28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal-law claims are dismissed before trial.

Frisella v. Dallas College · filed 2025-05-29(c)(3)

Although the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in this circuit “[t]he general rule is that a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial[.]” Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. v. Dayco Prods., Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 2009). The court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Professors’ state-law claims and dismisses them.

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

Walbridge v. City of Oilton, Oklahoma · filed 2025-05-30(c)(3)

But 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. ... And since this Court dismissed the federal claim granting original jurisdiction, the state-law claims are also dismissed, but 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.

Faulcon v. AB Venture LLC · filed 2025-05-30(c)(3)

Finally, as the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims to the extent they arise under state law, including the alleged violation of § 349 of the New York General Business Law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

for the Estate of Brent Richardson v. Tennessee · filed 2025-06-02(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state claim, particularly when comity favors state courts deciding unsettled state law.

Aguilera-Valdez v. Davenport · filed 2025-06-02(c)(3)

Under these circumstances, comity demands that Colorado courts be given the opportunity to interpret the scope of the Colorado Constitution’s protections, and the scope of ELEIA. As a result, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ELEIA claim.

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

Minor v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada · filed 2025-06-02(c)(3)

Because the court resolves the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction, the court WILL DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and WILL REMAND those claims to the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama.

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

Olding v. Pima County Prosecutor's Office · filed 2025-06-02(c)(3)

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.” Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... None of Plaintiff’s federal claims have survived screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not favor retention of Plaintiff’s state-law claims. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice to Plaintiff filing them in state court.

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

Jones v. Siloam Springs, Arkansas · filed 2025-06-04(c)(3)

Jones has alleged various other state law violations in his Amended Complaint; however, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367) over them and will 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.

Pina v. Bank of America Corporation · filed 2025-06-04(c)(3)

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

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

Smith v. Westhb Traverse House · filed 2025-06-04(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Rawlings v. Marcum · filed 2025-06-05(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and this matter is remanded to the Taylor Circuit Court.

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.

Schenk v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc. · filed 2025-06-05(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim in Count II for Gross Negligence.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Nunz v. Navy Federal Credit Union · filed 2025-06-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed Nunz’s federal claim, the presumption is that the state-law claims should be dismissed as well. The circumstances here do not overcome that presumption.

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

Singh v. Sachem Central School District · filed 2025-06-06(c)(3)

Having disposed of all federal claims falling within this Court’s original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Cox v. Jefferson · filed 2025-06-09(c)(3)

Because Mr. Cox’s federal claims will be dismissed, the Court will not exercise jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

TROMBETTI v. BOROUGH · filed 2025-06-09(c)(3)

But Congress empowers us to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if we dismissed “all claims over which [we] ha[ve] original jurisdiction.”92 We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction absent a federal question and dismiss Mr. Trombetti and fiancée Iczkowski’s 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.

Wynder, JR. v. Mateer · filed 2025-06-09(c)(3)

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

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

Penrod Brothers Inc v. City of Miami Beach · filed 2025-06-10(c)(3)

Having disposed of these claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. A district court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Delgado v. The People of the State of New York · filed 2025-06-10(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. ... Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Scott v. Byrd · filed 2025-06-11(c)(3)

Because I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), dismissal of her whole complaint without prejudice is proper.

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) Wu v. Twin Rivers United Educators · filed 2025-06-11(c)(3)

In any event, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such 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.

Gray v. Aidvantage, LLC · filed 2025-06-12(c)(3)

Further, because the Court is summarily dismissing Gray’s federal claims and this case does not involve diversity jurisdiction, the Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over Gray’s state law claims for breach of contract and negligence.

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.

Keir v. Schoeberl · filed 2025-06-16(c)(3)

The 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). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those 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.

Bivona v. Borough of Girardville · filed 2025-06-16(c)(3)

The court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims in (Count Il and Count III of the amended complaint and 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.

Tejada v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-16(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Saunders Jr v. NYC Health and Hospital · filed 2025-06-16(c)(3)

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

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

DeRouseau v. Korzeilus · filed 2025-06-16(c)(3)

The federal claims in Plaintiff's amended complaint are dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and the Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims.

