28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Negative, Inc. v. McNamara · filed 2025-03-13(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... There is no reason to depart from this rule here. Thus, the Court will not exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction over Negative’s state law claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice to pursue those claims in state court.

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.

Edge v. United States · filed 2025-03-13(c)(3)

Here, where all federal question claims have been dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to § 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.

Lewis v. Slaiby · filed 2025-03-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal law claims against Ms. Haws, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against her of trespass and civil theft.

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.

Marshall v. Town Of Bladensburg Maryland · filed 2025-03-14(c)(3)

This case is still in its early stages and the remaining claims present potentially complicated questions of state law. The court will exercise its discretion and remand Plaintiffs’ state claims to state court, which is better suited to adjudicate those 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.

J. R. Tharpe Trucking Company, Inc. v. Prince Edward County, Virginia · filed 2025-03-14(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Because all relevant factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction, the Court will decline to 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.

Huntimer v. Young · filed 2025-03-17(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Huntimer’s state-law claims because he has not stated a viable claim within this Court’s 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.

Reed v. Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare · filed 2025-03-17(c)(3)

Given the early stage of these proceedings, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Reed’s 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.

Kaszubski v. Jerik · filed 2025-03-18(c)(3)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367 over her state-law claims and I dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Jones v. Moore City of · filed 2025-03-19(c)(3)

The Court, however, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Thus, the Court dismisses the state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed.

Gera v. Borough of Frackville · filed 2025-03-19(c)(3)

The law provides that federal courts should not entertain pendent state law claims when federal causes of action are dismissed.

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

Ascent Classical Academies v. Ascent Classical Academy Charter Schools, Inc. · filed 2025-03-19(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), when all the “federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” Smith v. City of Enid, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion and dismisses the remaining state-law claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

Hart v. City of La Junta · filed 2025-03-19(c)(3)

Because all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims are dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it would not be proper to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining three state claims.

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

RAY v. BELL PARTNERS, INC. · filed 2025-03-21(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these pendent claims and dismisses both without prejudice so that Plaintiff may refile in state court if she so wishes.

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

Vince v. Godlewski · filed 2025-03-21(c)(3)

The court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this matter. The plaintiff's state law claims will therefore be dismissed without prejudice.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims based on fairness, convenience, federal policy, comity, and judicial economy.

Thornton v. Piedmont Regional Jail Authority · filed 2025-03-21(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Because all relevant factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction, the Court will decline to do so here.

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

Shuler v. Dicks · filed 2025-03-24(c)(3)

Here, given the numerous deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ complaint and the localized nature of their common law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiffs’ non-federal claims asserted in Counts 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11.

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.

WHALEY v. CITY OF ALBANY GEORGIA · filed 2025-03-24(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims after it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 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, and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Jones v. Baltimore Police Department · filed 2025-03-24(c)(3)

Counts VII (against the Officer Defendants) and VIII (against Johnson) are dismissed without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Barfield v. Doe · filed 2025-03-24(c)(3)

Thus, because Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s purported state law claims.

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

Whisper Lake Developments Inc v. Skagit Highlands Homes · filed 2025-03-24(c)(3)

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES the federal claims with prejudice and without leave to amend, which Plaintiff has neither requested nor demonstrated it is entitled to. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of Plaintiff’s state law claims and DISMISSES this lawsuit 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.

ROSELLINI v. WILCOX · filed 2025-03-24(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims against LaRocca are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

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

Miller v. Amazon.com Services, LLC · filed 2025-03-24(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... There is no reason to depart from that general rule here. Thus, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Miller’s state law claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice for Miller to pursue those claims in state court.

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

Bell v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2025-03-25(c)(3)

The Court thus “decline[s] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” because it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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.

Collings v. The State University of New York at Cortland · filed 2025-03-25(c)(3)

Having considered the above factors, especially in a case such as this which is still in the pre-discovery motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court finds no compelling reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Rose Nevada, Inc. v. Audrey Homes, L.L.C. · filed 2025-03-25(c)(3)

With Rose Nevada’s federal claim being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims.

