28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

McBride v. C&C Apartment Management LLC · filed 2024-10-01(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining claims.

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

Wright v. Department of Children and Family Services · filed 2024-10-02(c)

No claims remain over which the Court has original jurisdiction, and so 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Cash v. Truong · filed 2024-10-02(c)(3)

Here, Ms. Cash’s Section 1983 claims provided the only detectable basis for federal jurisdiction. Because those claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any other state law claims she may allege.

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

Franco v. Hyatt Corporation · filed 2024-10-02(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, considering the stage of the case and fairness to the parties.

JOHN v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES · filed 2024-10-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims and in the absence of diversity jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim. In declining supplemental jurisdiction, this Court notes the early stage of the proceedings and John’s failure to respond to Court Orders.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Murphy Medical Associates, LLC v. EmblemHealth, Inc. · filed 2024-10-03(c)(3)

In light of the present dismissal of all federal claims, Plaintiffs’ state law claims in Counts Five to Eight are dismissed because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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.

Short v. State of Delaware Division of Health and Social Services · filed 2024-10-03(c)(3)

Because the court has determined that the Plaintiffs federal law claims under the ADA and FMLA should be dismissed with prejudice, the only remaining counts of the operative complaint concern issues of state law. ... Accordingly, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’ s remaining state law claims pursuant to the DDEA, alleged in Counts I and IJ, and the workers’ compensation retaliation claim, in Count V.

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

USSERY v. HOUSTON COUNTY GEORGIA · filed 2024-10-04(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Ussery’s § 1983 claims—the claims over which it has original jurisdiction—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ussery’s state law IIED claim. Accordingly, this claim is DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

JOHNSON v. AMERICAN RECOVERY SERVICE, INC · filed 2024-10-04(c)(3)

Johnson’s federal claims having been dismissed, the Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s state law claims.

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

White McLaughlin v. The Cambridge School Committee · filed 2024-10-07(c)(3)

The federal claims have all been dismissed at the earliest stage of the litigation and there are no factors that favor retention of purported state-law claims, if any. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

McElwee v. Aldersgate Life Plan Services, Inc · filed 2024-10-07(c)(3)

In the exercise of its discretion, the Court will decline to consider Plaintiff's state law claims, leaving the merits of those claims to be determined in state court. Accordingly, Plaintiff's remaining claims will be dismissed without prejudice (or indeed any consideration of their merits).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness justifies retaining them.

VANDERVOORT v. NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2024-10-07(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

McAllister v. Town of San Felipe · filed 2024-10-07(c)(3)

Under these circumstances, the court finds that judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity would not be served by keeping McAllister’s state-law claim in federal court. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Texas trespass to title 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.

Wright v. New York City Police Department · filed 2024-10-07(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Dubic v. Norbert of 609 Centerwood West Babylon NY 11704 · filed 2024-10-08(c)(3)

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

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

Ramsey v. Gaston · filed 2024-10-08(c)(3)

Having determined that all of the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law causes of action. See id. (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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Sullivan v. Banks · filed 2024-10-08(c)(3)

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

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

McKnight v. George W. Hill County Delaware Correctional Facility · filed 2024-10-08(c)

Because Ms. McKnight’s federal claims are dismissed, we 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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

Wyre v. State of Texas · filed 2024-10-08(c)(3)

To the extent that Wyre alleges any state-law claims in his complaint, they are dismissed without prejudice for lack 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.

Pittman v. Clarke · filed 2024-10-09(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 state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Buntura v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2024-10-09(c)(3)

It now only presents State law claims which the Ohio courts should have the opportunity to adjudicate. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Trustees of the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local No. 10 Apprenticeship Fund v. Napky · filed 2024-10-09(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss all of Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Finding no good reason to maintain the case, the Court declines further jurisdiction, and accordingly has no occasion to address the merits of 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.

