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 over which it has original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, fairness, and comity.

OLDAKER v. GILES · filed 2024-03-22(c)(3)

A district court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the Court has granted Defendant Dr. Amin’s Motion to Dismiss all federal claims against him. Considering judicial economy, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Defendant Dr. Amin.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff has not stated a federal claim.

Contreras-Bustillos v. County of Yellowstone · filed 2024-03-22(c)(3)

Because the Court determined that Plaintiff did not state a federal claim, it declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Brik v. McDonnell · filed 2024-03-22(c)(3)

The Court agrees that Plaintiff's remaining federal claim be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and Plaintiff's state-law claims are DISMISSED.

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

HOWARD v. GOLDEN AGE OAK VIEW HOME LLC · filed 2024-03-23(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that each of Plaintiff’s federal claims must be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise pendant jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. 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.

Truman v. Shrader · filed 2024-03-25(c)(3)

To the extent that plaintiff has brought state law claims in addition to Eighth Amendment claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Henderson v. Philadelphia Housing Authority · filed 2024-03-25(c)(3)

Third, the District Court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims discussed above.

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

Murse v. Murse · filed 2024-03-25(c)(3)

To the extent Murse brought claims under state law, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, and courts ordinarily do so when the federal claims are dismissed early in the case.

Brown v. Public Safety · filed 2024-03-25(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all of Brown’s federal law claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over these state law claims. It is well settled that when a federal court dismisses all federal claims in the early stages of a case, the court should ordinarily decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims for which there is no original federal jurisdiction.

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

VanHorn v. Salvation Army · filed 2024-03-25(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” ... Here, 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 dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed; dismissal before discovery favors that choice.

South Elkhorn Village v. Georgetown · filed 2024-03-25(c)(3)

Here, discovery has not begun in this action and the Court has found that SEV’s federal question claims are not yet ripe. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the rest of SEV’s claims without prejudice because all federal questions over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Thorpe v. Exel Inc. · filed 2024-03-25(c)

Here, all of Chavis-Burton’s federal claims have been dismissed. What remains is a single California state-law claim. ... Accordingly, because the Court declines to assert its supplemental jurisdiction over the only remaining claim, the case is DISMISSED.

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

Humana Inc. v. United Therapeutics Corporation · filed 2024-03-25(c)(3)

A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims even after the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). But a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction instead. ... Having dismissed Humana’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state claims. They are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Djonovic v. Septer · filed 2024-03-25(c)(3)

With respect to Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, however, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction now that the federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Jimenez v. W&M Services Inc · filed 2024-03-25(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pertaining to overtime wages under NYLL (second cause of action), wage notice and wage statements under NYLL (third and fourth causes of action), and spread of hours pay under NYLL (fifth cause of action).

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

Szabelski v. AM&G Waterproofing, LLC · filed 2024-03-25(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining breach of contract and third-party beneficiary state law claims, as well as Plaintiff’s state law claims for violations of NYLL.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when it dismisses the sole federal claim early in the litigation.

Aira Jewels, LLC v. Mondrian Collection, LLC · filed 2024-03-25(c)(3)

Here, because Plaintiff’s only federal claim has been dismissed at an early stage of this litigation, the Court declines in its discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Johnson v. The Town of Pinckard · filed 2024-03-26(c)(3)

As discussed above, Johnson’s federal claims have been dismissed. His state law claims, which lack an independent jurisdictional basis, are all that remain. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s state law claims, and they are due to 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 federal claims before trial.

The Estate of Joe Nathan James, Jr. v. Ivey · filed 2024-03-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Estate’s state law claims. Where all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, district courts are encouraged to dismiss 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, considering judicial economy, fairness, and comity.

JAMARILLO v. GILES · filed 2024-03-26(c)(3)

A district court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the Court has granted the ICDC Entity Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss all federal claims against it. Considering judicial economy, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against the ICDC Entity Defendants.

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

Webb v. Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, Department of State Police · filed 2024-03-26(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed Mr. Webb’s federal claim early in the proceedings, the Court concludes that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

FRANKLIN v. MIDDLESEX WATER COMPANY · filed 2024-03-26(c)(3)

Finally, because the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

When all federal claims supplying original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims to state court.