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

Dickerson v. Colmenares · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

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

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

American Acceptance Corporation of SC v. Gietz · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

Further, AAC’s state law cause of action for claim and delivery is REMANDED to the Lexington County Court of Common Pleas for adjudication there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (explaining a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Briscoe v. St. Louis County · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

However, assuming supplemental jurisdiction exists,’ the Court declines to exercise it because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after considering judicial economy, fairness, and comity.

CURRY v. WESTERN EXPRESS · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

Here, the Court has granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims under Title VII and the ADA. Considering judicial economy, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

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

Salido v. Hill · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

Because all federal claims have been dismissed from this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law negligence claim at this time.

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

Moore v. City of New York · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” or “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). “[T]he default rule is that federal courts should not decide related state-law claims unless there is good reason for doing so.” Cangemi v. United States, 13 F.4th 115, 135 (2d Cir. 2021). Here, all federal claims against the Property Defendants are dismissed. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims.

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

Cale v. Mount Sinai Business Health · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction “if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Here, those factors weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction and dismissing Cale’s state and city law claims.

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

Budhan v. Brightworks Sustainability LLC · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

Salient here, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the surviving NYSHRL and NYSHRL claims.

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

Glover v. Grimaldi · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of all federal claims in the Second and Third Complaints, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

H. v. Boyd Gaming Corp. · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

The court may exercise its discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to maintain the state law IIED claim in this court.

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

Timm v. Seattle Children's Hospital · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, all of which were brought under state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when no federal claims remain for a merits determination.

Western Energy Opportunities II, LLC v. Finalis Securities, LLC · filed 2025-03-26(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain that are subject to a merit’s determination by this Court, the Court does not retain supplemental jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining state claims.

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

Martinson v. Southern Health Partners, Inc. · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)

Because the Court will enter judgment for the defendants on Mr. Martinson’s federal law claim for deliberate indifference to Mr. Bishop’s medical needs, the Court elects not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Martinson’s state- law claim.

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

Ross v. County of San Diego · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims of battery, negligence, and violations of the Bane Act.

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

Boulden v. Lucero · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. The Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Borrego Community Health Foundation v. Hebets · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff failed to state civil RICO claims against the Dentist Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against the Dentist Defendants.

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

Worman v. Barasse,Esq · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, Worman’s state law claims will be 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-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Reynolds v. City of New York · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all of Plaintiffs federal claims against all Defendants, the “bases for federal jurisdiction have been eliminated,” and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim.

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

Williams v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC · filed 2025-03-28(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing all of Plaintiff’s federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it declines to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Tennessee common 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.

Rosenow v. Facebook, Inc. · filed 2025-03-28(c)(3)

Rosenow’s federal claims have been dismissed. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rosenow’s state law claims.

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

Padula v. Dinsmore · filed 2025-03-28(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court will decline to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims and will remand them back to Connecticut state court.

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

LAYMAN v. DUNBAR TOWNSHIP · filed 2025-03-28(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction and will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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.

LATTANZO v. DUNBAR TOWNSHIP · filed 2025-03-28(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction and will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Caesar v. Village of Mineola · filed 2025-03-28(c)(3)

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

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

King-Knight v. The City of New York · filed 2025-03-28(c)(3)

All of King-Knight’s federal claims will be dismissed, and none of the Cohill factors supports the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor doing so.

Jones v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart P. C. · filed 2025-03-30(c)(3)

Given that this case is in its earliest stages and does not now raise any issues of federal interest, the Court concludes that judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity point towards declining jurisdiction over Jones’s D.C. law claims.

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

Hector v. Jackson · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

Thus, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the local claims, and they will be dismissed.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, taking account of comity and judicial economy.

Lamb v. Crofoot · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

Here, in the interests of comity and judicial economy, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the trespass claim because (1) all federal claims are dismissed, (2) no dispositive rulings have issued, (3) litigation costs are lower in state court, and (4) the parties have yet to exert substantial effort briefing the merits of the 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.

