28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Otter Creek Farms LLC v. Waukesha County · filed 2024-04-18(c)(3)

With the dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the remaining claims are state-law claims over which the court has supplemental jurisdiction. As explained, there is a presumption that the court will relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. See Dietchweiler, 827 F.3d at 631; RWJ Mgmt. Co., 672 F.3d at 479. There is no reason to ignore the presumption; 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Mitchell v. Saint Louis County, Missouri · filed 2024-04-18(c)(3)

When supplemental jurisdiction over a claim exists under § 1367(a), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when, like here, the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. § 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.

Arizmendez v. McCourt · filed 2024-04-19(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff once again seeks to present state law claims, the Court once again declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any supplemental state law claim because it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

THOMPSON v. HUDAK · filed 2024-04-19(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff alleges violations of state law, such as those pertaining to security deposits, see D.E. 1-5 at 21-22, this Court need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction as it is dismissing all federal claims affording it jurisdiction.

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

Tri-State Floors, Inc. v. Old Rule Services, LLC · filed 2024-04-19(c)(3)

Here, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction given the Court’s overburdened docket? and the parties’ ongoing parallel litigation in state court.

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

Tucker v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. · filed 2024-04-22(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state and city law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . [once] the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”); Calcano, 36 F.4th at 78 (affirming district court’s decision to “declin[e] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [p]laintiffs’ state and local law claims”) (citing Giordano v. City of New York, 274 F.3d 740, 754 (2d Cir. 2001)).

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

Navarro v. Carroll · filed 2024-04-22(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 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.

Hickman v. NYCPD Pct 030 · filed 2024-04-22(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.

Tillman v. USPS · filed 2024-04-22(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.

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

Kourani v. Department of Justice · filed 2024-04-22(c)(3)

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

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

Thornock v. JES Foundation Repair · filed 2024-04-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims that give the court original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Thornock’s remaining state law claims.

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

Garcia v. County of Napa · filed 2024-04-23(c)(3)

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the federal claims, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to address the pendant state claims. See Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

ROMAN v. COUNTY OF HUDSON · filed 2024-04-23(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal claims against the Moving Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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.

McKenzie v. Big Apple Training Inc. · filed 2024-04-23(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims asserted as a basis for original jurisdiction.

Moore v. Pacific View Apartments Carlsbad LLC · filed 2024-04-24(c)

Because the Court dismisses all federal and state law claims alleged for failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

Odom v. Beard · filed 2024-04-24(c)(3)

Finally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. 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 jurisdiction.”); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

When all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after weighing economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Powerhouse Beverage Company LLC v. Nahoum · filed 2024-04-24(c)(3)

Once the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may de- cline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” the remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). But the Court “must still meaningfully balance the supplemental jurisdiction fac- tors”: economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77, 86 (2d Cir. 2018). ... So all the supplemental-jurisdiction factors point toward concentrating efforts on the state cases and cutting off these parallel federal proceedings.

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.

Delacruz v. Club Monaco U.S., LLC · filed 2024-04-26(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state and city 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.

MASSUNG v. NAVIENT CORPORATION · filed 2024-04-26(c)(3)

Here, because the Court has dismissed the FDCPA, the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Massung’s state law UTPCPL and defamation claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when no extraordinary circumstances warrant retaining them.

BYRD v. INVENTIV HEALTH · filed 2024-04-29(c)(3)

To the extent that the Complaint seeks to plead vague state law tort claims arising out of email communications Defendants sent to her during the two-year period preceding the Complaint—including the April 2020 (see Super. Ct. SJ Br. at 96), August 2020 (see id. at 97), and October 2020 recruiting emails (see Compl. at 31; Super. Ct. SJ Br. at 98), and the March, April, May/June, and July 2022 recruiting emails and LinkedIn messages (see Compl. at 10–12; Super. Ct. SJ Br at 108, 110; ECF No. 1 at 132)—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims because the federal claims are being dismissed with prejudice and because the Court finds no extraordinary circumstances warranting its retention of 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.

