28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Carmack v. ACRT Pacific, LLC · filed 2025-08-15(c)(3)

Where the only claim over which the Court has jurisdiction must be dismissed, courts generally decline to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state claims. ... The Court therefore exercises its discretion not to retain jurisdiction and remands the case back to state court.

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

Brown 235551 v. Maricopa, County of · filed 2025-08-18(c)(3)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiff’s state-law claims because, as explained in this Order, the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’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.

Lumbus, Jr. v. Huntington Bank · filed 2025-08-18(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once they have dismissed all claims over which they had original jurisdiction.

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

Ruffin v. Wayne County Treasurer · filed 2025-08-18(c)(3)

Lastly, to the extent Ruffin’s state law claims are not barred for the same reasons,3 the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

After dismissing the only federal claim, a court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness affirmatively justify retaining them.

PRESSLEY v. THE GRANT APARTMENTS · filed 2025-08-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed Pressley’s only federal claim, the Court “must decline to decide [her] pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because no exceptions apply here, there is no reason to retain jurisdiction over Pressley’s state law claims against The Grant Apartments, Owner, or MPM.

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

WILSON-WALKER v. CASO · filed 2025-08-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed Mr. Wilson-Walker’s federal claims, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental state law defamation, slander, and malicious prosecution 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; fairness and comity may favor resolution in state court.

Moser v. Seward County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners · filed 2025-08-20(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claim if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” ... Considering the above, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim. The court finds no reasons to depart from the general holdings discussed herein and finds that the principles of fairness and comity favor resolution of this claim in state court.

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

Ahmad v. River Point Towers Cooperative, Inc. · filed 2025-08-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed Ahmad’s sole federal claim as to all Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ahmad’s remaining claim under the NYCHRL.

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

Pocock v. Software in the Public Interest, Inc. · filed 2025-08-20(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Kaufman v. Williamson · filed 2025-08-21(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain in this matter, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims against Snellen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and those state law 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.

WEBB, III v. DIVERSEGY, LLC · filed 2025-08-21(c)(3)

But a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction [over state law claims] . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, 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.

Barnett v. Christian County Jail · filed 2025-08-21(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff's federal claims are being dismissed, 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.

Khatri v. Dearborn Public School District · filed 2025-08-21(c)(3)

Meanwhile, all other claims are being dismissed on other grounds, so the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the two state law claims (even assuming they might be properly pled).

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

Nau v. Papoosha · filed 2025-08-22(c)(3)

On initial review, the court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on his state common law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, but as it now grants summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff's only surviving federal claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

Baier v. Community Home Health Care, Inc. · filed 2025-08-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claim (Count I), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state law claims asserted against Defendant.

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

Bass v. Arizona Motor Vehicle Division · filed 2025-08-22(c)(3)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiff’s state-law claims because Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Galynsky v. Rodriguez · filed 2025-08-25(c)(3)

Additionally, Galynsky has not shown that the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims was an abuse of discretion.

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

Markland v. Carter Co Sheriff Dept Swat Team Members · filed 2025-08-25(c)(3)

Since the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court, in its discretion, will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant Orellana’s state law counter claims.

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

Martin v. Masters, Mates, & Pilots · filed 2025-08-25(c)(3)

Because the sole federal claim has been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim against Matson, for the same reasons as in Matson I. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

(PS) Meckfessel-Poletti v. Workday, Inc. · filed 2025-08-25(c)(3)

As discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under federal law. Accordingly, at this time, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

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

Partridge v. Black Rock LLC · filed 2025-08-25(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.

WHITWORTH v. FRANKLIN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER · filed 2025-08-26(c)(3)

Recognizing this hard-and-fast rule, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Chambers, Defendant Woods, and Dr. Touchton in accordance with the considerable discretion afforded to it by § 1367(c)(3).

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

Moody v. Benton County Detention Center · filed 2025-08-27(c)(3)

Moody’s federal claims are being dismissed, and it is not in the interest of judicial economy or comity for the Court to hear and determine Moody’s state law claims. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Moody’s claims arising under Tennessee law.

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

Hajjar v. St. Luke's Health System, LTD · filed 2025-08-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the unjust enrichment claim.

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

Haskell v. Fadem · filed 2025-08-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, will decline to exercise its jurisdiction over claim 4 at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, even when it grants leave to amend.

Doe v. County of Plumas · filed 2025-08-27(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims, albeit with leave to amend, the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims unless and until a viable federal claim is adequately pled. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff First through Fourth Causes of Action and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Maresca v. Richmond University Medical Center · filed 2025-08-28(c)(3)

As all federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the New York Labor Law claim without prejudice to Maresca bringing it in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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.

