28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Hemphill v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education · filed 2024-08-12(c)(3)

In the absence of a viable federal claim, the federal question jurisdiction on which this action was removed is lacking, and the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims. ... The Court will exercise its discretion to decline any further consideration of Plaintiff's state law claims.

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

Gelb v. Niblack · filed 2024-08-12(c)(3)

Plaintiff has not provided a persuasive reason to depart from the usual practice of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once federal claims are dismissed. Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim that DOF’s rejection of his request in part violated its obligations under New York’s FOIL.

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.

Tillman v. Grenadier Realty Corp. · filed 2024-08-12(c)(3)

Because those claims are before the Court solely through its supplemental jurisdiction—and the Court has granted summary judgment to Grenadier on Plaintiff’s federal claim—the Court declines to reach the merits of the NYCHRL claim.

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

GIBSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2024-08-12(c)(3)

However, with all federal claims dismissed at this early stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

TODD JR. v. CAPITOL ONE · filed 2024-08-13(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, at this early stage in the litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Dixon v. NYCHDC · filed 2024-08-13(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all the federal claims, 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.

Perrillioux v. State of Louisiana · filed 2024-08-14(c)(3)

Additionally, given the proper dismissal of Perrillioux’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential, unidentified state-law claims.

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

Thompson-Allen v. Library · filed 2024-08-14(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that forms part of the same case or controversy as a claim having original jurisdiction if, among other circumstances, the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction and the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declination. ... Here, the Court has dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction, and it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim.

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

TZENG v. CARE ONE AT MADISON AVENUE, LLC · filed 2024-08-14(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Therefore, at this early stage in the litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Blazquez v. City of Amsterdam · filed 2024-08-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines, in its discretion, to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’ state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hill v. Village of Howard · filed 2024-08-14(c)(3)

When federal claims are dismissed, federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. ... Because nothing suggests that the presumption should be ignored here, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Sleik v. Village of Howard · filed 2024-08-14(c)(3)

When federal claims are dismissed, federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. ... Because nothing suggests that the presumption should be ignored here, 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 the federal claims.

Newsome v. Barclays Bank Delaware · filed 2024-08-15(c)(3)

However, in the absence of a viable federal claim, the federal question jurisdiction on which this action was removed is lacking and the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims. ... In the exercise of its discretion, the Court will decline any further consideration of Plaintiff's state law claims, leaving the merits of those claims to be determined in state court.

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

HENDERSON v. NEWARK BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2024-08-15(c)(3)

Here, remand appears the appropriate course, rather than retaining supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367. No federal claims remain, and Plaintiff initially filed this action in state court. 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 Plaintiff’s state law claims (Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and X).

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

Porras v. IBX Construction · filed 2024-08-15(c)(3)

The Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims against the Bolex defendants because the federal claims against them 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.

Wah v. Vargas · filed 2024-08-15(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.

Blair v. Salamon · filed 2024-08-15(c)(3)

To the extent that Blair is attempting to assert state-law assault and battery claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims because the Court has dismissed his federal claims.

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

Dalavai v. the Regents · filed 2024-08-16(c)(3)

But, even if he had raised it, the district court was within its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims after it had dismissed all federal 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 within its original jurisdiction.

Nelson v. Lanphaer · filed 2024-08-16(c)(3)

Finally, 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lee v. McCracken County Jail · filed 2024-08-16(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]”).

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

Urban v. Brinkman · filed 2024-08-19(c)(3)

When federal claims are dismissed, federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

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

Doe v. City of Sunnyvale · filed 2024-08-20(c)(3)

A district court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Nothing suggests that the instant matter is any more than a usual case in which the Gibbs values point the Court toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, and the Parties are in agreement that remand of this matter is appropriate.

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

Donaghe v. Sherman Heights Elementary · filed 2024-08-20(c)(3)

Here, considering the nature of Plaintiff’s state law claims and that no federal claims remain in this case against any Defendant, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims against Defendants at this time and DISMISSES them WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Ware v. County of Saratoga · filed 2024-08-20(c)(3)

And having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, the Court declines, in its discretion, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims for assault and battery.