Antrobus v. City of New York · filed 2024-04-29(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all the federal claims in this action, I decline to retain jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 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 state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Levine v. Project Renewal · filed 2024-04-29(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and declines under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Goldson v. Department of Corrections, NYC · filed 2024-04-29(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 the only federal claim.

Percival Partners Limited v. Nduom · filed 2024-04-30(c)(3)

Because we disagree with the premise – the survival of the civil RICO action – we also see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); PEM Entities LLC v. Cnty. of Franklin, 57 F.4th 178, 184 (4th Cir. 2023).

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 when no extraordinary circumstances favor retaining them.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF BREAKER ELECTRIC, INC. v. VALIANT GROUP, LLC · filed 2024-04-30(c)(3)

No extraordinary circumstances exist favoring the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

FELDER v. United States · filed 2024-04-30(c)(3)

Finally, all federal claims having been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, including any claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (“NJCRA”) or potential state medical malpractice claims against CFG Medical Services. See ECF No. 3 at 10 (alleging improper dental care); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

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

SHAW v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2024-04-30(c)(3)

Finally, all federal claims having been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, including any claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (“NJCRA”) or potential state medical malpractice claims against CFG Medical Services.

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

D'ALLESSANDRO v. United States · filed 2024-04-30(c)(3)

Finally, all federal claims having been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, including any claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (“NJCRA”) or potential state medical malpractice claims against CFG Medical Services.

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

MENDEZ v. United States · filed 2024-04-30(c)(3)

Finally, all federal claims having been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, including any claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (“NJCRA”) or potential state medical malpractice claims against CFG Medical Services.

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

United States v. East Coast Orthotic and Prosthetic Corporation · filed 2024-04-30(c)(3)

Considering the Cohill factors, this case falls squarely into the “usual case” in which the factors point toward declining to exercise 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Pullen v. Baltimore Lutheran High School Association · filed 2024-05-01(c)(3)

In brief, the requirements of jurisdiction have not been met and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in Buettner-Hartsoe and Pullen.

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

Buettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High School Association · filed 2024-05-01(c)(3)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” once the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” In brief, the requirements of jurisdiction have not been met and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in Buettner-Hartsoe and Pullen.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it resolves all federal claims before trial, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Di Iorio v. The County Of Suffolk · filed 2024-05-01(c)(3)

Accordingly, because this Court grants summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s federal claims under the ADA, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims under the NYSHRL.

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

Lillacalenia v. The City of Louisville Kentucky · filed 2024-05-02(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff's federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law intentional infliction of emotion distress claim.

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

Lillacalenia v. State of Kentucky · filed 2024-05-02(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff's federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law intentional infliction of emotion distress claim.

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

Grooms v. Privette · filed 2024-05-02(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed Counts One and Two above, it no longer exercises supplemental jurisdiction to consider Grooms’ Count Three Missouri law claims.

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over potential state-law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor doing so.

Scelza v. Department of Suffolk County Corrections · filed 2024-05-02(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of a plausible federal claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any state law claims that may be reasonably construed from the amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims contained in Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

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

KOL Hadash Humanistic Congregation v. PayPal, Inc. · filed 2024-05-03(c)(3)

But the Lanham Act federal claim (Count I) has been dismissed and district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Metro. Life Ins., 578 F.3d 505, 514 (7th Cir. 2009). This case was originally brought in the Circuit Court of Cook County, the remaining claims are at an early stage, involve issues of Illinois law, and this Court has not expended significant resources on the remaining claims to date. Nor has any court determined whether these new claims and the individual defendants are also subject to mandatory arbitration. As a result, the best course of action is for this Court to exercise its discretion and decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims that were not already compelled to arbitration.

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; early dismissal of the federal claims favors that choice.