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

Norton v. Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation · filed 2025-06-17(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.” ... The Court will thus decline to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Woodson v. Eravi · filed 2025-06-17(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to bring any Missouri state-law claims for defamation or slander, because his federal claims are being dismissed, all remaining pendent state claims will be dismissed as well.

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 2025-06-17(c)(3)

Given that no federal claims remain against LPS and Oquist, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims against them arising under state law.

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

Jones v. Electrics · filed 2025-06-17(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s five state-law claims in the absence of 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.

Gardner v. State of New Mexico · filed 2025-06-18(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims and to remand the remaining claims to state court.

Forchu v. USRP I LLC · filed 2025-06-18(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court has dismissed all federal claims. Kovachevich v. Nat’l Mortg. Ins. Corp., No. 23-2071, --- F.4 ---, 2025 WL 1680186, at *6 (4th Cir. June 16, 2025). This case is still in its early stages, and the remaining claims sound in state law. Therefore, the court will exercise its discretion and remand Plaintiff’s 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.

Allaf-Motedayen v. Sonoma County Child Protective Services · filed 2025-06-18(c)(3)

Under such circumstances, and given that the above-titled action remains at the pleading stage, the Court declines to exercise any supplemental jurisdiction it may have over plaintiff's state law claims, such as his claim that his public defender has not acted in accordance with his instructions in the above-referenced pending criminal action.

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

Scott v. City of Lebanon, Tennessee · filed 2025-06-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear any state law claims set forth 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.

McIver v. Ginger Ale · filed 2025-06-20(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.

Partridge v. Black Rock LLC · filed 2025-06-20(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 remaining state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bointy v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2025-06-23(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (allowing court to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a state-law claim when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .”).

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

Blue v. James · filed 2025-06-23(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims at this juncture.

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

Bhandary v. Ghatak · filed 2025-06-23(c)(3)

Absent a viable federal claim, 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bonvillain v. Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government · filed 2025-06-24(c)(3)

Since the Court is dismissing all of Bonvillain’s § 1983 claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court invokes its authority under § 1367(c)(3) and declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any of the remaining state law claims.

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

Kelly v. Bartow Police Department · filed 2025-06-24(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims and they will be dismissed.

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.

Schoene v. Oregon Department of Human Services · filed 2025-06-25(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to grant supplemental jurisdiction to Schoene’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Azad v. Molina · filed 2025-06-25(c)(3)

The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Azad’s state and local law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Bratt v. Carlsbad Police Department · filed 2025-06-25(c)(3)

Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims—IIED, NIED, abuse of process, discrimination under California law, unspecified California Civil Code violation, breach of contract, gross negligence and malice claims—in Plaintiff’s FAC.

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

Rodriguez v. Williams · filed 2025-06-25(c)(3)

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

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial.

Brooks v. Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc. · filed 2025-06-26(c)(3)

The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the surviving state and local claims.

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

Samuels v. The Urban Assembly, Inc. · filed 2025-06-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to 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.” ... Here, those factors weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction and dismissing Samuels’s state and city 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.

Brown v. Gonzalez · filed 2025-06-27(c)(3)

After holding that dismissal of the First and Fourth Amendment claims against Defendant—the only federal claims in this action—is warranted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims which lack an independent jurisdictional basis.

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.

Conley v. Vacanti · filed 2025-06-30(c)(3)

Still, district courts “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under [§ 1367(a)] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Nonetheless, after affirming and adopting Judge Reinhart’s recommendation specific to Count I for Copyright Infringement, it must dismiss without prejudice the remaining state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Reece 455608 v. Kent, County of · filed 2025-06-30(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, that this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law gross negligence claim, which is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

MEYER v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2025-06-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, including any claims arising under the NJCRA or other state law.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, particularly early in litigation.

Leshchenko v. Go New York Tours, Inc. · filed 2025-06-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Leshchenko’s state-law and city-law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially when it has devoted little judicial effort to the state law claims.