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

Rasmussen v. Swanson · filed 2024-08-20(c)(3)

Because none of Rasmussen’s federal claims survive summary judgment, this Court in the interests of comity and judicial economy exercises its discretion to dismiss without prejudice Rasmussen’s state-law assault and battery 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.

Cathey v. CoreCivic, Inc. · filed 2024-08-20(c)(3)

In light of its dismissal of 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 over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Perez v. Walters · filed 2024-08-20(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Martin 794831 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2024-08-21(c)(3)

Here, the Court has determined that Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable federal claim against any named Defendant. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law policy directive claims without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to raise those claims in state court.

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

Pearson 571012 v. Massie · filed 2024-08-21(c)(3)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, any intended state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

MIRETSKAYA v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2024-08-21(c)(3)

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

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

Coral Aviation Group v. Muller, Jr. · filed 2024-08-21(c)(3)

Here, we have dismissed plaintiffs’ federal claims and we will therefore decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal claim remains and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

King v. Johnson · filed 2024-08-21(c)(3)

The complaint fails to state a federal claim. Because the complaint does not state a federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any putative claims arising under state law and will dismiss those claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Harris v. Janway · filed 2024-08-22(c)(3)

Accordingly, 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 after it dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Johanan v. Broaden · filed 2024-08-22(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if that court “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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Carter v. Smith · filed 2024-08-22(c)(3)

The court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Thus, having considered the applicable factors, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Boggess v. Waterloo · filed 2024-08-23(c)(3)

Given that all federal claims have been dismissed, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, which are better addressed by the Iowa courts.

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

Sterling v. City of Lima · filed 2024-08-23(c)(3)

Nonetheless, the Court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction when the original jurisdiction claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law breach of contract claim is dismissed without prejudice.

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

Lignos-Lopez v. Servicios de Terapia Educativa Girasol, Inc. · filed 2024-08-23(c)(3)

Moreover, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, as there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

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

Collins v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services · filed 2024-08-23(c)(3)

Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims, those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Swanson v. County of Contra Costa · filed 2024-08-26(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Horsley v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. · filed 2024-08-26(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims against the Kaiser Defendants, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Sekmistrz v. City of Melvindale · filed 2024-08-26(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the federal claims, the Court will use its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

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

MCDOUGALD v. BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC · filed 2024-08-26(c)(3)

Having “dismissed all claims over which [this Court] has original jurisdiction” with respect to BMW FS and the Credit Defendants, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims that Plaintiff asserts against BMW FS and the Credit Defendants.

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

KAMINSKI v. THE OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY · filed 2024-08-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Given this guidance, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

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

Avila v. ACACIA Network, Inc. · filed 2024-08-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed 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 that have not already been dismissed in this order.

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

Banshu v. Edouard · filed 2024-08-26(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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Morris v. Ross · filed 2024-08-27(c)(3)

Here, all of plaintiff's federal claims have been eliminated. Accordingly, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law wrongful death claim, and exercises its discretion to dismiss that claim 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.

Hight v. Williams · filed 2024-08-27(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Thus, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

KING v. VERIZON NEW JERSEY, INC. · filed 2024-08-27(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims in King’s Complaint (breach of contract, harassment, and so on).

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

Go New York Tours Inc. v. Gray Line New York Tours, Inc. · filed 2024-08-27(c)(3)

As Go New York’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Donnelly Act claim, which is dismissed without prejudice.

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

Lopes v. City of New York · filed 2024-08-27(c)(3)

Because all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ non-federal claims (Counts Two and Three of the Complaint).

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

English v. United States of America · filed 2024-08-27(c)(3)

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

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

North v. Harris Central Appraisal District · filed 2024-08-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal causes of action in this case, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over North’s state-law claims. Federal district courts have the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; that discretion is guided by the statutory factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and the common-law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

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.

Soloman v. Villanueva · filed 2024-08-27(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction over Soloman’s state law claims after dismissing Soloman’s federal claims.

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

Smith v. Fenty · filed 2010-02-16(c)(3)

In light of the court’s determination that the plaintiff has not stated a federal claim against defendants Miller, Fenty and Brown, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over ... any common law claims against those defendants.

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

McIntyre v. District of Columbia Government, City of Washington, D.C. · filed 2010-06-14(c)(3)

this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any other intended performance claims against Rochen.