Billings v. The Ideal Group, Inc. · filed 2024-05-03(c)(3)

Nonetheless, section 1367(c) confers discretion upon district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Constantine v. New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance Div · filed 2024-05-06(c)(3)

Having determined that Constantine’s federal claims were rightly dismissed, we conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over his state constitutional and statutory 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.

Ruiz v. The City of New York Commission on Human Rights · filed 2024-05-06(c)(3)

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

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

Broughton v. V.W. Credit Volkswagon · filed 2024-05-06(c)(3)

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

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

Hernandez v. West Texas Treasures Estate Sales, LLC · filed 2024-05-07(c)(3)

The current situation falls under category three now that the Court has dismissed all federal claims of which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Hernaiz v. Rivera · filed 2024-05-07(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Hernaiz’s federal claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when the federal claim fails initial review.

Haney v. North Carolina Department of Correction · filed 2024-05-07(c)(3)

Because this § 1983 claim fails initial review, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s North Carolina negligence claim that is based on the same alleged incidents.

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

Stevens v. Pfizer, Inc. · filed 2024-05-08(c)(3)

If a district court has dismissed all federal claims, then the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Delacruz v. Tanimura & Antle, Inc. · filed 2024-05-09(c)(3)

As all of Mr. Delacruz’s federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of the state law claims asserted in the FAC, unless and until a viable federal Rehabilitation Act claim is adequately pled.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims are eliminated, following consideration of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Capolupo-Brooks v. O'Brien · filed 2024-05-09(c)(3)

Although the parties have submitted briefing on the merits of Ms. Capolupo Brooks’s negligence claims, see Opp’n at 7–14; Reply at 2–10, because no federal claims remain, the Court must first consider whether exercising supplemental jurisdiction over these claims is appropriate. ... Given this Court’s limited involvement in this case thus far, considerations of judicial economy and convenience therefore do not favor litigating Plaintiff’s claims in federal court. ... Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Capolupo Brooks’s remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that all federal claims were dismissed when federal claims remain pending.

Nesgoda v. Rooney · filed 2024-05-09(c)(3)

Lastly, the R&R recommends dismissing the state law claims because dismissal of all of the federal claims is recommended. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c)(3) (“The 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.”); ... The court will not adopt the recommendation to dismiss all of the federal claims. Accordingly, the recommendation that the pendant state law claims be dismissed will also not be 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.

Rowe v. Santilli · filed 2024-05-10(c)(3)

And because the Court may not exercise diversity jurisdiction over Ms. Rowe’s remaining state law claims, the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Because Ms. Rowe brings numerous claims, likely sounding in state tort law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Zimmerman v. Petrie · filed 2024-05-13(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed the plaintiff’s federal claim, it will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claim.

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

Jonathan & Esther Zuhovitzky v. AG · filed 2024-05-13(c)(3)

Given that the Zuhovitzkys’ RICO claims were the only claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims after the RICO claims had 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.

Nash v. Pacheco · filed 2024-05-13(c)(3)

Here, the Court will not consider Nash’s state law claims because, for the reasons set forth in the preceding sections, all his federal claims are being dismissed with prejudice.

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

Guzman v. Miller · filed 2024-05-13(c)(3)

Based on the circumstances of this case, and because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.

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

Decatus v. the City · filed 2024-05-13(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). ... Because Plaintiff does not currently state a federal claim, the Court declines, at this time, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that Plaintiff is attempting to raise.

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

FRANCIS v. SMITH · filed 2024-05-14(c)

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

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

Viera v. DEA Special Agent Todd Riley · filed 2024-05-14(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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Harrison v. Wellpath, LLC · filed 2024-05-15(c)(3)

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

Canaan X L.P. v. MoneyLion Inc. · filed 2024-05-15(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) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering fairness to the parties and judicial economy.

Reiner v. Northumberland County · filed 2024-05-15(c)(3)

As all federal claims have been dismissed, this Court finds that declining supplemental jurisdiction is proper, not unfair to the parties, and does not unduly hinder judicial economy.

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

Shaw v. Dart · filed 2024-05-29(c)(3)

A 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The case is still in its early stages, so it is appropriate that the Court relinquish jurisdiction to state court.