Serafin v. Realmark Holdings, LLC · filed 2025-08-28(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted summary judgment against Mr. Serafin on his federal trademark claims (and the closely related state law claims), the Court, in its discretion, declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims for interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

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

Miles v. Bradley County, Tennessee · filed 2025-08-29(c)(3)

And with no federal claims remaining, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental ... jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Tester v. Ballad Health · filed 2025-08-29(c)(3)

In the absence of a claim invoking the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, which sound in state law.

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.

Montoya v. Albuquerque Police Department · filed 2025-08-29(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Montoya’s state law claim for emotional distress, because it is dismissing Montoya’s federal law claims.

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

JOHNSON v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, INC. · filed 2025-09-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed each of Johnson’s federal claims, the Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’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.

Canario · filed 2025-09-02(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims of defamation and negligent hiring.

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

Brill v. Ulster County · filed 2025-09-03(c)(3)

With regard to Plaintiff’s state law defamation claim, in light of the prior holdings dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines, in its discretion, to exercise pendent jurisdiction over such claim “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which authorizes a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim if all of the claims over which the court had original jurisdiction were dismissed.” Stephenson v. Albany Cnty. Policymakers, No. 6:09-CV- 326, 2009 WL 2922805, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [pendent state law claims] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Dimas v. Perez · filed 2025-09-03(c)(3)

In short, the Court dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction, and as a result, it can in its discretion decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss 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.

Reid v. Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group (Guard Division NY), Inc. · filed 2025-09-03(c)(3)

Because this case is in the early stages of litigation, pursuant to my discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Reid’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.

Nemhard · filed 2025-09-03(c)(3)

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

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

Ong · filed 2025-09-03(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.

Rodriguez · filed 2025-09-03(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.

Jeanty · filed 2025-09-03(c)(3)

The Court declines at this stage to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Caruso v. Texas Medical Board · filed 2025-09-04(c)(3)

As for Caruso’s state-law claims, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Dese v. Logansport Police Dept · filed 2025-09-04(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the two remaining state-law claims.

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

Carlin · filed 2025-09-04(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ sole federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. ... Given the relatively early state of the case, the traditional “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” that the Court must consider do not counsel in favor of exercising jurisdiction.

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

Thompson · filed 2025-09-04(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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Steshenko v. Board of Trustees of Foothill-De Anza Community College District · filed 2025-09-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed each of Plaintiff’s federal claims without leave to amend, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims (i.e., the fourth cause of action for breach of obligations arising under operation of law pursuant to various California statutes and regulations and the fifth cause of action for breach of contract), which arise under state law.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering the stage of litigation and related state court proceedings.

Talenthub Worldwide, Inc. v. Talenthub Workforce · filed 2025-09-05(c)(3)

At this early stage of litigation, and in light of the pending New York state court proceedings involving related issues, it is appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when no compelling reason supports retaining them.

Board of Education of Joliet Township High School, District 204 v. Publicis Health, LLC · filed 2025-09-08(c)(3)

Without a federal claim to ground this court’s jurisdiction, or compelling reasons to retain supplemental jurisdiction, the companion state-law claims are also dismissed.

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

PEREZ v. KELLY · filed 2025-09-09(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s potential state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

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

Christopher v. City of Derby · filed 2025-09-09(c)(3)

Because these claims are the only ones over which the Court has original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law breach of contract claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and therefore dismiss count 3 without prejudice.

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

Fulton v. Lilly, Township of · filed 2025-09-09(c)(3)

The Court discerns no basis for finding an exception to the presumption in favor of dismissal of the state claims. Accordingly, and to the extent the amended complaint raises state claims,13 the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Smith v. New Neighborhoods, Inc. · filed 2025-09-10(c)(3)

Specifically, § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Stenseth v. Althoff · filed 2025-09-10(c)(3)

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

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

Rivera · filed 2025-09-10(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), having dismissed the federal claims in case no. 22cv1874 over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state-law claim for trespass and false imprisonment against the Town.

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

Hernandez v. Clover Flat Land Fill Inc · filed 2025-09-11(c)(3)

Having dismissed the two federal claims (out of 27 total claims), and the case not even having proceeded to discovery, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the remaining 25 state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on the balance of judicial economy and other relevant considerations.