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

Brundidge v. BRIM Properties · filed 2020-07-29(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state- law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Zutz v. Nelson · filed 2010-04-15(c)(3)

As a result, the district court had discretion to dismiss the state law and declaratory relief counts without prejudice.

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

Robinson v. Circa Resorts LLC · filed 2024-08-28(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismisses the remaining claims accordingly.

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

McCarthy v. Motorola Solutions Inc. · filed 2024-08-28(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYCHRL claims. The Court dismisses these causes of action without prejudice to their pursuit in State court.

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

MACDOUGALL v. RHULING · filed 2024-08-28(c)(3)

But with all federal claims dismissed at this early stage and given the sporadic nature of MacDougall’s Amended Complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.

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

REINOEHL v. PENN-HARRIS-MADISON SCHOOL CORPORATION · filed 2024-08-30(c)(3)

Insofar as Plaintiffs assert their Indiana constitutional claim independent of § 1983, we—consistent with Sev- enth Circuit precedent—decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

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

The Estate of Gregory Prater v. Erosun Inc. · filed 2024-09-02(c)(3)

Here, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. The case is in its infancy—no scheduling order has been issued; no discovery has occurred.

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.

Hagigi v. Yukhananov · filed 2024-09-03(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, common-law unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and tortious interference with contract.

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

Mathis v. Anderson County · filed 2024-09-03(c)(3)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims because the balance of the appliable factors favors such a result.

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

Guapo-Villegas v. City of Soledad · filed 2024-09-04(c)(3)

However, as Mr. Villegas has failed to state a claim for relief under federal law and the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Fakhreddine v. Eric R. Sabree, Wayne County Treasurer · filed 2024-09-04(c)(3)

And because the Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, supra, and must abstain from adjudicating the State law claim, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the State law claim and will dismiss it.

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

Plank v. Town of Wilton · filed 2024-09-05(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal claims under the ADEA, ... the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under the CFEPA, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Livingston (ID 60787) v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County · filed 2024-09-05(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”41 ... No compelling circumstances justify this Court retaining jurisdiction. Additionally, this case is in the early stages as a scheduling order has not been entered, and the Court stayed all discovery pending resolution of Defendants’ motions. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Byrnes v. St. Catherine Hospital · filed 2024-09-05(c)(3)

The court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. The court finds no compelling reasons to depart from our Circuit’s general directives. Fairness and comity lead the court to conclude that a Kansas state court should resolve plaintiff’s Kansas state law claims.

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

Colaizzo v. Saks fifth Ave · filed 2024-09-05(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims contained in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint; he may pursue any such claims in state 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.

HARR v. WASHINGTON AREA HUMANE SOCIETY · filed 2024-09-05(c)(3)

Upon consideration, there is nothing unique about this case such that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide an affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Harr’s state law claims. Accordingly, in this instance, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harr’s state law claims and will dismiss Counts II, III, V, VII (to the extent it alleges conversion), XI, and XV, without prejudice to her ability to allege such claims should she choose to file a second amended complaint, and without prejudice to her ability to bring such claims in state 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.

HARR v. BUCZAK · filed 2024-09-05(c)(3)

The Court concludes that there is nothing unique about this case such that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide an affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Harr’s state law claims. Accordingly, in this instance, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harr’s state law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice to her ability to bring them in state court.

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

Jackson v. Zormier · filed 2024-09-06(c)(3)

Lastly, the interests of judicial economy, fairness, and comity with state courts weigh in favor of relinquishing jurisdiction over the state law claims. Consequently, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and dismisses the remaining State law claims without prejudice to the Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue them in State court.

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

MOSLEY v. PURDUE PHARMA LP · filed 2024-09-06(c)

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

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

Webb v. City of Minneapolis · filed 2024-09-09(c)(3)

However, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the court dismisses the accompanying federal claims. Id. § 1367(c)(3). Here, because the Court dismisses Mr. Webb’s § 1983 claims, and there are no other federal law claims remaining, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his 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.

FRANCISCO v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION · filed 2024-09-09(c)(3)

The Court 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.