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

LAVELL v. CAMDEN COUNTY COLLEGE · filed 2024-06-27(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), federal district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Simmons v. Casella · filed 2024-06-27(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this single claim as all of the claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction have now been dismissed.

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

Lake v. HealthAlliance Hospital Broadway Campus · filed 2024-06-27(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of plaintiff’s 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 state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Parker v. New York State Division of Parole · filed 2024-06-27(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.

Broughton v. Truist Bank · filed 2024-06-27(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.

S.H. v. Board of Trustees of the Colleton County School District · filed 2024-06-27(c)(3)

Because there are no federal claims remaining, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.

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

MacDonald v. State of Alaska · filed 2024-06-28(c)(3)

Having considered the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims here.

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

Holmes v. Stone, III · filed 2024-06-28(c)(3)

Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff is asserting state law claims, the magistrate judge recommended that, should the Court dismiss the federal claims, the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... After a careful and thorough review of the Report and the record under the appropriate standards, as set forth above, the Court agrees with the conclusions of the magistrate judge and finds no reason to deviate from the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition as set forth in the Report. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the Report (ECF No. 12), which is incorporated herein.

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

Balderas v. Gonzalez · filed 2024-06-28(c)(3)

Rather, because the court has concluded that the plaintiff has no federal claim, the court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Lavite v. Dunstan, 932 F.3d 1020, 1034-35 (7th Cir. 2019).

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

Birkley v. Nitz · filed 2024-06-28(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed the plaintiff’s federal claims, it will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining 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.

Burke v. City of San Diego · filed 2024-07-01(c)(3)

Because the Court has found none of Plaintiff’s federal claims adequately state a plausible federal claim for relief, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Leake v. Garden City Union Free School District Board of Education · filed 2024-07-01(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all the federal claims in this action, I decline to retain jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Jenkins v. Everette · filed 2024-07-02(c)(3)

Having considered all factors relevant to the discretion afforded under § 1367(c)(3), the Court concludes that it should exercise its discretion not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim against Defendant Everette.

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

Harry v. Wedbush Securities Inc. · filed 2024-07-02(c)(3)

Because all of the federal claims that Draper has asserted in the complaint have been dismissed with prejudice, the Court again declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

ACUNA-VIALES v. PASQUALE · filed 2024-07-02(c)(3)

Section 1367 (c)(3) provides that district courts “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Here, the Court has dismissed the federal claims at an early stage and declines supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims at this time.

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

Doall v. New York State Unified Court System · filed 2024-07-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims,13 in its discretion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims against the Defendants.

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

Devol Pond Association v. Capone · filed 2024-07-08(c)(3)

With the dismissal of all federal claims in this case, the Court will exercise its “discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining 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.

Arrington v. MZ 2640 Owner LLP · filed 2024-07-08(c)(3)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any 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.

Thompson v. Archuleta · filed 2024-07-08(c)(3)

For these same reasons, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Thompson’s potential state-law claims. With all federal claims dismissed, any state-law claims are more properly evaluated by Utah state courts.

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

Burton v. Oak Point University · filed 2024-07-09(c)(3)

However, a 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.” ... To the extent that Burton asserts common law state claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these 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.

Phillips v. Rose · filed 2024-07-09(c)(3)

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

Gu v. The City of New York · filed 2024-07-09(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 a remaining state law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, while exercising jurisdiction over other state law claims when judicial economy and fairness justify it.

LITMAN v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2024-07-10(c)(3)

“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)); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... We have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of fair representation, defamation, wrongful termination, and whistleblower retaliation against the Hearing defendants and PFT defendants in the interest of judicial economy and fairness to the parties. ... Because it requires application of Pennsylvania law, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the whistleblower retaliation claim against the SDP defendants.

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

WEEMS v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2024-07-10(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines 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 at an early stage.