Hernaiz v. Wagner · filed 2024-10-11(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all federal law claims in this case. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, and will dismiss them without prejudice to refiling them in state court. 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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Dennie v. Indiana Department of Education · filed 2024-10-11(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to bring a new state law claim for negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Lomax v. Marketplace Homes Lending, LLC · filed 2024-10-11(c)(3)

To the extent Lomax’s amended complaint is seeking to raise any state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under state law if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

WEAVER v. BROZELL · filed 2024-10-11(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, however, if it has dismissed all federal claims. Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because the Court is dismissing all the federal claims in the case, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Weaver’s Pennsylvania tort claims for now, and will dismiss them.

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

Pierre v. Doe · filed 2024-10-13(c)(3)

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

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

Smiley Auto Group LLC v. Village Of Maywood · filed 2024-10-15(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 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.

Davison v. City of Lorain · filed 2024-10-15(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiff’s only federal cause of action must be dismissed, the Court declines jurisdiction over any remaining 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.

Mills Pond Group LLC v. Town of Smithtown, New York · filed 2024-10-16(c)(3)

Even assuming this Court has discretion to exercise such jurisdiction, given that the Court has not dealt with the substance of this action in any significant way, the factors weigh against such exercise.

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

Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads, Inc. · filed 2024-10-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims under the NYSHRL, NYSCRL, and NYCHRL.

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

Sifuentes v. Prelesnik · filed 2024-10-17(c)(3)

Here, because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed in their entirety, 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 to Plaintiff’s ability to raise those claims in the state courts.

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

Washington 592797 v. Sappanos · filed 2024-10-17(c)(3)

Here, because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed in their entirety, 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 to Plaintiff’s ability to raise those claims in the state courts.

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

Goodykoontz v. Cuyahoga County · filed 2024-10-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims, this Court declines jurisdiction to hear 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. Bowdren · filed 2024-10-18(c)(3)

And, having decided that his constitutional claims must be dismissed, there is no reason for this Court to retain jurisdiction over state law claims more suitably addressed in a Connecticut state court.

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

Burnette v. Tegels · filed 2024-10-18(c)(3)

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

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

Brown v. Siwanoy Country Club, Inc. · filed 2024-10-21(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Roberts v. PLS Check Cashers · filed 2024-10-21(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 her 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.

Roberts v. Lenox Hill Radiology · filed 2024-10-21(c)(3)

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

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

Chatman v. Wynn · filed 2024-10-22(c)(3)

Claims 3 and 4 are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) because the Court now relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Voss 637658 v. Rewerts · filed 2024-10-22(c)(3)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants will be dismissed, 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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

POUSSAINT v. MENDLOVITZ · filed 2024-10-22(c)

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

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

DeHart v. Cox · filed 2024-10-24(c)(3)

The federal claims are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and any claims under state law are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Roe v. Fryer · filed 2024-10-25(c)(3)

However, § 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to dismiss or remand to state court claims before it on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hayes v. Larry/Landlord · filed 2024-10-25(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.

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

Hernandez v. Jafri · filed 2024-10-25(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii), and the Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of 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.

Lee v. HUD (Housing Urban Development) · filed 2024-10-25(c)(3)

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

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

Morales v. The Whole Entire New York Police Department · filed 2024-10-25(c)(3)

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

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

Durden v. Doyle · filed 2024-10-25(c)(3)

Durden’s federal claims have been dismissed. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. Durden’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice under 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.

Cassidy v. Department of Veteran Affairs · filed 2024-10-25(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Greenbay. 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.

Whittman v. MGM National Harbor LLC · filed 2024-10-28(c)(3)

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 state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ballentine v. Bronx Care Medical Center · filed 2024-10-28(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed the federal claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines at this stage 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 federal claims.

El v. S. Realty · filed 2024-10-28(c)(3)

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and declines supplemental jurisdiction of her state law claims, 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.