Uptegrow v. The Administration for Children's Services · filed 2024-09-09(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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Varney v. City of Colorado Springs, Colorado · filed 2024-09-10(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims.

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

Spikes v. Car Toys, Inc. · filed 2024-09-10(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss plaintiffs’ federal claim, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over their state 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.

Wheeler. v. Giant of Maryland LLC · filed 2024-09-11(c)(3)

As such, the Court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and remands them the Maryland state trial court where this case originated.

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

Estes v. Missouri Court of Appeals · filed 2024-09-11(c)(3)

The Court will therefore dismiss this action at this time, without prejudice, and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims, such as those he wishes to bring under the Missouri Constitution and/or any Missouri State law.

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.

Pund v. St. Francis College · filed 2024-09-11(c)(3)

Nevertheless, because that sole claim over which this Court had original jurisdiction has been dismissed as to all Defendants, the Court may, and now does, decline 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.

Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee, Inc. v. Dragon Springs Buddhist, Inc. · filed 2024-09-11(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ CWA claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

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

Diaz v. D'Angel Auto Body Repair, Inc. · filed 2024-09-11(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), if the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any non-federal claims over which it could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction. ... Because no federal claim remains that is subject to a merits determination by this Court, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate Diaz’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.

Doe v. Columbia University · filed 2024-09-11(c)(3)

And because all federal claims in these actions are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

HUDSON HOSPITAL OPCO, LLC v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2024-09-12(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the only federal claims in this case, 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.

United States of America v. MEDTRONIC, INC. · filed 2024-09-12(c)(3)

A district court has discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” after “dismiss[ing] all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Relator’s state-law claims.

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

Cornelius v. Winningham · filed 2024-09-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s sole remaining federal claim, the Court has decided not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Tennessee negligence claims because, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), there is a “strong presumption in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state-law claims after dismissing federal anchor claims.”

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

McDonald v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. · filed 2024-09-13(c)(3)

Accordingly, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s Title VII claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his NYCHRL claim.

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

The Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners, and Merchants Inc. v. Suffolk County · filed 2024-09-13(c)(3)

Weighing the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court finds no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims against the non-State Defendants, which are dismissed without prejudice to their being refiled in state court.

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

SIMMONS v. UHAUL LEGAL DEPT. · filed 2024-09-16(c)(3)

The Court identifies no such extraordinary circumstances. Thus, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendant state law claims asserted in the Amended Complaint, including for breach of contract or negligence.

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

Cobham v. The New York Racing Association, Inc. · filed 2024-09-16(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim if, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In making that determination, a district court must balance “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Bd. of Trade of the City of N.Y., 464 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir. 2006). Those factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction here. See, e.g., Jusino v. Fed’n of Cath. Teachers, Inc., 54 F.4th 95, 107 (2d Cir. 2022); Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd., 36 F.4th 68, 78 (2d Cir. 2022). The Court therefore declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

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

Gamarra v. Supervisor Paul · filed 2024-09-16(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state- law claims contained in Plaintiff’s complaint.

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

Mota v. Abalon Exterminating Company, Inc. · filed 2024-09-16(c)(3)

Because, for the reasons outlined above, Plaintiffs’ federal law claims are dismissed, the Court does not consider these claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Self v. Bomnin Motors · filed 2024-09-17(c)(3)

However, in circumstances where the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court, in its discretion, may decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... The Court finds that the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity warrant dismissal of 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.

Black v. Royal Oak, City of · filed 2024-09-17(c)(3)

Thus, having dismissed Black’s § 1983 claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims or issues arising under Michigan law and so dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Marshall 522370 v. Rewerts · filed 2024-09-17(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims against all Defendants. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring those claims in state court.

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

Navarro v. Building Service, Inc · filed 2024-09-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.

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

Goodkin v. University of Texas Rio Grande Valley · filed 2024-09-18(c)(3)

For these reasons, and having concluded that Goodkin’s causes of action based on federal law should be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his defamation claims against Chapa.

After dismissing all federal claims before trial, a district court generally should decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, subject to recognized exceptions.

Johnson v. Doe 1 · filed 2024-09-19(c)(3)

Generally, when all federal claims in a case have been dismissed prior to trial, the district court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. ... For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law negligence 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.