WHEELERWEAVER v. C.O. TARGGART · filed 2024-07-11(c)(3)

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

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

J.M. v. Sessions · filed 2024-07-11(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the federal claims, and after carefully considering the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court will decline to address the state-law claims.

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

DOE v. NORTHERN REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2024-07-11(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, and it declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

Walker v. Abbaszadeh · filed 2024-07-11(c)(3)

Since the court has dismissed both claims, 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 a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Campbell v. Temesgen · filed 2024-07-12(c)(3)

In the absence of viable claims that come within federal question jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Campbell’s claim regarding informed consent which is governed by State law.

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.

Murphy v. Autozone Inc. · filed 2024-07-12(c)(3)

Here, in its discretion, 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, taking judicial economy, convenience, and fairness into account.

Dennis v. Susquehanna Township · filed 2024-07-15(c)(3)

Having granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion with respect to all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction, the court finds it prudent after considering the factors of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants, and declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims of assault and battery and malicious prosecution as well as Officer Dupler’s state law counterclaim.

Section 1367 permits and generally favors declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all associated federal claims are dismissed.

Lyndon's LLC v. City of Detroit, Mich. · filed 2024-07-16(c)(3)

Both federal statutory provisions and our precedent not only permit but encourage district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are left without an anchor when their associated federal claims are dismissed.

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.

Hajjar v. St. Luke's Health System, LTD · filed 2024-07-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed Counts I and II, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim, Count III.

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

Evans v. The Barn of Quincy, Inc. · filed 2024-07-16(c)(3)

Furthermore, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Discovery is far from complete and few federal judicial resources have been expended. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims (Counts IV, V, VI, and VII).

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

DINGLE v. TOMMAGE · filed 2024-07-16(c)

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

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

Schooley v. Flowers · filed 2024-07-17(c)(3)

And lastly, because the district court dismissed Schooley’s federal claims, it was within its discretion to decline to exercise sup- plemental jurisdiction over his remaining quiet title claim. See 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 law causes of action.

Hubert v. Department of Correction · filed 2024-07-17(c)(3)

Further, having dismissed the federal law causes of action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 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.

Futch v. Libby · filed 2024-07-17(c)(3)

Because the Court has already found that Plaintiff has failed to submit evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on any of his federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim under O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4.

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

Saul v. MTGLQ Investors, L.P · filed 2024-07-17(c)(3)

With no federal law claims remaining in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses this case.

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

Pauletta v. Diehl · filed 2024-07-17(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed, especially early in the case.

Rodriguez v. De Jesus-Rojas · filed 2024-07-17(c)(3)

Federal courts, however, should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed. ... Here, Rodriguez’s federal claim against De Jesus is dismissed prior to completion of discovery and before a trial has been scheduled. Accordingly, the court GRANTS De Jesus’s motion to dismiss the claims against De Jesus made under Puerto Rico law.

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.

Sanders v. Splittorf · filed 2024-07-19(c)(3)

The Court has considered the relevant factors and finds that it is appropriate not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 3 of this case and to allow Sanders to refile that claim in state court if he chooses.

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

Burnett v. Michigan, State of · filed 2024-07-19(c)(3)

And having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines the exercise of supplemental over any state law claims invoked by Plaintiff. 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.

Travis v. Family Support Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services · filed 2024-07-19(c)(3)

Fourth, because Plaintiff’s federal claims are all subject to dismissal, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims (e.g., “fraud,” “state law violations,” “common law torts,” “unreasonable detention,” “defimation [sic] of character,” “fraud upon the court by the court,” “fraud upon the court”).

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.

Hix v. SKS Development LLC · filed 2024-07-19(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. § 1367(c). The Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Schweitzer v. Becerra · filed 2024-07-19(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Schweitzer’s other claims, this Court declines to exercise any supplemental jurisdiction it might have over his state-law ITED claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Alexander v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · filed 2024-07-22(c)(3)

In light of the stipulated dismissal of the federal statutory claims that had been brought against Halverson’s now-dismissed co-defendants, the Court must determine whether to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the single state law claim against Halverson. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the factors of convenience and fairness are neutral. However, the interests of comity and judicial economy favor withholding the exercise of pendent jurisdiction over Alexander’s MCFA claim.