Lattimore v. Kosciusko County Sheriff · filed 2025-06-30(c)(3)

As the Court has not engaged in any meaningful review of the merits of the Indiana state law claims and has not otherwise committed substantial judicial resources to them, declining to exercise jurisdiction is proper.

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. Chance · filed 2025-07-01(c)(3)

Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion, we will decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over potential ancillary state law domestic relations claims in this case where all potential federal claims brought before us fail as a matter of law.

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

Banks v. San Mateo County District Attorney's Office · filed 2025-07-01(c)(3)

Having found above that the only remaining federal claim in this case should be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

United States v. RESPIRONICS · filed 2025-07-02(c)(3)

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

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

Jenkins v. Centurion Health Care Services · filed 2025-07-02(c)(3)

Because the Consolidated Complaint’s federal claims are being dismissed and because proceeding on Jenkins’ state law claims would not be in the interest of comity or judicial economy, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law. The Consolidated Complaint’s 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 a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hill v. Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority · filed 2025-07-03(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

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

ER Addison LLC v. Aetna Health Inc · filed 2025-07-03(c)(3)

The court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over ER’s state-law claims 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.

Cruikshank v. Ralph · filed 2025-07-07(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over any supplemental state claims, which are 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.

Woods v. DeLeone · filed 2025-07-07(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff raises any state claims against the defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. District courts have discretion to refuse 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)(3). ... The Court finds that the balance of considerations weighs against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s purported state law claims, which are better resolved by the Ohio courts.

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

WILLIAMS v. ESA MANAGEMENT LLC · filed 2025-07-07(c)(3)

The Court finds that no factors or extraordinary circumstances exist that would warrant it exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’ state law claims (..e., negligent hiring and supervision, fraud, and willful misconduct). It will dismiss such claims without prejudice for Williams to assert them in state court.

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

Rebagliati-Ribbeck v. County of Alameda · filed 2025-07-07(c)(3)

With the federal causes of action dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state-law claim and dismisses it without prejudice to any future action that Rebagliati-Ribbeck may wish to bring 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.

Colon-Santiago v. Prime Care, Inc. · filed 2025-07-07(c)(3)

However, because Plaintiff fails to allege a plausible federal claim against any Defendant, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all federal claims, ordinarily dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice absent unusual circumstances.

McGee, Jackie v. Wenzel, Jill · filed 2025-07-08(c)(3)

The court is exercising supplemental jurisdiction over those claims based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367. “Absent unusual circumstances, district courts relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims if all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been resolved before trial.” Coleman v. City of Peoria, Illinois, 925 F.3d 336, 352 (7th Cir. 2019). The court is dismissing all of McGee’s federal claims in this case, and no party identifies any unusual circumstances that would support a decision to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claims. So I will dismiss the state-law 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.

Elzey v. Monroe County · filed 2025-07-08(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under many circumstances, including where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims as asserted in the fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action are dismissed without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims is denied as moot.

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

ALLEN-MURPHY v. MURPHY · filed 2025-07-08(c)(3)

Considering that the Complaint fails to state a plausible federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim.

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

OPV Partners, LLC v. City of Lansing, Mich. · filed 2025-07-09(c)(3)

And the district court had discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over OPV’s state-law claim (for breach of the settlement agreement) after dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses the only federal claim early in the case.

Mark Breiner DDS, LLC v. BTL Industries, Inc. · filed 2025-07-10(c)(3)

Thus, because the lone federal-law claim in this case will be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 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.

Henton v. The City of New York · filed 2025-07-10(c)(3)

Thus, in the absence of any remaining federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims and 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.

Lewis v. Rosen · filed 2025-07-10(c)(3)

District courts have 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[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Given the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lewis’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.

L. v. Town of Smithfield · filed 2025-07-11(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... With that in mind, the Court finds that these interests do not favor retaining jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining RICRA claim.

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

Kayman v. Spirit Halloween Superstores LLC · filed 2025-07-11(c)(3)

After considering the matter, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s New York State Human Rights Law claims. As discussed above, all of plaintiff’s federal claims must be dismissed.

