28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

ESTES v. HOUSING AUTHORITY · filed 2024-12-20(c)

However, Plaintiff’s state law tort claims are dismissed, without prejudice, to Plaintiff refiling such claims in state court as the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction given the dismissal of the federal claims.

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

Tanner v. Rochdale Village Inc. · filed 2024-12-20(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed plaintiff’s 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ayarzagoitia v. Tahir · filed 2024-12-23(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here because Plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim.

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

Willingham v. Rauch · filed 2024-12-26(c)(3)

Because the court has concluded that the plaintiff has no federal claim, the court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

SMITH v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2024-12-26(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... 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 Plaintiff’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.

Siddiqui v. Keating · filed 2024-12-23(c)(3)

Siddiqui’s tortious interference and civil conspiracy claims are dismissed without prejudice. 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.

Brown v. Brown · filed 2024-12-30(c)(3)

A district court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the court has "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." § 1367(c)(3). As discussed above, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's ADA and Civil Rights Act claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's financial exploitation claim.

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

HERNANDEZ-SANTANA v. LITTLE · filed 2024-12-30(c)

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

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

BOYD v. SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN · filed 2024-12-31(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts VIII, IX and X of the Complaint, and those counts 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lutley v. Noland Health Services Inc · filed 2025-01-02(c)(3)

Even where the state law claims share this common nucleus, however, a federal district court 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). ... Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims in Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, X, and XI are due to be dismissed under § 1367(c).

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

Moody v. Gartha · filed 2025-01-02(c)(3)

With the Moodys’ federal claims being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726–727 (1966) (“[I]f the federal claims are dismissed before trial . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.”). The Court instead dismisses the Moodys’ state-law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining common law and state law claims.

HBK Master Fund L.P. v. Maxlinear, Inc. · filed 2025-01-02(c)(3)

The Court declines to exert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ common law and state law claims based on 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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

Adams v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · filed 2025-01-02(c)(3)

However, when a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original 15 jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over remaining 16 state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court declines to exercise supplemental 17 jurisdiction here, subject to an amended complaint that states a valid federal 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.

Gu v. Didonato · filed 2025-01-02(c)(3)

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

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

Brown v. Cathey · filed 2025-01-02(c)(3)

Having concluded that Plaintiff fails to state a claim arising under federal law, 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Wood v. State of Utah · filed 2025-01-03(c)(3)

Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on their federal claims; therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Cone v. Orrock · filed 2025-01-03(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed Cone’s Title VII retaliation claim, Cone’s only claim within original federal jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cone’s state-law claims.

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

DOWNING v. THOMPSON · filed 2025-01-03(c)(3)

Therefore, the state-law claims could only be heard under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, which the Court declines to exercise in this matter.4 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES any potential state-law 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.

Bingham v. Ramey · filed 2025-01-03(c)(3)

Having concluded that his allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims under state law 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 federal claims.

LOPEZ v. PEC · filed 2025-01-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims asserted in the Amended Complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims arising 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.

Moultrie v. Smith · filed 2025-01-03(c)(3)

Having concluded that his allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims under state law and will dismiss those 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.

Samuels v. New York Department of Labor (NYDOL) · filed 2025-01-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Banks v. Bellvue Hospital · filed 2025-01-03(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 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and state interests.

FLORES v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2025-01-06(c)(3)

In sum, I find that there are no considerations that would require the Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims whereas there is a significant reason to permit the state courts to address the state law claims. Therefore, I will dismiss the remaining state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Marfoe v. Discover Financial Services LLC · filed 2025-01-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and defers addressing the merits of these claims.

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

St. Thomas Group, Inc. v. Lane · filed 2025-01-06(c)(3)

The Court further finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state-law claims given the plaintiffs’ failure to defend those claims, meaningfully participate in this action, and comply with the rules governing matters in this Court.

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

Hickman v. Williams · filed 2025-01-06(c)(3)

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

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

Wright v. Bronx Criminal Court · filed 2025-01-06(c)(3)

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

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

PERRY v. PHIPPS · filed 2025-01-07(c)(3)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, and Plaintiff’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 claim.