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

Moore, Jr. v. Wiser · filed 2024-07-22(c)(3)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Moore’s claims arising under Tennessee law because the Court is dismissing the amended complaint’s federal claims with prejudice.

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

Gabaldon v. New Mexico State Police · filed 2024-07-23(c)(3)

The Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” under § 1367(a) if the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” § 1367(c)(3). ... This Court has dismissed all of Mr. Gabaldon’s federal claims. ... The Court will therefore remand the remaining state law claims to state court.

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

STEVENS v. PHILLY LIV BACON LLC · filed 2024-07-23(c)

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

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

CO2 Committee, Inc. v. Montezuma County · filed 2024-07-24(c)(3)

Because this Court dismisses the relevant federal claims, the Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Rodriguez v. FastMed Urgent Care, P.C. · filed 2024-07-24(c)(3)

Eliminating all federal claims before trial generally suffices for a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims. ... Thus, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Rodriguez’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.

Delacruz v. Tanimura & Antle, Inc. · filed 2024-07-25(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). As Mr. Delacruz’s sole federal claim is dismissed without leave to amend, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of the state law claims asserted in the SAC.

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

VanHauer v. Minneapolis Police Department · filed 2024-07-25(c)(3)

To the extent state-law claims remain, 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, where the case remains in its earliest stages and Mr. VanHauer’s state-law claims are ill-defined.

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.

Ubalde v. Maimonides Medical Center · filed 2024-07-26(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the federally preempted claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims of harassment, tortious interference with an employment relationship, IIED, and negligent supervision.

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

Impex Trading International, Inc. v. USVI · filed 2024-07-26(c)(3)

Finally, the Court does not believe it is appropriate to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining territorial law claims, given the dismissal of the federal law claims and the lack of compelling circumstances that would support the Court’s continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

B&B Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States Virgin Islands · filed 2024-07-26(c)(3)

The Court sees no unique or compelling circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining territorial law claims. The federal claim has been dismissed well in advance of trial, and before the court has reached many of the substantive issues involved in these cases.

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

United Corporation v. USVI · filed 2024-07-26(c)(3)

Finally, the Court does not believe it is appropriate to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining territorial law claims, given the dismissal of the federal law claims and the lack of compelling circumstances that would support the Court’s continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Bluewater Construction, Inc. v. The United States Virgin Islands · filed 2024-07-26(c)(3)

Finally, the Court does not believe it is appropriate to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining territorial law claims, given the dismissal of the federal law claims and the lack of compelling circumstances that would support the Court’s continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Apex Construction Company, Inc v. USVI · filed 2024-07-26(c)(3)

Finally, the Court does not believe it is appropriate to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining territorial law claims, given the dismissal of the federal law claims and the lack of compelling circumstances that would support the Court’s continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

MSI Building Supplies, Inc. v. The United States Virgin Islands · filed 2024-07-26(c)(3)

Not only is the decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction discretionary, but Section 1367 also expressly provides the federal district courts with authority “to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if ‘the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]”’ Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)) (citing New Rock Asset Partners v. Preferred Entity Advancements, Inc., 101 F.3d 1492, 1507 n.11 (3d Cir. 1996)).

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

StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology · filed 2024-07-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction (and because plaintiffs have not pled diversity jurisdiction), the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state- law claims.

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

Carpentier v. Mitchell School District · filed 2024-07-31(c)(3)

Although the court agrees that Carpentier’s state-law claims form part of the same “case or controversy,” because Carpentier’s federal-law § 1983 claim has been dismissed, the court 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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

Thomas v. Brooklyn Dental Advance Dental Care of New York · filed 2024-08-01(c)(3)

Here, in light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal law claims, principles of judicial economy and comity counsel heavily in favor of declining to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and such claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Run The World Inc. v. Jiang · filed 2024-08-02(c)(3)

Because the Court dismissed the sole federal claim among Jiang’s Counterclaims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) 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.