Kincaid v. The GEO Group, Inc. · filed 2024-09-19(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, for the reasons stated above.

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

Greenberg v. Visiting Nurse Services in Westchester, Inc. · filed 2024-09-19(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims under Title VII, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law NYSHRL claims.

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

KODENKANDETH v. BLIND & VISION REHABILITATION OF PITTSBURGH · filed 2024-09-19(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims per 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Thus, Mr. Kodenkandeth’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Tankersley v. Bradley County Jail · filed 2024-09-19(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff intends to assert an assault claim under Tennessee law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

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

Roches-Bowman v. The City of Mount Vernon · filed 2024-09-19(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, see supra Section II.B.1, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant’s state-law counterclaims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .”).

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

Loveless v. White · filed 2024-09-20(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides that 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[.]”

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

Stewart, Timothy v. Hansen, Dylon · filed 2024-09-20(c)(3)

Instead, because I am dismissing Stewart’s federal causes of action, I will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Mikkelsen’s state-law counterclaim.

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

Stewart, Timothy v. Mikkelson · filed 2024-09-20(c)(3)

Instead, because I am dismissing Stewart’s federal causes of action, I will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Mikkelsen’s state-law counterclaim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims, based on its assessment of judicial economy, avoiding multiple suits, and the need to avoid deciding state law issues.

Steeb v. Ehart · filed 2024-09-23(c)

Here, the interests of judicial economy and avoiding multiplicity of litigation do not outweigh needlessly deciding state law issues. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining claims without prejudice.

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

Royall v. City of Beacon · filed 2024-09-23(c)(3)

Where a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over any remaining claims. ... The Court finds nothing that distinguishes this Action from “the usual case.” ... Thus, Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Fitzgerald v. National Credit Systems, Inc. · filed 2024-09-23(c)(3)

Although Plaintiff’s dismissal of Defendant NCS does not automatically divest th e Court of jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court, considering the factors established in City of Chicago, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Muhammad v. Mendez · filed 2024-09-24(c)(3)

However, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims now that the federal question claim has been dismissed. 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 claims.

Ellusionist Cash Balance Plan and Trust v. Spiegel Accountancy Corp. · filed 2024-09-24(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs have failed to plead a viable claim for relief under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the alleged 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.

Doss v. Holder · filed 2024-09-24(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims in Counts Six, Ten, and Eleven. Counts Six, Ten, and Eleven are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Smith v. Supportive Housing Coalition · filed 2024-09-24(c)(3)

Nonetheless, the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original Jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This case is at its preliminary stages and state courts are better suited to adjudicate these state-law claims, including Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction based on his housing conditions. The Court therefore remands this case to state court, which renders Plaintiffs procedural arguments in his motion to remand moot.

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

Corrow v. Nassu County Police Department · filed 2024-09-24(c)(3)

Here, in the absence of a plausible federal claim, the Court declines to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over any potential state law claims that may be liberally construed from the Complaint.

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.

Lewis v. Pelham Country Club · filed 2024-09-24(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Lewis and Williams’s federal FLSA claims, the Court agrees with Defendant that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ NYLL claims, which, of course, arise under state law.

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

Joubert v. City of Houston · filed 2024-09-24(c)(3)

Instead of the Court weighing in on a complex state-law issue implicating governmental immunity and subject-matter jurisdiction, which remains entirely unbriefed, the Court declines to extend its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Country Carpet, Inc. v. Kansas Building Trades Open End Health and Welfare Trust Fund · filed 2024-09-25(c)(3)

So, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court now remands the surviving state law claims to state court.

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

Randle v. Lewis · filed 2024-09-25(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the federal claims, the Court will use its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

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

Soto v. Vanguard Construction and Development Company Inc. · filed 2024-09-25(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 federal claims.” ... Considering these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Soto’s state and city law causes of action.

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.

Matos v. Discovery Communications, LLC · filed 2024-09-25(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Title VII claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state and city law claims.

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.

Doe v. Baum · filed 2024-09-26(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3), the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over remaining claims if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the Court declines to do so and, as a result, dismisses the negligence claim without prejudice against Baum and Seney.