Alcala v. MTA Metropolitan State Authority · filed 2025-01-07(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Alcala’s federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state NYSHRL claim. 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, even if the parties favor retaining the case.

Owens v. King County · filed 2025-01-07(c)(3)

“When a district court ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,’ it ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ over remaining state law claims.” Pell v. Nuñez, 90 F.4th 1128, 1135 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Although the Parties “stipulate their approval of” the Court retaining the case (Dkt. No. 31 at 1), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim.

When all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

Cox v. City of Rochester · filed 2025-01-08(c)(3)

But where, as here, a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the state-law claims. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim, which is dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Campbell v. Pruitt · filed 2025-01-09(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of the federal claims in Counts 1 and 2, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in Count 3 and will dismiss it without prejudice.

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

Bull v. City of Saint Ann · filed 2025-01-10(c)(3)

Finally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Plaintiff can be understood to assert. 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Williams v. Dorr · filed 2025-01-10(c)(3)

Finally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims plaintiff can be understood to assert. 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hudson v. King County Housing Authority · filed 2025-01-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal-question claim with prejudice, however, the Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. 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 the federal claims are dismissed.

Christian Life Center v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2025-01-10(c)(3)

Here, the court finds that exercising its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims would not serve judicial economy, convenience, or comity. Thus, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and will remand this action to the San Joaquin County Superior Court.

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

Lions v. New York State Office of Child Support Enforcement · filed 2025-01-10(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims under state law that may be implied from Plaintiff’s pro se pleading.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims; before trial, the court ordinarily should do so.

Murrell v. Basting · filed 2025-01-13(c)(3)

The parties have not presented any reason to deviate from the general rule that, “when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims rather than resolving them on the merits.” Wright v. Associated Ins. Co., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)). Thus, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

The Sundance Group, Inc. v. City of Sioux Falls · filed 2025-01-13(c)(3)

I have determined that plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of due process or for an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims asserted in this action.

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.

Moss v. Trent · filed 2025-01-13(c)(3)

Because each of the federal claims asserted in the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim asserted under Virginia Code § 18.2-186.6 and will dismiss that claim 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.

Johnas v. Broyles, Esq. · filed 2025-01-13(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal causes of action and the case is still at the initial pleading phase, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining7 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.

MONTANEZ-JOHNSON v. CHESTER UPLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2025-01-13(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion to “decline . . . supplemental jurisdiction” over those claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and will dismiss them without prejudice to Montanez-Johnson’s right to raise them in state court.

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.

Keith Feder, M.D., Inc. v. Nestle USA, Inc. · filed 2025-01-13(c)(3)

The Court also concludes that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims would not be appropriate in these circumstances. When all claims over which a district court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, it may decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Cunningham v. Turner · filed 2025-01-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed Cunningham’s federal-law claims, the court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 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.

Black-Whitaker v. Hoffman · filed 2025-01-14(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law breach of contract and negligence claims.

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

HOLSEY-HYMAN v. CITY OF DURHAM · filed 2025-01-15(c)(3)

Where a court dismisses the sole claim that can serve as the basis for the court’s original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Doing so is appropriate 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.

Capuano v. Crane · filed 2025-01-16(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims of assault and battery.

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

PEDRO v. HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC. · filed 2025-01-16(c)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims, having dismissed all federal claims.

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

MUHAMMAD v. NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON · filed 2025-01-16(c)(3)

Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim and this 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 claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Sanchez v. Paramo · filed 2025-01-16(c)(3)

Because his federal claims are all subject to ... without prejudice. See Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3))).

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

Maldonado v. Gordon · filed 2025-01-17(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff's federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this 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.

Wozar v. Campbell · filed 2025-01-17(c)(3)

Because the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

BRUMFIELD v. ATLANTIC CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY · filed 2025-01-17(c)(3)

Because no extraordinary circumstances are evident here, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, namely the Second and Third Counts of the Amended Complaint.