Doyle v. Town of Manlius, New York · filed 2024-03-26(c)(3)

But supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims is discretionary. And where, as here, the federal claims that gave rise to original jurisdiction are being dismissed, courts generally decline to hear the supplemental state-law claims. § 1367(c)(3). Instead, courts can dismiss or remand those state-law claims to the originating 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.

Hardt v. City of Portland · filed 2024-03-26(c)(3)

When a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having considered the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

Woodward v. Weber County · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

(4) Plaintiff's state-law claim is DISMISSED. Based on its discretion under 28 U.S.CS. § 1367(c)(3) (2024), the Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

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.

Walls-Bey v. Phoenix, City Of · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

The district court did not err in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims after it concluded that the federal law claims should be dismissed. “A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has ‘dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

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

London v. Heh · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, as neither judicial economy, convenience, fairness, nor comity weigh in favor of continued jurisdiction, 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 state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Sanders v. University of Louisville Peace Hospital · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed Sanders’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Sanders’ 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.

Webster v. Michele · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

Upon review, the Court concludes that it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Webster’s state-law claims. The Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Miles v. City of Henderson · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, where plaintiff’s federal claim under § 1983 is dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims and remands them to 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.

DIGIESI v. TOWNSHIP OF BRIDGEWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of the section 1983 claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction, the Court will 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.

Ivey v. County of Albany · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

Given that federal courts generally decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims have been extinguished, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s state law claims as well.

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, upon balancing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Penske Media Corporation v. Shutterstock, Inc. · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

The Court has balanced the relevant factors and finds that they weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

R.J. Heating Co., Inc. v. Rust · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

Because this Court dismisses all federal claims against Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Two through Five.

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

Brown v. O'Connor · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

Lastly, the Court agrees that the Complaint fails to state a state law claim for relief, but in any event, it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

Royal v. Emerson-Gomez · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

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

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

Royal v. Jones · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to remand remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the case is at the pleading stage and fairness or judicial economy do not favor retaining jurisdiction.

TOMMOLILLO v. COLUMBIA BANK · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

Here, remand appears the appropriate course, rather than retaining supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367. No federal claims remain, and Plaintiffs initially filed this action in state court, and indeed requested remand in the event the Court found it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter (Opp. at 18–19). Further, the case is at the pleading stage, rather than close to trial. The Court cannot discern any significant considerations of fairness or economy that would weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction here. Thus, the Court will remand Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Columbia.

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

Fisher v. City of Fountain · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses all federal claims, in its discretion, “the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” Smith v. City of Enid ex rel. Enid City Comm’n, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the Court is dismissing the federal claims (including the claims Plaintiff expressly abandons), and because Plaintiff failed to offer any argument in opposition to Defendants’ request, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims.

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

Bellinger v. Laboratories Topco LLC · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

Because I am dismissing the Securities Exchange Act claim, I find it appropriate to dismiss the state law claim under the Texas Securities Act.7 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .”).

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, with judicial economy informing that choice.

Bank v. Alleviate Tax, LLC · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed both of Plaintiff’s federal causes of action and because the Court finds that judicial economy would be served in so doing, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this GBL 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Rene v. Mustafa · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

Here, having granted summary judgment in the Defendants’ favor dismissing all of Plaintiff’s Section 1983-based claims, the Court finds the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims against all Defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with the early stage of litigation weighing in favor of declining jurisdiction.

Manigault v. Spry · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

Plaintiff also brings several claims under state law. However, as discussed above, all of Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed either with or without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Bronx Freedom Fund v. City of New York · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

Finding that the balance of the relevant factors points toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here, the Court dismisses the Fund’s remaining state law claim without prejudice to the Fund’s refiling it 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.

Joseph v. The State of New York · filed 2024-03-28(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Richter v. Nelson · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

The Court retains discretion under Section 1367(c)(3) of Title 28 in its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the federal claims that provided original jurisdiction to the Court are dismissed. ... The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against all Defendants because the claims giving this Court original jurisdiction are now dismissed.