Luna v. Georgy · filed 2024-10-28(c)(3)

That order made clear that Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint within the time allowed would result in dismissal of this action; the Court would dismiss Plaintiff’s claims that he asserts on behalf of others without prejudice, dismiss Plaintiff’s own claims under federal law for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and would decline to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s own claims under state law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action for the reasons articulated in the Court’s July 8, 2024 order and 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.

Beaman v. New York City · filed 2024-10-28(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. A.C.C./A.S.P.C.A. · filed 2024-10-28(c)(3)

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

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

Herrera v. Campbell · filed 2024-10-28(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all 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 a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bartlett v. Woosley · filed 2024-10-29(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment for Defendants as to the federal law claims against them, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges a state-law negligence claim (DN 13 PageID.70-71; DN 16, PageID.95), the Court will dismiss it.

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

Blackwell v. City of Richfield Does · filed 2024-10-29(c)(3)

Because Blackwell has failed to plead a viable federal claim, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims. See 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.

Drake-Loveless v. Ochs · filed 2024-10-29(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff's federal law claims, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses this case.

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

Moore v. Stripe, Inc. · filed 2024-10-30(c)(3)

With respect to Moore’s state-law claims, the Court has supplemental, or pendent, jurisdiction given their purported “common nucleus of operative fact.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367. “A district court’s decision whether to exercise that jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009). Because the federal claims here have all been dismissed well before trial, the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

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

DOMINIQUE v. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY (JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES) · filed 2024-10-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all 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 after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Darin Smith and Julia Smith on behalf of A.S. v. St. Margaret Mary School · filed 2024-10-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, because we have concluded that the plaintiffs’ Title VI claim fails, we will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Headrick v. Brown · filed 2024-10-30(c)(3)

In the absence of a viable federal constitutional claim, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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 within its original jurisdiction.

S.Y. v. Sampson County Board of Education · filed 2024-10-31(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

EARLEY v. DOUGHERTY · filed 2024-10-31(c)(3)

As this Court will dismiss all of Plaintiff's federal claims without prejudice at this time, this Court wili decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims, See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

North Texas Natural Select Material, LLC v. City of Denison, Texas · filed 2024-10-31(c)(3)

“The 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). Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action reference numerous local statutes and ordinances and raise matters solely within the purview of Texas law (Dkt #5). Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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.

KOVALEV v. Wakefield · filed 2024-11-07(c)(3)

But Congress empowers us to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if we dismissed “all claims over which [we] ha[ve] original jurisdiction.”45 We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction absent a federal question.

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

King v. Orange County Jail · filed 2024-11-07(c)(3)

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

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

Barber v. Lampman · filed 2024-11-07(c)(3)

Without a viable federal question to decide, the Court will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

Laramore v. Old National Bank · filed 2024-11-08(c)(3)

Given that the Court is granting defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissing the § 1981 claim, and given that Laramore has not pleaded sufficient facts to establish diversity jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Laramore’s state-law ... claims.

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

Suddath v. OklaHome Homebuilders LLC · filed 2024-11-08(c)(3)

As to Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, where, as here, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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

Hunter v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2024-11-08(c)(3)

In this case, it does not appear that any considerations of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness to the parties would justify deviating from the ordinary course of declining to exercise jurisdiction over Hunter’s remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when the remaining state law claims involve potentially novel or complex issues.

Nilsen v. University of Washington · filed 2024-11-08(c)

The Court has dismissed all of claims over which it has original jurisdiction and the remaining state law claims involve several potential novel or complex constitutional issues. These factors show that it would be imprudent to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The Court therefore DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and DISMISSES the second, fifth, sixth, and fifteenth causes of action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

King v. Orange County Jail · filed 2024-11-08(c)(3)

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

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

Dougherty v. Stillwater City of · filed 2024-11-12(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs’ federal claims are hereby dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claim against Defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

RAWLING v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2024-11-12(c)

Finally, because her federal claims will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over her claim of defamation under state law.

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

Small v. (Sheriff) N.C.C.C. · filed 2024-11-13(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 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.