Cook v. CoreCivic, Inc. · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

The Court, in its discretion declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and Plaintiffs’ state-law claims will be DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Ricketts v. Westwood Condo Assoc. · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) allows for a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The Court finds that the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity counsel in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... In light of these considerations, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Wade v. Rodriguez · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff invites the Court to assert supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, this Court declines to do so. 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).

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

Handy v. WS Barricade Corporation · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the 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[.]” ... Having dismissed all the claims arising under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, i.e., ... and defamation (Claim Sixteen).

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

Corr v. NYC Dept. of Homeless Svcs · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

District courts will generally decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which they have original jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). Because Corr’s federal Title VII claim cannot survive, and there is no basis for invoking diversity jurisdiction, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Corr’s state- and city-law claims.

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

El v. Sea Mar Community Health Centers · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

With dismissal of Annu El’s federal-law claims, the Court lacks original jurisdiction over Annu El’s remaining state-law claims for tortious outrage against Hernandez and Sea Mar. In such circumstances, federal courts typically decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”). Following this well-established practice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Annu El’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.

Caldiero v. Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

As the court is dismissing the RICO causes of action, the causes of action which provide this court federal jurisdiction, it will also dismiss the Pennsylvania state law causes of action.

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

Fugelsang v. The Department of Education of New York City · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s federal claims, it “decline[s] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over Plaintiff’s state law claims [because] “it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction’.”

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

Papaliberios v. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because there are no remaining federal claims in this action, and Papaliberios does not invoke diversity jurisdiction, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Papaliberios’ state-law claims.

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

Adon v. City of New York · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

Because all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ state and local 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.

SHANNON v. PENN STATE HEALTH · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed the four federal claims against the Defendants and the 31 state false claims act causes of action for failure to state a claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Relator’s remaining claims against the PSH Defendants under Pennsylvania law for retaliation for whistleblowing (Count XXXIV), defamation (Count XXXV), invasion of privacy (Count XXXVI) and breach of contract (Count XXXVII).

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

Findley v. Carter · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

Because the Court is granting Carter’s motion for summary judgment on the sole federal claim asserted against him, there are no remaining federal claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction and, to the extent the Court is authorized to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state or local claims asserted against Carter under 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a), it declines to do so.

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

Olupitan v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma · filed 2025-04-01(c)(3)

Considering the “lack of pretrial proceedings” and considerations of judicial economy and fairness, the Court declines to proceed with the remaining state-law claims.

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

Herrera v. United States · filed 2025-04-01(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to allege these claims against Does 11—20 exclusively pursuant to state tort law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 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.

Brummell v. Talbot County Board of Education · filed 2025-04-03(c)(3)

However, § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” when it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and shall remand Counts I through V to the Circuit Court for Talbot County, Maryland, where this suit originated.

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.

Samirah v. District Smiles PLLC · filed 2025-04-04(c)(3)

However, § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” when it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... In weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 350 n.7, this Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of remanding the remaining D.C.-law claims back to D.C. 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.

TELLUS v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2025-04-04(c)(3)

Tellus has not pled a cognizable claim under federal law. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Tellus’s claim(s) under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:8-1 ef seg.

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

Seagraves v. Department of Children Youth and Families · filed 2025-04-07(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after all federal claims are dismissed.

Flannery v. District of Columbia Department of Health · filed 2025-04-08(c)(3)

Declining jurisdiction after all federal causes of action are dismissed is consistent with Section 1367 and well within a District Court’s discretion.

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

LUND v. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION · filed 2025-04-08(c)(3)

The state courts are better equipped to give the parties “a surer-footed reading of applicable law” on these state law issues concerning property rights, potential fraud, and Maine’s interpretation of its own statutes of limitations.

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

MITCHELL v. ROBINSON · filed 2025-04-08(c)(3)

However, because the Court will dismiss Mitchell’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over his state law claims.

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

Hernandez v. Golden Gate Regional Center · filed 2025-04-08(c)(3)

Lastly, as Hernandez's Title VII claims are subject to dismissal, and the above-titled action remains at the pleading stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hernandez's Second Claim, by which she asserts violations of 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 and the need to avoid deciding state law issues into account.