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

Conlon v. Baber · filed 2024-01-25(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(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.” ... For all these reasons, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Conlon’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.

McDowell v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2024-01-25(c)(3)

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

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

Osborne v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2024-01-25(c)(3)

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

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

Sproaps v. Brown · filed 2024-01-25(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff is also seeking relief under Missouri state laws, like the Missouri Human Rights Act and Missouri tort law regarding emotional distress, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction. Because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed, all remaining pendent state claims will be dismissed, as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (if federal claims are dismissed before trial, remaining state claims should also be dismissed); Hassett v. Lemay Bank & Trust Co., 851 F.2d 1127, 1130 (8th Cir. 1988) (where federal claims have been dismissed, district courts may decline jurisdiction over pendent state claims as a matter of discretion).

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, guided by statutory and common-law factors.

Davis v. Andrews · filed 2024-01-26(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 over state-law claims after it dismisses every claim within its original jurisdiction.

Barat v. Navy Federal Credit Union · filed 2024-01-26(c)(3)

And a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... We now follow the Supreme Court’s admonition and decline to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction over Barat’s state-law claims (Counts II–V) here.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Chapman v. Seuffert · filed 2024-01-26(c)(3)

Here, after considering and weighing the above factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims are dismissed, with the early stage of the case favoring that choice.

GOLDEN v. NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL AND TECHNICAL STATE UNIVERSITY · filed 2024-01-29(c)(3)

Given that this action has not progressed beyond the pleading stage, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims brought by Plaintiff.

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

Smith v. City of Kansas City, Missouri Board of Police Commissioners · filed 2024-01-29(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims where it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” See Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and remands them to the 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.

Taylor v. Peragon Security Company · filed 2024-01-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed those of Plaintiff’s claims of which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any of his claims under state law.

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

Lichter v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company · filed 2024-01-29(c)

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

WEIR v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) · filed 2024-01-29(c)(3)

Defendants, Caceres and Sagath’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 97) is granted as to Counts VIII through X, XIII through XXI and XXXI, with prejudice, and as to Counts I through VII, XI, XII, and XXII through XXX, without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Vartinelli v. Fronczak · filed 2024-01-30(c)(3)

Once the Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims under Michigan law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Exercising its discretion, the Court declines to do so and dismisses all claim in their entirety.

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

Feliz v. IHealth Labs Inc. · filed 2024-01-30(c)(3)

But with the dismissal of Feliz’s only claim under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Feliz’s NYCHRL claim for monetary relief.

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

THE CHOWNS GROUP, LLC v. Grimberg Co., Inc. · filed 2024-01-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims and compelling arbitration on the other state claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law defamation claim.

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

Bond v. Cruse · filed 2024-01-17(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent Bond seeks to proceed on a common law action for malicious prosecution, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law 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.

Brown v. City National Bank · filed 2024-01-18(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). ... Having dismissed Brown’s FHA, ECOA, section 1981, and 1982 claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Brown’s remaining state claims and does not address CNB’s arguments regarding dismissal of these claims.

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.

Watters v. Breja · filed 2024-01-18(c)(3)

And the Court ... declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's transactionally related state law ... claims, given that it dismissed the associated federal claim.

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

Brown v. UConn Health Dept of Otalaryngology · filed 2024-01-18(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff alleges any claims under state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims as all federal claims in this action are dismissed as not plausible.

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

Tate v. Doe · filed 2024-01-18(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, district courts “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over remaining claims once it has “dismissed all ... claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Accordingly, the Court elects to decline jurisdiction over the remainder of these claims.

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

Jackson v. Destiny's Child · filed 2024-01-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed those of Plaintiff's claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction (his federal-law claims), the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any of his state-law claims that remain.

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.

Curtis v. Inslee · 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) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal-law claims.

Dixon v. Hahn · filed 2024-01-23(c)(3)

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims under federal law for the reasons set forth in the Court’s August 7, 2023 order (ECF 5), and declines to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Zeng v. Chell · filed 2024-01-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the plaintiff's federal claims, the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims of assault and battery against Detective Febus and against the City of New York on a respondeat superior basis is appropriate.