BOSTICK v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY · filed 2024-11-13(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). ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Elliott v. Bison Plumbing, Inc. · filed 2024-11-14(c)(3)

As the Defendants point out, the Court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because the FLSA claim has been dismissed. ... After considering these factors, the Court sees no reason to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction of the pendant claims against Bison Services.

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

Tyra v. IDOC · filed 2024-11-14(c)(3)

To the extent Tyra may have state law claims against Slack and Smith, this court will not exercise jurisdiction over those claims in the absence of a federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, taking statutory and common-law factors into account.

Marrouche v. Jefferson Parish School Board · filed 2024-11-14(c)(3)

Therefore, considering the § 1367 factors and the common-law factors, as applied to 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Vargas v. Expedia, Inc. · filed 2024-11-14(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Banks v. Kim · filed 2024-11-14(c)(3)

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

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

GITTENS v. PEPPER · filed 2024-11-14(c)(3)

As this Court dismisses all of Plaintiff's federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's additional state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a counterclaim when it dismisses the federal claim.

Anderson v. Barker · filed 2024-11-18(c)(3)

Because the Plaintiff's § 1983 claim is being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Defendant's counterclaim.

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

CUTTLER v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY · filed 2024-11-18(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hernandez v. Golden Gate Regional Center · filed 2024-11-18(c)(3)

As Hernandez's Title VII claim is subject to dismissal, and the above-titled action remains at the early stages, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hernandez's 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.

Fluker v. State of Michigan · filed 2024-11-18(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of the other defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fluker’s state law medical negligence claim.

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

Schmaltz v. Harris · filed 2024-11-18(c)(3)

Because the Court has now dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims that remain. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims against the same defendant, considering the stage of litigation and whether state court is better suited to resolve them.

Hanna v. Department of Children and Family Services · filed 2024-11-19(c)(3)

The Court no longer has original jurisdiction over any claim against FRPS. The remaining claims against FRPS turn on questions of state law that can be more appropriately resolved in state court, particularly given that the state law claims against the Commonwealth Defendants must also proceed in state court. Further, the case is still in the early stages of litigation. ... The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against FRPS.

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

Hall v. Crestwood Lake Section 8 Holding Corporation · filed 2024-11-19(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the only federal claim, particularly before discovery or trial.

FALCONE v. DICKSTEIN · filed 2024-11-20(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Harrison v. Barnes · filed 2024-11-20(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 Amended Complaint.

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

Liu v. Healthfirst, Inc. · filed 2024-11-20(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 Plaintiff’s claims under state law.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, taking judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state law issues into account.

Turner v. St. Joseph Public Schools · filed 2024-11-21(c)(3)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). ... Here, the interests of judicial economy and avoiding multiplicity of litigation do not outweigh needlessly deciding state law issues. ... Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Turner’s remaining claims without prejudice.

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

Management Solutions Holdings, LLC v. City of Southfield · filed 2024-11-21(c)(3)

Thus, having dismissed Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim, 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ballentine v. State of New York · filed 2024-11-21(c)(3)

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

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

Barraclough v. Animal Friends Inc · filed 2024-11-22(c)(3)

Congress has “explicitly green-lighted” district courts’ discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after “having dismissed all of [the plaintiff’s] federal claims” in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 650 (3d Cir. 2009). ... Because the court was authorized by statute to decline supplemental jurisdiction over appellants’ state law claims for the reasons discussed in its ruling granting the motion to dismiss, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.

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

Johnson v. Satterfield · filed 2024-11-22(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Agosto v. City of Danbury · filed 2024-11-22(c)(3)

Because the Court entered judgment in Defendants’ favor on Plaintiff’s federal claims under the ADEA and the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Byrd v. Middletown Board of Education · filed 2024-11-22(c)(3)

Having decided that her Section 1983 claims should be dismissed, there is no reason for this Court to retain jurisdiction over the Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-51q claim more suitably addressed in a Connecticut state court.