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

Sheffield v. Doe 1 · filed 2025-01-17(c)(3)

Upon consideration of the § 1367 factors and the “traditional rationales for pendent jurisdiction, including judicial economy and convenience,” see Palmer, 22 F.3d at 1569, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sheffield’s remaining state law claims.

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

Dobucki v. American Residential Services, LLC · filed 2025-01-17(c)(3)

The court has dismissed Dobucki’s federal claims. ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s two remaining state-law claims and remands those claims to Wake County Superior Court.

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

DaSilva Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, P.C. v. Empire HealthChoice HMO, Inc. · filed 2025-01-17(c)(3)

As described above, the Court has dismissed each of plaintiff’s ERISA claims for which it had original jurisdiction and thus only state law claims remain. The Court lacks original jurisdiction over such claims. Therefore, 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 related state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gaston v. City of Leesburg · filed 2025-01-21(c)(3)

Here, because the district court properly dismissed Gaston’s federal claims for relief, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims.

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

Gedney v. Dollar General Corporation · filed 2025-01-21(c)(3)

When a federal court dismisses federal claims, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... In consideration of the relevant factors, 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 remaining state and local claims after dismissing the federal claim.

Erkan v. David A. Hidalgo, M.D., P.C. · filed 2025-01-21(c)(3)

As the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal ADA claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state and city claims. ... Accordingly, those claims 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.

Williams v. Rancho Cordova Police Dept. · filed 2025-01-21(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims and the action is remanded to Sacramento County Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

104 S. Division St LLC v. City of Peekskill · filed 2025-01-23(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 claim. 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 the federal claims.

Ballentine v. Credit One Bank N.A. · filed 2025-01-23(c)(3)

Accordingly, Plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Dibrell v. City of Knoxville · filed 2025-01-24(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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Alford v. Deffendoll · filed 2025-01-24(c)(3)

All of the federal claims, which constituted the basis of original jurisdiction in this suit, have been dismissed. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Therefore the claims will be dismissed without prejudice for potential disposition in an appropriate state court.

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

Farmer v. State of Oregon · filed 2025-01-27(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over Farmer’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.

Stansberry v. Neal · filed 2025-01-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action; the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s 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 declines to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, any claims that Plaintiff asserts under state law,1 see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

John v. Brooklyn Eye Center · filed 2025-01-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal law claims, as well as the NYSHRL claims governed under the same standards as their federal counterparts, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYCHRL claims.

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.

Roe v. Levittown Public Schools Board of Education · filed 2025-01-28(c)(3)

Although the Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Roe’s remining state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court declines to do so. 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 . . . .”); Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998) (“In general, where the federal 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 the federal claims, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Dubic v. Norbert of 609 Centerwood West Babylon NY 11704 · filed 2025-01-28(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 over any potential remaining 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 the Amended Complaint and any such claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Safani Gallery, Inc. v. Italian Republic · filed 2025-01-28(c)(3)

Original jurisdiction over these claims is lacking, and I have discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims; in a removed case, the usual practice is to remand the remaining state claims.

Gerbers v. Otradovec · filed 2025-01-29(c)(3)

If the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims, but the normal practice is to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice, or in cases that are removed, to remand the case to the state court for disposition of the remaining claims, unless it is clear that the state claims should be dismissed as well. ... Accordingly, the case will be remanded to state court for disposition of the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, including when substantial state law questions are better addressed by state courts.

DeSouza v. State of Rhode Island, Department of Administration · filed 2025-01-29(c)(3)

Because these claims present “substantial question[s] of state law that [are] better addressed by the state courts,” continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not proper 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.

Greer v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, Inc. · filed 2025-01-31(c)(3)

And under § 1367(c)(3), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction [over state law claims] . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” ... Here, exercising its discretion, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim under HRS § 489-1 et seq. and DISMISSES the claim 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.

Waring v. Kraft · filed 2025-01-31(c)(3)

With Plaintiff’s constitutional claims dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the remaining state law claims.