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.

Boyette v. Montefiore Medical Center · filed 2024-01-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the plaintiff's federal claims, the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims of assault and battery against Detective Febus and against the City of New York on a respondeat superior basis is appropriate.

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

White v. Pine Ridge Community Association · filed 2024-01-23(c)(3)

Where a plaintiff brings claims under both federal and state law, as here, and all the claims over which the court has original jurisdiction are dismissed, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. 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.

Sullenberger v. City of Coral Gables · filed 2024-01-24(c)(3)

And a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Wheelwright v. Ogden City Airport · filed 2024-01-24(c)(3)

Relatedly, “[u]nder 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the . . . court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1248 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Again, because we affirm the court’s dismissal of the federal claims, the court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state 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.

Wagner v. Scheirer · filed 2024-01-24(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). ... There is no reason to deviate from this general rule here. ... Therefore, Mr. Wagner’s federal claims will be dismissed with prejudice, and Mr. Wagner’s state claims will be dismissed without prejudice to be litigated in state court, should he choose to pursue them there.

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.

K.P. v. Macon County R-1 School District · filed 2024-01-09(c)(3)

No federal claims remain in this case. It is within the discretionary authority of this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once the Court has dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 903 F.3d 786, 792–93 (8th Cir. 2018); see generally Brown v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 738 F.3d 926, 933 (8th Cir. 2013). Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all remaining claims in this case and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Doe v. Hunter · filed 2024-01-10(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims under federal law, it declines to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when economy, convenience, fairness and comity favor that result.

Catherine McKoy, Marcus Frazier and Lynn Chadwick v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump · filed 2024-01-11(c)(3)

For the above reasons, and in light of the parties’ stated preferences and the ambiguities concerning appeal after severance and transfer, 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 related state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially when retaining the state claim would offer no efficiency benefit.

Russo v. Patchogue-Medford School District · filed 2024-01-12(c)(3)

A court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” under various different circumstances, including when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, it would be no more efficient for the parties to litigate a Section 3020-a claim in this Court than it would be for Plaintiff to file such a claim in state court. Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and dismissing Plaintiff’s Section 3020-a claim without prejudice to Plaintiff asserting that claim in state court, is therefore proper.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the case is at an early stage and no federal issues remain.

Iosilevich v. Walmart Inc. · filed 2024-01-12(c)(3)

Given the early stage of these proceedings and the absence of any remaining federal issues, 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 the claims within its original jurisdiction.

ATKINS v. HUDSON COUNTY REHABILITATION CENTER · filed 2024-01-16(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the § 1983 claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it declines supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims at this time.

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

St. Hillaire v. Montefiore Medical Center · filed 2024-01-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s Title VII and First Amendment claims for relief—i.e., the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction—the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any outstanding state and local law claims.

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

Gonzalez v. Tejada · filed 2024-01-16(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.

Joseph v. County of Westchester · filed 2024-01-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s Title VII claims for relief—i.e., the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction—the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any outstanding 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.

Smith v. The State of New York · filed 2024-01-16(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal ADA claim is dismissed as moot at an early stage.

Benford v. 777 Commerce LLC · filed 2024-01-02(c)

If an ADA claim is mooted and dismissed at an early stage, the Court has the discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over 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.

Paixao v. City of Greenwood · filed 2024-01-02(c)(3)

As the Court has ruled in other opinions and the order issued this day, the federal claims which provided original jurisdiction in this matter have been dismissed. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims brought against Defendant Claire Williams.

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

Jackson v. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2024-01-02(c)(3)

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

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

Gonzalez v. Tejada · filed 2024-01-02(c)(3)

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

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

Gorneff v. Ilishayev · filed 2024-01-02(c)(3)

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

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

Watson v. Sharpton · filed 2024-01-02(c)(3)

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

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

McCabe v. Trump · filed 2024-01-02(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims under federal law, it declines to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law.

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 2024-01-03(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 when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Shabazz v. Diggs · filed 2024-01-03(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Stampfl v. Eisenpress · filed 2024-01-03(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.