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

Mendoza-Lebron v. Adams · filed 2025-07-11(c)(3)

In considering the “traditional values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

Hinton v. The City of Chicago · filed 2025-07-14(c)(3)

But the Court, having “dismissed all claims over which it [had] original Jurisdiction,” declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over those allegations and the underlying claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Hinton’s state law battery claim, too, is dismissed without prejudice.

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

Mott v. Transunion LLC · filed 2025-07-14(c)(3)

Because the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and will dismiss the case.

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

Chaney v. Local 32BJ SEIU · filed 2025-07-15(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed Plaintiff's only federal claim, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NYCHRL 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.

DePaola v. Scruggs · filed 2025-07-16(c)(3)

In the absence of viable claims that come within federal question jurisdiction, the court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. DePaola’s state law claims. Those claims are 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.

Garnes v. City of New York · filed 2025-07-16(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Wilson v. Frankfort, Kansas, City of · filed 2025-07-17(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court is dismissing all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Furthermore, this case is at the pleading stage, and no discovery has occurred. Thus, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s negligence claim.

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

Waisanen v. Credit Collections Bureau · filed 2025-07-17(c)(3)

Because all claims over which a federal court might have original jurisdiction have been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Frank v. Kotek · filed 2025-07-17(c)(3)

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. ... Taking all this into account, the Court determines that judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor declining to 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.

Hubbuch v. Helbraun & Levey LLP · filed 2025-07-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s RICO claim, which is the only federal claim in this matter, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim of fraudulent inducement.

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

Morrow v. Doe Sgt Badge 2099 · filed 2025-07-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed Morrow’s federal claims for the reasons set forth above, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

After dismissing the federal claims, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, particularly early in the case.

Global Carbon Opportunity (Cayman) Fund Ltd. v. CME Group Inc. · filed 2025-07-17(c)(3)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... At this early stage of litigation, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims is appropriate.

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

Schoene v. Oregon Department of Human Services · filed 2025-07-18(c)(3)

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF 66, with respect to Schoene’s federal-law claims and 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 after dismissing the federal claims.

NAHAS v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH · filed 2025-07-18(c)(3)

Because all the remaining claims in this case arise under state law, and the only federal claim will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss without prejudice the state-law claims.

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

Jackson v. School Board for the City of Richmond, Virginia PLEASE FILE IN THIS CASE ONLY! DO NOT FILE IN MEMBER CASE. · filed 2025-07-18(c)(3)

Given that Fourth Circuit precedent “evince[s] a strong preference that state law issues be left to state courts in the absence of diversity or federal question jurisdiction,” the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss the remaining count without prejudice.

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

Eisenberg v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2025-07-18(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 standards, the Court finds it to be in the interest of judicial economy to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Aponte v. Department of Family & Protective Services Case remanded to the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Tex · filed 2025-07-18(c)(3)

Because Aponte’s federal claims are dismissed, the court must decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim. ... The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Texas Whistleblower Act claim.

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.

Koontz v. Town of Fairfax · filed 2025-07-18(c)(3)

Even if it had not been abandoned, in light of the dismissal of Koontz’s Constitutional and ADA Claims, 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 a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services · filed 2025-07-21(c)(3)

However, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) [of Section 1367] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ remaining claim under the FTSA.

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

Quinlan v. Washington County · filed 2025-07-21(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims, having dismissed the § 1983 claims as to which the Court had original jurisdiction in this action.

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. Chance · filed 2025-07-21(c)(3)

Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion, we will decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over potential ancillary state law domestic relations claims in this case where all potential federal claims brought before us fail as a matter of law.

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

Essavi v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2025-07-22(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Essavi’s remaining state law claim because it properly dismissed Essavi’s 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.

United States v. RESPIRONICS · filed 2025-07-22(c)(3)

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

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

Thornock v. JES Foundation Repair LLC · filed 2025-07-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only claim “over which it has original jurisdiction,” and considering the early stage of this litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Thornock’s remaining state law claims.