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

Glover v. Marshall County Drug Task Force · filed 2024-11-22(c)(3)

In the absence of a federal claim, it is this Court’s practice to relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims. See Doe-2 v. McLean Cnt.y Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Ordinarily, when a district court dismisses the federal claim conferring original jurisdiction before to trial, it relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).”). Therefore, Glover will not be granted leave to proceed on any state law claims in this Court, and the state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

WILLIAMS v. WOOD · filed 2024-11-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed any federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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.

HASSANI v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2024-11-22(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.

Pollak v. Strong · filed 2024-11-25(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Defendant Strong may be asserting and dismisses this case.

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

Judah v. The City of Dothan, Alabama · filed 2024-11-26(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the state law claim against Officer Beck for assault and battery and will remand Count Eight back to the 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Myers v. Davenport · filed 2024-11-26(c)(3)

After carefully considering the relevant factors (i.e., economy, convenience, fairness and comity), the Court finds that they weigh decidedly in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Fleury v. Polk County Sheriff's Office · filed 2024-11-26(c)(3)

Because Fleury does not allege that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over those claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them and shall dismiss them 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.

PALOMO v. MURPHY · filed 2024-11-26(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.

Butler v. Louisiana State Penitentiary · filed 2024-12-02(c)(3)

Here, having determined Plaintiffs fail to allege plausible federal claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ potential state law claims.

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

Baldwin v. Maiden Police Department · filed 2024-12-02(c)(3)

Thus, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); ESAB Grp., Inc. v. Zurich Ins. PLC, 685 F.3d 376, 394 (4th Cir. 2012); Mann v. Power Home Solar, LLC, No. 521CV00166KDBDSC, 2022 WL 602196, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 2022), and in the exercise of its discretion, will do so here.

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. Haggler · filed 2024-12-02(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed the federal claims 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 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial, particularly early in the case.

Lall v. New York Housing Authority · filed 2024-12-02(c)(3)

Further, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Lall’s claims under state and local law. It is well established that, “[1]n general, where the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998). Here, there is no basis to depart from that general rule given, among other things, the relatively early stage of the 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.

Bolden v. PrimeCare · filed 2024-12-02(c)(3)

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

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

Obie v. Fuller · filed 2024-12-04(c)(3)

Nevertheless, district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims once the federal claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Finally, the comity factor weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff’s claims of gross negligence against the defendants is granted.

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

Collins v. Shelby County Justice Center · filed 2024-12-04(c)(3)

Because all of the Consolidated Complaint’s federal claims are being dismissed, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law. The Consolidated Complaint’s state law claims for negligence and medical malpractice are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

White v. Harry · filed 2024-12-04(c)(3)

Finally, having determined that White’s federal claims will be dismissed without further leave to amend, we will consider the issue we previously deferred as to whether to decline to exercise jurisdiction over White’s remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that a district court “may decline to exercise jurisdiction” over a state law claim over which it is exercising supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). ... In this case, there does not appear to be any interest of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness that would provide an affirmative justification to deviate from the ordinary course of declining jurisdiction over White’s state law claims. We will accordingly remand the remaining state law claims to the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas.

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

Purvis v. Suffolk County · filed 2024-12-06(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims since all the federal claims have been dismissed.

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.

Johnson v. Smith · filed 2024-12-06(c)(3)

The Court has already disposed of all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Upon weighing the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims.

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

CARRASQUILLO v. TERRA · filed 2024-12-06(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims when all federal claims are dismissed early in the case.

Ancrum v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2024-12-06(c)(3)

This case is no exception: all federal causes of action have been dismissed for failure to state a claim, the litigation is still at its very early stages, and no exceptional circumstances are present that would justify a departure from the principle that the dismissal of all federal causes of action from a complaint “will usually result in the dismissal of the state-law claims.” Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2018).

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

Vernon v. Deramus · filed 2024-12-09(c)(3)

And where the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over any remaining state law claims. Id. § 1367(c). ... This court therefore DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Hale v. The Board of Supervisors of Hinds County, Mississippi · filed 2024-12-09(c)(3)

The Court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction because it has dismissed all the federal claims here.