The WRX LLC v. BSI Group America Inc. · filed 2025-04-09(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. Should Plaintiffs decide to pursue their state law claims, they have the federal court filings as a starting point. Michigan courts are well-equipped to handle these state law claims should they arise. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice.

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

Dolce v. Connetquot Central School District · filed 2025-04-09(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims in this case, and because the remaining state law claims would be analyzed under different and developing standards, the Court finds it to be in the interest of judicial economy to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims.

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

Peacock v. LifeHealth LLC · filed 2025-04-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiff’s FMLA claim—the only federal claim—and after weighing the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims and dismisses such claims without prejudice.

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

Patel v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2025-04-10(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) because it properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims.

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

Ahir v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2025-04-10(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) because it properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims.

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

Brisco v. Brisco · filed 2025-04-10(c)(3)

Based on consideration of the above-stated factors, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s child endangerment and CARA claims, which depend solely on determinations of state law.

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

Joseph v. Cnty. of Westchester · filed 2025-04-11(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any NYSHRL claims. “[A] district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Kolari v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

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

Czesak v. Kashyap · filed 2025-04-14(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims under the Illinois Health Care Surrogate Act and the Illinois Powers of Attorney for Health Care Law as well as the Plaintiffs’ claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and five fraud counts.

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

Pinkston v. Advanced Financial Services · filed 2025-04-14(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, it will also 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Jones v. Borla · filed 2025-04-14(c)(3)

As Plaintiff’s only claim under federal law is dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law negligence 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.

West v. Landau · filed 2025-04-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed West’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over and dismisses his state law claims of breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (counts 4, 5, and 7).

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

MAHONEY v. LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2025-04-15(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C § 1367(c), we “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over claims based on supplemental jurisdiction if we dismiss “all claims over which [we had] original jurisdiction.” Having dismissed all federal claims, we decline 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Crothers v. Carr · filed 2025-04-16(c)(3)

Because each of Rosen’s and Crothers’s federal claims fail, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims.

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

Hawley v. DDSO · filed 2025-04-16(c)(3)

Measured against this general legal standard, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hawley’s HRL claims. As explained supra, all of plaintiff’s federal-law claims must be dismissed. Under those circumstances, courts typically decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any related 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. Fleury · filed 2025-04-16(c)(3)

Where a district court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court may, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, discovery is not complete, and there is nothing to suggest that the Court should depart from the usual practice. As a result, after carefully balancing the traditional values, 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.

Hu Honua Bioenergy, LLC v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. · filed 2025-04-17(c)(3)

Exercising its discretion, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims—breach of contract (Count III); breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count IV); unfair competition under HRS chapter 480 (Count V); and conversion (Count VIJ)—and DISMISSES these claims without prejudice.

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

Kunzer v. Foster · filed 2025-04-17(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice, “so that [they] 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Murray v. Newrez LLC · filed 2025-04-21(c)(3)

I decline to exercise jurisdiction over Ms. Murray’s New York State law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims “if … the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Ramos v. Pistiolas · filed 2025-04-22(c)(3)

In the instant case, the Court is dismissing the ADA claim as moot early in the litigation and without engaging in lengthy merits-based analysis. There is accordingly little to no judicial economy in retaining jurisdiction to adjudicate the Unruh Act claim.

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.

Hernandez v. City of Middletown N.Y. Police · filed 2025-04-22(c)(3)

However, having dismissed Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim for relief— i.e., the only claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction—the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any outstanding state law claims.

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

LATIMORE v. JONES · filed 2025-04-23(c)(3)

Recognizing this, the Court declines to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims against Defendants in accordance with the discretion afforded to it by § 1367(c)(3).

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

HERTOG v. 1002 SISTER BARBARA WAY PROPERTY, LLC · filed 2025-04-23(c)(3)

In sum, the application of the Carnegie-Mellon factors, coupled with the presumption of relinquishment, leads to the conclusion that Ms. Hertog's state law claims should be remanded. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is therefore denied as to the state law claims. The Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and remands them to state court.