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

R.H. v. Shreeji Hospitality of Lexington, LLC · filed 2025-07-22(c)(3)

The proviso in subsection (c) is central to the decision respecting whether the Court should here exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims: ... And it is certainly the proper course here. The action is in its earliest stages, no limitations bar immediately arises, see West Virginia Code § 55-2-18(a), and no federal interest lies in this purely local -- and quite serious -- controversy.

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.

Greco v. O'Donnell · filed 2025-07-22(c)(3)

Although supplemental jurisdiction may allow for plaintiff to bring his state law claim, plaintiff cannot bring his defamation claims in federal court because his federal claims fail.

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

Rodriguez-Morales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-22(c)(3)

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

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

McNeil v. Van Houten · filed 2025-07-22(c)(3)

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

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

Pina v. New York State Gaming Commission · filed 2025-07-23(c)(3)

For the reasons set forth in the December 10, 2024 order, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state-law claims Plaintiff is asserting. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gage v. Borough of New Providence · filed 2025-07-24(c)(3)

The District Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims, which was within its discretion to do.

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.

Gibbs v. Sikeston, City of · filed 2025-07-25(c)(3)

Without a viable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“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.”).

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

Cooper v. Lucas County Jail · filed 2025-07-25(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any purported state law claim against Moran.

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

Wright v. Select Bank · filed 2025-07-28(c)(3)

To the extent that Wright intended to allege any other state claims against Select Bank, this court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them after dismissing all federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the court weighs multiple factors, including “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Id. (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). Here, the court concludes that the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

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

Mira v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas · filed 2025-07-28(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s single federal question claim has been dismissed—the only claim in this action the Court possessed original jurisdiction over—and the other claims deal with property law matters that are more appropriate for state court review, the Court will dismiss this action in its entirety.

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

JAMALADDIN v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC. · filed 2025-07-28(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to “decline . . . supplemental jurisdiction” over Plaintiff’s state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges, 204 F.3d at 123, and shall dismiss them without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ 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.

Drews v. GoldOller Real Estate Investments · filed 2025-07-28(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 that Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Carter v. The City of New York · filed 2025-07-28(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim.

Salgado v. Schmaltz · filed 2025-07-29(c)(3)

Because the court is dismissing the complaint for failure to state a federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim and will dismiss this claim without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, taking judicial economy and the risk of needless state law decisions into account.

Whitney v. Helfert · filed 2025-07-31(c)(3)

Here, the interests of judicial economy and avoiding multiplicity of litigation do not outweigh needlessly deciding state law issues. ... The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Whitney’s claims against any defendant.

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.

McKinzie v. Bank of America · filed 2025-07-31(c)(3)

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

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

MANZ v. SUPERCENTER · filed 2025-07-31(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims pursuant to 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 federal claims.

Marberry v. Detroit Public Schools Community District · filed 2025-07-31(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims in the case, however, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against J.M. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Coon v. DCI Credit Services · filed 2025-08-01(c)(3)

This court finds that Plaintiff’s remaining state claims are more appropriately addressed in state court as there is nothing in the pleadings to indicate that that there is complete diversity of citizenship, this matter is in its nascent stage between the parties, and the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness would best be served if the questions of state law were left to a 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.

United States v. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION · filed 2025-08-04(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed Relator’s federal claims against Defendants Smith & Nephew, Holloway, and Integra, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his associated state-law claims and they are dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Ricciardo v. NYU Hospitals Center · filed 2025-08-04(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal ADA and FMLA claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]”).

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

Sullivan v. Dutchess County Dept. Community Family Services · filed 2025-08-04(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s remaining federal claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Conley v. Board of Education of Clark County Schools · filed 2025-08-05(c)(3)

As is standard in this scenario, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the KCRA claim.

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

Miller v. Hurd · filed 2025-08-05(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise its supplementary jurisdiction over Miller’s state law claims, in light of the fact that it dismisses any viable federal law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Perry v. City of Orofino · filed 2025-08-05(c)(3)

Where, as here, all of the plaintiff’s federal claims are eliminated before trial and there is no diversity jurisdiction, the Court has a duty to consider whether it should continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... For these reasons, the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and remand them back to state court.