Wallace v. Wesleyan University · filed 2024-08-02(c)(3)

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

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

iBall Instruments LLC v. Butler · filed 2024-08-02(c)(3)

Additionally, the relevant factors weigh against retaining supplemental jurisdiction over iBall’s remaining state law claims now that all the federal claims have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Hollamon v. County of Wright · filed 2024-08-05(c)(3)

Having considered the relevant factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Hollamon’s state law claims.

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

Shook v. McNally · filed 2024-08-05(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim, as no federal claim has passed initial review.

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

Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. · filed 2024-08-05(c)(3)

And, in light of that disposition and after a review of the record, the Court concludes that it is prudent—and in line with, inter alia, considerations of comity and convenience—to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Two and Three.

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

Yen v. Yin · filed 2024-08-05(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the copyright action for failure to state a claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Woods v. City of Markham · filed 2024-08-06(c)(3)

A federal court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court finds, in considering the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, no persuasive reason to retain supplemental jurisdictional in this case. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining intentional infliction of emotional distress 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.

Mottola v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP · filed 2024-08-06(c)(3)

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

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

Slade v. United States · filed 2024-08-06(c)(3)

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

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

D'Aguilar v. US Bank Trust NA LSF9 Master Participation Trust · filed 2024-08-06(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Court declines 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 dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

TAIT v. LAKE REGION SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2024-08-07(c)(3)

Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Leon v. Kearney · filed 2024-08-07(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. ... Because New York state courts are better suited to adjudicate Plaintiff's remaining claims, declining to exercise jurisdiction is in the interest of judicial economy and comity with state courts.

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

Mayers v. Racino · filed 2024-08-07(c)(3)

Because, for the reasons outlined above, Plaintiff’s federal law claim is dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

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

Metropolitan Fair Housing Council of Oklahoma, Inc v. Feiock · filed 2024-08-07(c)

The federal claim in this case that is the basis for original subject matter jurisdiction is dismissed, there are no exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons to support exercising jurisdiction over the state law claim, and it is not entirely clear the nature of Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 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.

Downing v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP · filed 2024-08-07(c)(3)

As Downing’s federal claims have been dismissed, the only claims remaining are the state law claims, namely, the TPPA and THRA retaliation claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Bolton-Curley v. Bounce Media, LLC · filed 2024-08-08(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 “empowers [a] trial court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it has dismissed all of the related claims over which it has jurisdiction.” ... After consideration of the factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Menze v. Astera Health · filed 2024-08-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the federal claims over which this Court would have had original jurisdiction, any exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary.

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

Reynolds v. The City of New York · filed 2024-08-08(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.

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

Applewhite v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2024-08-08(c)(3)

The Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims, given that all the federal claims have been dismissed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” 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.

Shiao v. City of Cleveland · filed 2024-08-08(c)(3)

Having found that the City is entitled to judgment on the pleadings of Plaintiff’s federal claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims that are rooted solely in state law and remand them back to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.

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

Stanley v. King County · filed 2024-08-08(c)(3)

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

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

Ramos v. Hartford · filed 2024-08-09(c)(3)

Having decided to dismiss Captain Ramos’s federal claims, the Court must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Captain Ramos’s state law claims. ... Consistent with that analysis, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Captain Ramos’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.

Spurlin v. Wilson · filed 2024-08-09(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment for Wilson and Swift and the WKCH Defendants as to all of the federal-law claims against them, to the extent that Plaintiff alleged a state law medical malpractice claim (DN 19, PageID.68, DN 91, PageID.610-611), the Court will dismiss it with respect to both sets of defendants.

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.

Cham v. Mayo Clinic · filed 2024-08-09(c)(3)

With the dismissal of Counts 1, 2 and 4, only state law claims remain. As a result, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).