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

Wilson v. Detroit, City of · filed 2024-09-26(c)(3)

Because the Court grants the individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the federal claims, the Court will use its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

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

Smith 340475 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2024-09-26(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims, if any, will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Vasquez 228832 v. Unknown Party 1 · filed 2024-09-26(c)(3)

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

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

Vargas v. State of California · filed 2024-09-27(c)(3)

The Court DENIES as moot the motion to dismiss the state law claims because the Court has dismissed all the federal law claims.

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

Oliphant-Macher v. Macher · filed 2024-09-27(c)(3)

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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

McKinnies v. New York City Police Dept. · filed 2024-09-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, because both of the claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction have now been dismissed, the Court may, and now does, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

GUNN v. CORNELL ABRAXAS GROUP, LLC · filed 2024-09-27(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because it will dismiss all claims over which ... it has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), (c)(3).

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

McKINLEY v. CORNELL ABRAXAS GROUP, LLC · filed 2024-09-27(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because it will dismiss all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), (c)(3).

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

Hux v. Williams · filed 2024-09-27(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claim, the Court will DECLINE to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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.

Harrold v. Hagen · filed 2024-09-27(c)(3)

A district court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Harrold’s remaining state law claims, the Court will dismiss these claims (Counts IV, V, VI, and VIII) without prejudice.

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

Clark v. State of Connecticut · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal law causes of action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims raised in Counts Eight through Sixteen. 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.

Adams-Pickett, MD. v. Mag Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment to MagMutual on Plaintiffs’ sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Abdurakhmanova v. Gold Star Carriers Inc. · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

The FLSA claims against both the corporate and individual defendants can proceed, and the Court may not “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of the case’s stage and the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

San Rocco Therapeutics, LLC v. Leschly · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

The Court therefore 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 dismissing the federal claims, based on the relevant considerations.

Waters 588025 v. Washington · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

HILL v. MAYNARD · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Because this court has dismissed all federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s two state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Butts v. Kelch · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Considering the Court’s finding that all of the Federal Claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint are dismissed against all Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State and City Claims.

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

Spivak v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA. · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

However, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s claims under federal law, it “decline[s] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over Plaintiff’s state law claims[because it” has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Kolari v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 121–22 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)) (“If the federal law claims are dismissed before trial . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.”).

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

Hyacinth v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

However, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s claims under federal law, it “decline[s] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over Plaintiff’s state law claims [because it” has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Kolari v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 121–22 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)) (“If the federal law 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 and remand remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Jobar Holding Corporation v. Halio · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This is such a “usual case.” Plaintiffs’ federal law claims are dismissed here, on a motion to dismiss, prior to the investment of significant judicial resources. Thus, the Court remands Plaintiffs’ state law claims to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

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

White v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Because summary judgment has been granted to ADP on White’s federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after disposing of all federal claims.

Booth v. Lazzara · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Her only remaining claims arise under state law. In these circumstances, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims is warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

CARLTON v. NORWIN SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Upon consideration, there is nothing unique about this case such that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide an affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Carlton’s libel per se claim under Pennsylvania law. Accordingly, in this instance, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claim and will dismiss Count III without prejudice to Carlton’s ability to allege such claim should he choose to file a third amended complaint, and without prejudice to Carlton’s ability to bring such claim in state court.

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

Perez v. United States of America · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Given that Plaintiffs cannot sustain their federal question law claims and trial in this case has not yet been scheduled, the Court remands this case to State Court for final disposition on Plaintiffs’ Puerto Rico law claims against TFCI.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when discovery is incomplete and no summary judgment motions are pending.

United States of America ex rel. Britney Harrell v. Unified Residential Management, LLC · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

A federal court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the court dismissed all the plaintiff’s federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the parties have not completed discovery, and there are no pending summary judgment motions before the Court. There is no reason to retain jurisdiction over Harrell’s state law claims this early in the litigation process. Thus, Harrell’s claims for unjust enrichment and payment by mistake are 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.

Bridges v. The Methodist Hospital · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal causes of action in this case, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under Texas state law and will deny as moot Defendants’ motions to dismiss those claims. Federal district courts have the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; that discretion is guided by the statutory factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and the common-law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.