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

Stewart v. City of Carlsbad · filed 2025-08-05(c)(3)

This Court finds the same and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) calls for declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction are dismissed, unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness supports retaining them.

ALONZO v. TERRA · filed 2025-08-05(c)(3)

Accordingly, because no basis for original jurisdiction remains and none of the factors favor retaining jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

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

CRISCI v. BRIDGEVILLE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC · filed 2025-08-06(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted summary judgment to Defendants on all of Ms. Crisci’s federal claims, the Court declines 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 the federal claims have been eliminated.

Ruiz v. New York Italian Deli & Cafe, Inc. · filed 2025-08-06(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Thomas v. Apple · filed 2025-08-06(c)(3)

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

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

Jones v. Harry · filed 2025-08-07(c)(3)

Finally, given Jones’ failure to state a claim under federal law, we find that the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over his supplemental state-law claim. See Doe v. Mercy Cath. Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 567 (3d Cir. 2017) (“A court may [decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction] under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after dismissing the federal claims to which they relate.

K.A. v. City Of New York · filed 2025-08-07(c)(3)

Because all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims against the City are dismissed, the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state and local law claims against the City.

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

Shipp v. Fink · filed 2025-08-07(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.

Elliot v. Avangrid Management Company · filed 2025-08-08(c)(3)

Having decided to dismiss all of Ms. Elliott’s federal claims, the Court sees no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims.

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

FOSTER v. HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, LLC AND SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC. · filed 2025-08-08(c)(3)

Thus, with no other properly pled federal claims appearing on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint and no other basis for this Court’s original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims at this time. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court finds no extraordinary circumstances warranting an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Archer v. Vigil-Richards · filed 2025-08-08(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Archer’s remaining claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Stafford v. Sugarcreek Township · filed 2025-08-08(c)(3)

In these circumstances, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stafford’s claims is warranted. Accordingly, Stafford’s state-law claims merit dismissal 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.

Villarroel v. Recology Inc. · filed 2025-08-08(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling in state court.

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

Kelly v. Miller · filed 2025-08-11(c)(3)

Because plaintiff's federal claims for deliberate indifference are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Valencia v. Sung M. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 306 (2d Cir. 2003).

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

Carter v. Department of Public Safety and Correction Services · filed 2025-08-11(c)(3)

In the absence of viable claims that come within federal question jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Carter’s state law claims.

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

Cortishae-Etier (ID 102990) v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2025-08-11(c)(3)

Because plaintiff cannot state a cognizable claim under federal law in this case, as discussed below, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

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

Bonano v. Grant · filed 2025-08-11(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.

Urena v. The City of New York · filed 2025-08-11(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction of his state law claims, 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.

United States v. Lozano · filed 2025-08-12(c)(3)

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of all Winnon’s federal claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand a state law claim after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Marshall, David v. Filpescu, Radu · filed 2025-08-13(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s state law claim against defendant Radu Filipescu is REMANDED under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to the Circuit Court for Dane County, Wisconsin for resolution.

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

Futrell-Smith v. Brinker International, Inc. · filed 2025-08-13(c)(3)

As a result, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claim. That claim is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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.

Thompson v. City of New York · filed 2025-08-13(c)(3)

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

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

232 W Mason LLC v. Jackson, City of · filed 2025-08-14(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” where it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because Michigan state courts are best suited to address those questions, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent unjust enrichment claims.

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

Neal v. Riley · filed 2025-08-14(c)(3)

Because plaintiff's federal claims for deliberate indifference are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Parkes v. Walker II · filed 2025-08-14(c)(3)

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

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

Estate of Teion Yasin Cooper v. Milwaukee County · filed 2025-08-15(c)(3)

The court follows this presumption and declines to 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 federal claims.

Muse v. City Of Chicago · filed 2025-08-15(c)(3)

Having found that Muse’s complaint does not state a claim under federal law, the court will follow the “usual practice” of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Those claims are thus dismissed without prejudice.