Harris v. CYA Management · filed 2024-01-03(c)(3)

Furthermore, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Warman v. Mount St. Joseph University · filed 2024-01-03(c)(3)

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. ... Here, having dismissed all the 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Starks v. K.E.L.L.Y Youth Services, Inc. · filed 2024-01-03(c)(3)

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. ... Accordingly, with discretion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

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

DOBBS v. S.C.I. PHOENIX SUPERINTENDENT SORBER · filed 2024-01-03(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gaston v. Lake County · filed 2024-01-04(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims against the Public Defender’s Office Defendants.

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

BROOKS v. STEBERGER · filed 2024-01-04(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed his federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental 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.

Gilliehan v. St. Charles County Court · filed 2024-01-05(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s federal claims are subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for the reasons outlined below. In addition, to the extent plaintiff asserts any state law claims, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gregory Properties, Inc. v. Marchbanks · filed 2024-01-05(c)(3)

Alternatively, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction.

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

CARTER v. CHILD & YOUTH SERVICES · filed 2024-01-05(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Carter’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims he may have intended to raise.

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

Severino-Mota v. Lidwell · filed 2024-01-05(c)(3)

In this case, since the Court is dismissing every claim against the Medical Defendants over which it had original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C: § 1367(c)(3).

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

Holbrook v. Elkins · filed 2024-01-08(c)(3)

To the extent that Holbrook intended to assert claims under state law, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the only federal claim, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and needless decisions of state law.

Memmelaar v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2024-01-08(c)

The decision as to whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is left to the discretion of the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

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

Partee v. Lewis · filed 2024-01-08(c)(3)

Because the complaint fails to state any federal claims for relief, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Plaintiff can be understood to bring.

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

McDaniel v. Credit Management LP · filed 2024-01-08(c)(3)

Finally, having rejected McDaniel’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her UCC claim against Spectrum.

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

Serrant v. 46th Precinct Police Department · filed 2024-01-08(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. 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.

Powell v. City of New York · filed 2024-01-08(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.

Anderson v. Hochul · filed 2024-01-08(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting, including his breach of contract claim against former Governor Cuomo.

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

Galloway-Bey v. Gott (TV2) · filed 2024-01-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiff’s federal claims against these defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear any state law claims that may be set forth in the complaint.

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

MARABLE v. OAKS INTEGRATED CARE · filed 2024-04-02(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of Plaintiff’s state law claims having now dismissed Plaintiff’s federal Title VII and FLSA claims.

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

BENITEZ v. HAMMONTON POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2024-04-02(c)(3)

THE COURT FINDING, that 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,” ... THE COURT FINDING that the following factors compel the Court to decline its continuing exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and remand the matter to state court: ... ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF. No. 47) is GRANTED; and further ORDERED that this matter be remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey; and further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case.

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

Bouchard v. Summit Ridge Energy, LLC · filed 2024-04-03(c)(3)

This Court has only supplemental jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's remaining claims, all of which arise under Virginia state law. Where, as here, all federal claims that served as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction have been dismissed, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court has wide discretion in deciding whether to retain jurisdiction. Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995). In determining whether to exercise this jurisdiction, courts consider “convenience and fairness to the parties, the existence of any underlying issues of federal policy, comity, and consideration of judicial economy.” /d. Here, the litigation has only just begun, so the parties would experience minimal inconvenience by having to refile in state court. Moreover, the case now rests on questions of state law that are best addressed by Virginia state courts. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the remainder of Plaintiff's 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.

Edwards v. Valentine · filed 2024-04-03(c)(3)

As to Plaintiff's state-law claims, although it appears that they would likewise be time- barred, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ...if... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jJurisdiction.”); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

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

FHMC LLC v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona Incorporated · filed 2024-04-04(c)(3)

Because the jurisdiction granting claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. District courts 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).

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

FLUELLEN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2024-04-04(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court is permitted to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Given that this case is at the 12(b)(6) stage and the only federal claim is dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II and III.

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.

Niermeier v. Richland County Government · filed 2024-04-04(c)(3)

The Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state law claims, however, once it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... In sum, the Court is of the firm opinion it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Niermeier’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, particularly when the case has not progressed substantially and no particular prejudice will result.