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.

Baptiste v. The City University of New York · filed 2024-12-09(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [a pendent state law claim] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, there is no reason to depart from that general rule. ... Accordingly, Baptiste’s remaining NYCHRL retaliation claim is dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Pippin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2024-12-10(c)(3)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all claims over which the court originally had jurisdiction have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... For the reasons set forth above, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and will remand Counts IV, V, and VII to the state court.

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

Henderson v. Secretary, Department of Corrections · filed 2024-12-10(c)(3)

In the absence of a sufficiently pleaded federal claim, the court declines to consider the supplemental 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.

Ramos v. New York City Police Department · filed 2024-12-10(c)(3)

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

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

Malfatone v. Neal · filed 2024-12-10(c)(3)

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

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

Crespo v. Neal · filed 2024-12-10(c)(3)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims that 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.

Brown v. RXR Soyo Exalta, LLC · filed 2024-12-10(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 Plaintiff’s 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.

Roberts v. Regional Nuerological Associates · filed 2024-12-11(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 her 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.

Kelly v. Florence · filed 2024-12-11(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 Plaintiff’s claims under state law.

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

Mighell v. HPG Pizza I, LLC · filed 2024-12-12(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses those claims, without prejudice.4 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Chroscielewski v. Calix · filed 2024-12-12(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal-law claim (the First Cause of Action, brought under Section 1983), and as set forth more fully below, the Court declines at this stage to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and those claims are dismissed without prejudice to the parties pursuing any appropriate relief in state court. 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Vernon v. South Oxford Management · filed 2024-12-12(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the court concludes that, with the plaintiffs’ only federal-law claim eliminated, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity counsel in favor of dismissing Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Howard v. Reyes · filed 2024-12-12(c)(3)

Because all federal claims have been dismissed from this action, the court declines to exercise over any state tort claims.

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

Newkirk v. Douglas Elliman, Inc. · filed 2024-12-12(c)(3)

As Newkirk’s dismissed FHA claim was her sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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.

Gilcher v. Smith · filed 2024-12-13(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all of the Plaintiff’s federal claims, it declines “to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” See id.

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

WOLTZ v. GOOD · filed 2024-12-13(c)

Since the federal question claims in this case have been dismissed, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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.

Amigo Shuttle Inc. v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey · filed 2024-12-13(c)(3)

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

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

Sanchez v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2024-12-16(c)(3)

Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sanchez’s remaining state and city claims for sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation.

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

Phoenix v. Gonterman · filed 2024-12-17(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, 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.” ... The Court sees nothing, on this record, to overcome the general presumption in favor of dismissal. Judicial economy and convenience do not counsel in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Dietz v. Fink · filed 2024-12-17(c)(3)

Because all of Dietz’s other claims do not survive § 1915A screening, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim, and his claim is dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (noting that district courts may 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

GEORGE v. MCGINN · filed 2024-12-18(c)(3)

The Court agrees and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claims against the non-federal defendants.

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

JOHNSON v. AMERICAN RECOVERY SERVICE, INC · filed 2024-12-18(c)(3)

Johnson’s federal claims having been dismissed, the Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s state law claims.

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

Marinkovic v. Lee · filed 2024-12-19(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims—the claims that conferred original jurisdiction—the Court need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

SHIH v. UNITED COUNTIES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION · filed 2024-12-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims alleged in the Amended Complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims arising under state law (intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count II) and negligence (Count III)).

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

OJO v. CHARLES · filed 2024-12-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims alleged in the Complaint, to the extent Plaintiff seeks damages beyond her deposit of $13,125.00 in her remaining claims arising under state law, 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 the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Benjamin v. RMSC Warden (John Doe) · filed 2024-12-19(c)(3)

That order specified that failure to comply with that order would result in dismissal of this action; the Court would dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and would decline to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action for the reasons discussed above.