A district court generally has the discretion to retain or dismiss claims over which it has supplemental jurisdiction if it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). But if the Court dismisses the claims over which it has original jurisdiction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the remaining 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.

Powell v. Dunn · filed 2022-03-01(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court has dismissed all claims against Defendants Dunn, Culliver, Naglich, Estes, Robinson, Williams, and Watson over which it has original jurisdiction. Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Powell’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of remaining state law claims after all federal claims are resolved, absent an independent basis for jurisdiction.

Bell v. Torchmark Liberty National · filed 2022-03-01(c)(3)

In the absence of an independent basis for jurisdiction over Ms. Bell’s state law claims, the court will dismiss the claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Finnegan v. J.P. Morgan Chase · filed 2022-03-03(c)(3)

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

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

Young v. Manna · filed 2022-03-08(c)(3)

However, because we grant the Westchester Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to the Section 1983 claims, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, and thus declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Young’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.

Denver Homeless Out Loud v. Denver, Colorado · filed 2022-03-18(c)(3)

Here, the third option applies because this Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against EHS, which are the only claims against EHS over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the federal claims and to remand those claims if the action was removed.

Boerste v. Ellis, LLC · filed 2022-03-23(c)(3)

Although a Court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing federal claims, “the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims, or remanding them to state court if the action was removed.” Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254-55 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). “[Flederal judges must not needlessly decide” difficult questions of state law. Kowall v. Benson, 18 F.4th 542, 549 (6th Cir. 2021) (vacating and remanding). That course is appropriate here, based on the Court’s review of the pending state-law claims and motions. So absent any remaining federal claims, the Court remands the remaining claims to state court, where Boerste filed this case at the outset.

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.

Baltrusaitis v. International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America · filed 2022-03-23(c)(3)

But, because the court has already dismissed all federal claims at issue, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these two remaining 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.

Sussman v. San Diego Police Dept. · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

Even if the Court were to find that supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims once existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Because the Court has dismissed all Plaintiff's federal claims—the claims that conferred original jurisdiction—the Court not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining unrelated 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.

Celli v. Katzman · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

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

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

Show Me State Premium Homes, LLC v. McDonnell · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

Thus, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, satisfying the requirements of § 1367(c)(3). In light of this, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the remaining Defendants, and the case is hereby remanded to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County for further proceedings.

After dismissing the federal claims, a court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness requires retaining them.

SESCEY v. KAMARA · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

Absent diversity jurisdiction, and with the dismissal of Sesay’s federal claims, ... the Court must decide whether to exercise its discretion to extend supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... The Court must decline to do so unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise. ... They do not.

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.

Chambers v. Sanders · filed 2022-04-18(c)(3)

Thus, this Court is dismissing the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction. The Court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim asserted against Defendant Sanders.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction; that ground did not support dismissal while the ADA claim remained.

Whitaker v. Huynh · filed 2022-04-19(c)(3)

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). Because the Court has not dismissed Plaintiff's ADA claim, the Court also denies Defendant’s motion as to Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, even when one plaintiff has no federal claims remaining.

Doe v. The NYS Office of Children and Family Services · filed 2022-04-19(c)(3)

So long as the Court retains original jurisdiction over C.P.’s federal claim, the dismissal of all of D.B.’s federal claims is insufficient to trigger the Court’s discretion under Section 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.

Hawrych v. Nutra-Luxe MD LLC · filed 2022-04-21(c)(3)

After review, the Court employs its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Coopwood v. County of Wayne · filed 2022-05-05(c)(3)

The Court had original federal question jurisdiction over Coopwood’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims (Count 1, Count II, Count III, and Count IV). Those claims were all dismissed for failure to exhaust pursuant to the PLRA and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Coopwood’s remaining state law claim for gross negligence.

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.

Whitaker v. Huynh · filed 2022-05-19(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.