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

Sharp v. URBN US Retail, LLC · filed 2025-01-31(c)(3)

Additionally, because Plaintiff’s federal law claim—for which the court had original jurisdiction—is now dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Kansas Act Against Discrimination claim so it is also DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Miles 237011 v. Michigan, State of · filed 2025-01-31(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), that this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims, which are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

HARRIS v. BASCO · filed 2025-01-31(c)(3)

Due to the dismissal of her 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 law claims after dismissing the federal claims, and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Piontek v. Onjukka · filed 2025-01-31(c)(3)

Because the complaint does not state a federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims of negligence, libel and slander. The court will dismiss those state law claims without prejudice 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.

Murray v. The State of New York · filed 2025-02-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims under state law that may be implied from Plaintiff’s pro se pleading.

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

Bolt v. Planned Parenthood of Central and Western New York · filed 2025-02-03(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 . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Nothing presented here takes this case outside of that general rule and the Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Barral v. Brooktree Apartments · filed 2025-02-03(c)(3)

Additionally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

H. v. The Archdiocese of New York · filed 2025-02-03(c)(3)

A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal claims once 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 and dismisses Plaintiffs’ state and local law claims without prejudice to refiling.

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

Cherry v. Allen · filed 2025-02-04(c)(3)

After granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 and ADA and RA claims against Defendants—the only federal claims in this action—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims which lack an independent jurisdictional basis.

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

Milbrandt v. Sunwest Mortgage Corporation · filed 2025-02-04(c)(3)

Here, the remaining disputes are state-law claims between Milbrandt and defendants involving events that occurred in Arizona. The case has not progressed meaningfully in federal court and the factors of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor dismissal without prejudice to allow Milbrandt to file in state court.

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

Butts v. Kelch · filed 2025-02-04(c)(3)

The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is a plainly a matter of discretion, which this Court once again declines. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Lyles v. Greyhound Bus Lines · filed 2025-02-05(c)(3)

We also discern no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Doe v. Mercy Cath. Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 567 (3d Cir. 2017).

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.

FITZGERALD v. RUSSELL · filed 2025-02-05(c)(3)

Given the fact that Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor with respect to Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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.

Williams v. LVNV Funding LLC · filed 2025-02-05(c)(3)

Here, the sole federal-law claim is being dismissed well before trial, so the Court dismisses the sole state-law claim without prejudice, “so that it may be considered, if at all, by the courts of Minnesota.” Hervey v. County of Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711, 726 (8th Cir. 2008).

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

Leon v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC · filed 2025-02-05(c)(3)

Additionally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 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 a state law claim after dismissing the federal claim.

Barral v. Brooktree Apartments · filed 2025-02-05(c)(3)

Additionally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Tealer v. Byars · filed 2025-02-06(c)(3)

Because the district court correctly dismissed Tealer’s federal claims, the court had discretion to dismiss her Georgia 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.

Hughes v. University Hospitals · filed 2025-02-06(c)(3)

Federal law states that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) [28 U.S.C. section 1367] if...(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction....” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court hereby exercises its discretion to dismiss 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.

Arzu v. City of New York · filed 2025-02-07(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims against the City, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims asserted against the City in the pleading.

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

Daniels v. University of Michigan · filed 2025-02-10(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counts III–VIII are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

El v. S. Realty · filed 2025-02-10(c)(3)

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

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

Rubinov v. Suyunova · filed 2025-02-11(c)(3)

However, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims now that the federal claims are dismissed.

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

Nelson v. Thomson · filed 2025-02-11(c)(3)

A federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal claims once it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Nelson’s local law claims without prejudice to refiling.

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. Midland Credit Management, Inc. · filed 2025-02-13(c)(3)

Because the court dismisses Harris’s FDCPA claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harris’s SCCPC, SCUTPA, negligence per se, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress 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 the federal claim, considering the case’s stage and the claims’ distinct elements.