WIGGS v. United States · filed 2024-04-05(c)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.6 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Such a dismissal is appropriate where, as here, the only federal claims have been dismissed, the case has not progressed substantially, and no particular prejudice will result.

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

COOPER v. AVILES · filed 2024-04-08(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guiding the choice.

Thayer v. Howard · filed 2024-04-08(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” ... With this precedent in mind, the court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

DAVIS v. JANE DOE · filed 2024-04-08(c)(3)

Because Davis’s federal claims will be dismissed, I decline to 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.

SINGLETON · filed 2024-04-09(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when judicial economy and convenience do not favor retaining them.

BREAKWATER TREATMENT AND WELLNESS CORP. v. THE CITY OF ASBURY PARK · filed 2024-04-10(c)(3)

Here, the Court “finds that no judicial economy or convenience concerns favor exercising 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, considering the statutory factors and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Akula v. Cassidy · filed 2024-04-10(c)(3)

And under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(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.” ... Guided by the statutory factors set forth in Section 1367(c) and the common law considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court finds it appropriate to decline jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Manley v. HRA/DSS · filed 2024-04-10(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.

When all federal claims have been dismissed, a court generally declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims under § 1367(c)(3).

Johnson v. Villard · filed 2024-04-10(c)(3)

Generally, where all federal claims have been dismissed, federal courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701, 709 (6th Cir.2009). There is no basis to depart from this general rule here, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s remaining state-law 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.

Lukuta v. Angelella · filed 2024-04-10(c)(3)

Since the court will dismiss all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendent state law claim.

After the federal claims are dismissed, § 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Williams v. Judge Brian C. Wimes, Jr. · filed 2024-04-11(c)(3)

As for Williams’s state law tort claim, the District Court was within its discretion to dismiss it once the federal claims were dis- missed.

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

Ekpe v. Patel · filed 2024-04-12(c)(3)

Having granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Ekpe’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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Winters v. West Oaks Housing LLC · filed 2024-04-15(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.

Sulaymu-Bey v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey · filed 2024-04-15(c)(3)

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

Abdullah v. Courtney · filed 2024-04-15(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.

Kelly v. City of New York · filed 2024-04-15(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.

West v. The City of New York · filed 2024-04-15(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). ... The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of 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.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 2024-04-15(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff does not state a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law defamation claim, or any other state-law claims, that Plaintiff is attempting to raise in this action.

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

Hickman v. New York County Defender Services · filed 2024-04-15(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 the federal claims.

Hart v. Shmayenik · filed 2024-04-15(c)(3)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Torres v. Department of Social Services · filed 2024-04-15(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 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Komatsu v. The City of New York · filed 2024-04-15(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.

Culbreth v. Wellpath · filed 2024-04-15(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.

Masri v. Liebowitz · filed 2024-04-15(c)(3)

Having dismissed those of Plaintiff’s claims of which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any of his claims under state law.

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

Avila v. ACACIA Network, Inc. · filed 2024-04-15(c)(3)

A federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of claims under state law when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed those of Plaintiff’s claims of which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any of his claims under state law.

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

Rogers v. Lopez · filed 2024-04-15(c)(3)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Rogers v. Blythedale Children's Hospital · filed 2024-04-15(c)(3)

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

Sharaydeh v. Warren County Ohio · filed 2024-04-15(c)(3)

However, “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if— . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The undersigned has explained already why Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims should be dismissed with prejudice.11 Thus, their remaining state law claims should be, too.

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

(PC) Snow v. Macomber · filed 2024-04-16(c)(3)

Therefore, plaintiff's federal claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. To the extent plaintiff might have alleged any viable state law claims, the magistrate judge did not err in declining to address them.

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, considering the stage of the case and reasons to retain jurisdiction.

Catherine v. Huge Ass Beers · filed 2024-04-16(c)(3)

Because there are no remaining claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, this case is still in the preliminary stages, and the parties have not presented any factors justifying the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Phillips v. Dona Ana County Sheriff's Department · filed 2024-04-16(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case.