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

GREENBERG v. MCEWEN · filed 2025-04-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 174 (3d Cir. 2009).

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.

Monbo v. Richmond American Homes of Maryland, Inc. · filed 2025-04-25(c)(3)

Having found no viable claims that would provide this Court with original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Guggino v. Medical Department-Yaphank Correctional Facility · filed 2025-04-25(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 Guggino’s Complaint.

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

Byers v. May · filed 2025-04-28(c)(3)

In the absence of any federal question, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Byers’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.

TWYMAN v. RECAP PA HOLDINGS, LLC · filed 2025-04-28(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction absent a federal question so we need not address Recap and 963 Street Road’s challenges to Ms. Twyman’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.

BLADES v. COMMUNICATIONS TEST DESIGN, INC. · filed 2025-04-29(c)(3)

With no other properly pleaded federal claims appearing on the face of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and no other basis for this Court’s original jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Morris-Wilkins v. Davenport Auto Park · filed 2025-04-29(c)(3)

Because all of plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Noel v. Shaw · filed 2025-04-29(c)(3)

However, because Noel fails to plausibly allege a federal Section 1983 claim against any Defendant, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law battery claim.

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

TRINH v. TRINH · filed 2025-04-30(c)(3)

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

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

Richards v. Mount Sinai South Nassau · filed 2025-05-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only remaining federal law claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s common law claims for mental anguish, excessive force, and breach of contract.

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.

Nieto v. Bustamonte · filed 2025-05-02(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(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Dominguez v. Board of Education of the Yonkers City School District · filed 2025-05-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining NYSHRL 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.

Harwell, Joseph v. Bureau of Health Services · filed 2025-05-05(c)(3)

Since neither party identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law negligence claims, the court will decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over those remaining claims.

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

Crespo v. The City of New York · filed 2025-05-06(c)(3)

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, but it can “decline to exercise” jurisdiction because it dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Shelton v. Klima, Peters & Daly, P.A. · filed 2025-05-06(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Shelton’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.

Fleming v. Westwood Place Apartments, LLC · filed 2025-05-06(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over Fleming’s state law conversion 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.

Locklear v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2025-05-07(c)(3)

The court also agrees with the magistrate judge that, given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s sole federal claim, the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims. ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Webster v. Core Civic · filed 2025-05-09(c)(3)

Because all federal claims in the Complaint are being dismissed, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Webster’s state law claims of gross negligence, medical negligence, and abuse of power.

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

Lowrey v. Collela · filed 2025-05-09(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Given that there are no remaining federal defendants or remaining federal questions, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Regan.

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

Griffith v. Citi Bank/Checking Plus · filed 2025-05-13(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims as time-barred, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any supplemental state law claims.

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

Panarello v. Suffolk County · filed 2025-05-13(c)(3)

Here, because the Complaint contains no plausible federal claim over which this court would have original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims that may be construed in Panarello’s Complaint.

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

Cooper v. Bellasalma · filed 2025-05-14(c)(3)

Thus, “[t]he Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because the claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction is being dismissed.”

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

Rivas v. Rivas · filed 2025-05-14(c)(3)

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses 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.

Flex v. Allentown Police Pension Fund Association · filed 2025-05-14(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims which this Court had original jurisdiction over have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law IIED 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.

Allaf-Motedayen v. Sonoma County Child Protective Services · filed 2025-05-14(c)(3)

Under such circumstances, and given that the above-titled action remains at the pleading stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted by plaintiff, such as his claims that the City of Rohnert Park failed to comply with the California Public Records Act (see Doc. No. 7 at 39) and that his wife has engaged in "gaslighting" and "deceit" (see Doc. No. 7 at 30).

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

Oparaji v. Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York · filed 2025-05-15(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has failed to state a Section 1981 claim and Plaintiff’s Title VII claim is time-barred, 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.