Sorour v. PNC Bank, N.A. · filed 2025-02-13(c)(3)

Because this action is in its early stages and Sorour’s state-law claims involve distinct elements from her federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses the federal claims, considering judicial economy and comity.

Chandler v. Fine · filed 2025-02-18(c)(3)

Chandler’s federal claims are being dismissed, and it is not in the interest of judicial economy or comity for the Court to hear and determine Chandler’s state law claims. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Chandler’s claims arising under Tennessee law. Chandler’s state law claims against Maynard, Cochran and Hill in their official capacities are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Quest Solution v. Redlpr LLC · filed 2025-02-18(c)(3)

Section 1367 permits a court to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Taking into account Tenth Circuit and Seventh Circuit law, the court declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Non-Trade Secret Claims, and hereby 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, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Nevarez v. Mesa, City of · filed 2025-02-18(c)(3)

Now that the § 1983 claims have been dismissed, the Court may, in its discretion, decline to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Three and Four. ... For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Counts Three and Four and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Hendy v. Demers · filed 2025-02-18(c)(3)

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's State-law claims, and therefore DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs State-law claims.

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

Deppe v. Sovinski · filed 2025-02-18(c)(3)

Because the court has determined that all of Plaintiff’s claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, Counts I through V, are due to be dismissed with prejudice, the court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, Counts VI and VII.

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

Diallo v. New York City Police Department · filed 2025-02-18(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim where all claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice so that they may be renewed in the proper state court.

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

Davis v. Horton · filed 2025-02-18(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state- law claim for property damage.

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

Owens v. Town of Snead, Alabama · filed 2025-02-19(c)(3)

A “district court[ ] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The court therefore WILL DECLINE to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims and WILL REMAND those claims.

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.

Baber v. Dials · filed 2025-02-19(c)(3)

Consistent with Sixth Circuit precedent, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Stratton v. Highland County · filed 2025-02-19(c)(3)

A district court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in circumstances like this when the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court will dismiss without prejudice Counts One to Five for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Fisher v. City of Chillicothe · filed 2025-02-19(c)(3)

Since the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, his state-law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Cruz v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2025-02-19(c)(3)

Cruz’s federal claims are dismissed and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state and local law claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, which are better suited for the state courts of New York.

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

Fishburne v. SC Department of Corrections · filed 2025-02-21(c)(3)

As such, the court has the authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims and remand them to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (granting the court the authority to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection on this issue is overruled, and his state law claims are remanded to state court.

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

Nwosu v. 1600 West Loop South, LLC · filed 2025-02-21(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims and dismisses them without prejudice to being filed in state court, if Plaintiff so chooses.

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

Corrow v. Nassau Correctional Center · filed 2025-02-22(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 state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Volant v. Nassau County · filed 2025-02-23(c)(3)

Here, because the Complaint contains no plausible federal claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims in the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims in Volant’s Complaint.

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

Fejerang v. G. T. L. · filed 2025-02-24(c)(3)

The federal court may (in its discretion) continue to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a case where only state law claims remain after the dismissal of federal claims to avoid duplication of effort. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against ViaPath are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Brown v. Amazon LLC · filed 2025-02-24(c)(3)

Given the decision at this stage that all of Plaintiff’s federal claims are subject to dismissal, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state- law claims.

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

Cruz v. City of San Diego · filed 2025-02-24(c)(3)

Here, because the Court is dismissing the only federal claims at the outset of the litigation, it is more appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims than to wade into the plainly state law issues that remain in this case.

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

TINSLEY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES · filed 2025-02-25(c)(3)

The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) at this time.

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.

Henry, Sr. v. Duncan · filed 2025-02-25(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 over Plaintiff’s purely state law claims - - such as legal malpractice - - as is alleged in 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.

DURHAM v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2025-02-26(c)(3)

The remaining federal claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief, and the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims 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 the federal claims.

Emile Dominique, IV v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc · filed 2025-02-27(c)(3)

With respect to claims that Dominique sought to bring under state law, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Gu v. Chen · filed 2025-02-27(c)(3)

Second, this Order dismisses all federal claims, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claim, especially early in the case.

Pastoriza v. Public Service Company of New Hampshire · filed 2025-02-28(c)(3)

Especially in the early stages of a case, where the federal claims are dismissed and only state issues survive, federal courts ordinarily should dismiss the state law issues without prejudice so they can be resolved in state court. ... As such, there is no reason to maintain jurisdiction over that claim.

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

Mitchell v. Amazon Corporation · filed 2025-02-28(c)(3)

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.

Fulkerson v. New Mexico Department of Justice · filed 2025-02-28(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims against Defendants Deakyne and Gabaldon, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Deakyne and Gabaldon.

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

Abrigo v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · filed 2025-02-28(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Hodge v. MGM National Harbor, LLC · filed 2025-02-28(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hodge’s state law claims. The Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over MGM’s counterclaims, breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, which arise under state law.

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

Mulkern v. Lowes Inc. · filed 2025-03-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims against Defendant, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pending 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.

Roggero v. Fay Servicing · filed 2025-03-03(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of the alleged federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law quiet title claims.

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

Slight v. International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America · filed 2025-03-04(c)(3)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claim in Count Three and dismiss that claim 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.

Melvin v. City of New York · filed 2025-03-04(c)(3)

Although federal district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal law claims “that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” once it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” id. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, 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.

LeGrand v. Carpenter · filed 2025-03-06(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed LeGrand’s § 1983 claims, the only claims within this Court’s original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over LeGrand’s state-law malpractice claims.

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

MacIntyre v. City of Palm Bay · filed 2025-03-06(c)(3)

Because the court has determined that all of Plaintiff’s claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, Counts I, II, V, and VI, are due to be dismissed with prejudice, the court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, Counts III and IV.

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

Fan v. The 18th Police Precinct · filed 2025-03-06(c)(3)

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

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

Blank v. Livonia Public Schools · filed 2025-03-06(c)(3)

Given that no federal claims remain against the GCPS Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims against these Defendants.

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

Britt v. Durham · filed 2025-03-07(c)(3)

The Court, therefore, will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Odoms 579755, Jr. v. Burgess · filed 2025-03-10(c)(3)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Erway, Turner, Burgess, and Larson will be dismissed, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants.

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

Felix v. The City of New York · filed 2025-03-10(c)(3)

Because there are no federal claims remaining, the Court will decline 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.

Cook v. Brooks · filed 2025-03-10(c)(3)

For all these reasons, dismissal under § 1367(c)(3) is warranted.

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

Keller v. Kerwin · filed 2025-03-11(c)(3)

The Court no longer having original jurisdiction will refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the remaining claims.

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

Wyatt v. CMH Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2025-03-11(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court WILL DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and WILL REMAND Counts One, Two Three, Four, and Five.

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

Gatlin v. Curtis · filed 2025-03-11(c)(3)

Because the federal claims will all be dismissed for the reasons stated herein, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the 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.

Papia v. County of Marin · filed 2025-03-11(c)(3)

Until Plaintiff pleads valid federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and need not address their sufficiency at this time.

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

Genosa v. Global K9 Protection Group, LLC · filed 2025-03-11(c)(3)

Thus, in the exercise of its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims for retaliation and wrongful termination and Defendant’s state-law counterclaim for common count.

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

ROSE-BURRELL v. CITY OF MONROE · filed 2025-03-12(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rose-Burrell’s state law claims, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice. 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ferdinand v. St. James Parish · filed 2025-03-12(c)(3)

First, the statutory factors favor dismissal of the state-law claims. The Court has already disposed of all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Cf. 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.

TWYMAN v. RECAP PA HOLDINGS, LLC · filed 2025-03-12(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction absent a federal question so we need not address Recap’s challenges to the state law claims.

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

Hancock v. Miami Correctional Facility · filed 2025-03-13(c)(3)

(3) DECLINES supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); and (4) REMANDS state claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 to the Miami Superior Court.