(PS) Reedy v. El Dorado County Superior Court · filed 2025-05-15(c)(3)

Because all of Reedy’s federal claims are being dismissed before trial, and in light of the immunities and jurisdictional limits discussed above, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

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

OCHOA v. AVILES · filed 2025-05-15(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after disposing of all federal claims; absent an affirmative justification, the court must decline when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

MILANES v. POWELL · filed 2025-05-16(c)(3)

As this Court will enter judgment in favor of Defendants as to all of Plaintiff's federal claims, this Court therefore must decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law assault and battery claims, Those claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice at this time.

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

Jones v. Brasher · filed 2025-05-16(c)(3)

The Court hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for wrongful death, negligence, and assault and battery against the remaining Defendants.

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; the case’s early stage, comity, and fairness can favor that decision.

Huber v. Darke County Common Pleas Court · filed 2025-05-16(c)(3)

As the parties are still very early in the case, principles of comity and fairness, along with avoiding needless adjudications of state law questions, weigh heavily in favor of the Court declining to continue 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.

LaRose v. Combs · filed 2025-05-16(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 a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

White v. Burns · filed 2025-05-19(c)(3)

Therefore, because Plaintiff’s only remaining claim is his state-law defamation claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over and will dismiss that claim.

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.

Snyder, M.D. v. Neurological Surgery Practice of Long Island, PLLC · filed 2025-05-19(c)(3)

Here, since the ERISA claim is dismissed, this Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Therefore, the undersigned declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the remaining five claims.

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

Haskins v. SCCF · filed 2025-05-19(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 Complaint.

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

Jideani v. District of Columbia · filed 2025-05-20(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed Jideani’s Title VI claim, the balance of factors weighs in favor of dismissing Jideani’s contract and tort claims.

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

Wallace v. Parrish · filed 2025-05-20(c)(3)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

FINOGLE v. NICHOLS · filed 2025-05-20(c)(3)

However, since the federal claims will be dismissed and there is no independent basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims between parties who are all Pennsylvania citizens, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims and dismiss 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.

Savitt v. Samuels · filed 2025-05-21(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claim over which it had original jurisdiction.

Loveless v. Grady County District Attorneys Office · filed 2025-05-22(c)(3)

To the extent Loveless raises a negligence claim under Oklahoma law, see [Doc. No. 1 at 10–12], the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim because the Court has dismissed the federal claim over which it has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Smith v. City of Enid ex rel. Enid City Comm’n, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir. 1998) (“When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.”).

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

Ruhadze v. Audi of America, LLC · filed 2025-05-22(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, so the motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT as to those claims.

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

Ash v. Phillips · filed 2025-05-22(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Here, the Court has found for Defendants on all of Mr. Ash’s federal claims and the Court lacks original jurisdiction over Mr. Ash’s remaining state-law claims for malicious prosecution, false arrest, gross negligence, and invasion of privacy. Accordingly, dismissal of Mr. Ash’s remaining claims without prejudice to re-filing in state court is appropriate.

When all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, a district court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify retaining them.

CARLTON v. NORWIN SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2025-05-23(c)(3)

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

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

Siomkos v. Beckerman · filed 2025-05-23(c)(3)

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

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

Souare v. Hill · filed 2025-05-27(c)(3)

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

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

Watson v. Wilhelm · filed 2025-05-27(c)(3)

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

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

Gordon v. Gordon · filed 2025-05-27(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(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

B.D v. Slice and Scoop Inc. · filed 2025-05-28(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over remaining claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... None of those interests favor retaining jurisdiction here. ... Counts II, III, and IV are thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

L.M.G v. Campbell · filed 2025-05-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here because the federal claims are being dismissed well before trial and the case remains in the early stages of litigation.

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

Battle v. Washington · filed 2025-05-28(c)(3)

Here, the court exercises its “broad discretion” to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Battle’s remaining state-law claims because it has dismissed all of her 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.

Juares v. Odyssey House NYC Inc. · filed 2025-05-28(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.

Jones v. Acker · filed 2025-05-28(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).

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

Hormeku v. DS 30 Morningside Master Tenant, LLC · filed 2025-05-28(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.