Lorenz 743461 v. Nevins · filed 2025-09-12(c)(3)

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

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

Byrum v. Knox County, Tennessee · filed 2025-09-12(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s negligence and negligence per se state-law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

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

Williams v. The County of Cayuga · filed 2025-09-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Parker v. Kreitzer · filed 2025-09-15(c)(3)

Because the court will grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss as to all federal claims, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Tauran’s remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

J.B.C v. Athens Area School District · filed 2025-09-15(c)(3)

The plaintiff’s remaining state-law tort claims against the University Defendants and the Student/Parent Defendants 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ali v. City of Cleveland · filed 2025-09-16(c)(3)

In this case, the following factors support declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction: (1) the federal claims have been disposed of; and (2) in so doing, this Court has found it unnecessary to address numerous contested issues that may bear upon the remaining state law claims, such as the applicability of Ohio’s newly amended exhaustion requirements. Therefore, this Court concludes, after balancing the factors relevant to exercising its supplemental jurisdiction, that the remaining state law claims are REMANDED to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, including when the case remains at an early stage.

Geer v. Dean · filed 2025-09-16(c)(3)

Where the Court will dismiss Geer’s federal claims, and Geer has not demonstrated diversity jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Where this case remains at the early stages, the Court will decline to exercise such jurisdiction and will therefore dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

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

Williams v. Brewer · filed 2025-09-16(c)(3)

To the extent Williams can be understood to assert claims under Missouri law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Flores · filed 2025-09-16(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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Resorts World Hudson Valley · filed 2025-09-16(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims.

Feldkamp v. The University of Kansas Hospital Authority · filed 2025-09-15(c)(3)

Now absent any federal ... claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law wrongful termination claim.

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

BAGLEY v. EXPERIAN CREDIT BUREAU · filed 2025-09-17(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the federal claim, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law claim.

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

Kiss · filed 2025-09-17(c)(3)

As noted in the Court’s prior Opinion, Kiss, 2023 WL 2648396, at *15, where a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over any remaining claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court finds nothing that distinguishes this Action from “the usual case.” The Court has granted Defendants’ Motions against all of Plaintiff’s federal claims. ... Thus, the Court grants Defendants’ Motions against the 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.

Appleton v. Orange County School Board · filed 2025-09-18(c)(3)

The court finds that the relevant factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

Tidwell v. State of Tennessee · filed 2025-09-18(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court, therefore, follows the Sixth Circuit’s general rule and 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.

Crockett v. Commonwealth of Virginia Virginia Department of Corrections · filed 2025-09-18(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The court finds that the relevant factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

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.

Snyder v. Virginia State Police · filed 2025-09-18(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 counts without prejudice.

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

Mitchel v. Stellantis Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2025-09-18(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 counts 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.

Jensen v. Navy Federal Credit Union · filed 2025-09-18(c)(3)

Unless and until a viable federal claim is stated, 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.

DEDURO v. THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH · filed 2025-09-18(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain, pursuant to Section 1367(c)(3), this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’ s remaining state law claims and, therefore, dismisses them (Counts V through VIII).

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

Ondovcsik v. Genesee, County of · filed 2025-09-18(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of the federal claims (Counts I-V), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law whistleblower 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.

Marquez v. Baker-Chavez · filed 2025-09-19(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.

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

Short v. Alpine Motors Inc. · filed 2025-09-19(c)(3)

Thus, for those reasons, and because Plaintiff has not otherwise objected to Judge Lindsay’s R&R, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, and dismisses them without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

CARROLL v. MCCANN · filed 2025-09-19(c)(3)

We may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims if we have dismissed all claims over which we have original jurisdiction.104 We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Carroll’s remaining state claims absent federal question.

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

Singleton v. Hamm · filed 2025-09-22(c)(3)

The court will decline to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims against DOC in Counts IV and V and DISMISS those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(8).

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

Melendez-Velez v. Pagan-Cardona · filed 2025-09-22(c)(3)

Given the fact that no federal question remains, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims arising from Puerto Rico law.

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

Kinnel v. Barton · filed 2025-09-22(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law assault and battery claims because 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 the sole federal claim.

OJO v. CHARLES · filed 2025-09-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed the sole federal claim in the Amended Complaint, and to the extent Plaintiffs seeks damages beyond their deposit of $13,125.00 in the remaining claims arising under state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims; specifically, Plaintiffs’ alleged claims for (i) breach of contract against BCAP (Count I); (ii) fraud against all Defendants (Count II); (iii) negligence against all Defendants (Count IV); and (iv) unjust enrichment against all Defendants (Count V).

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

Taylor v. Caplan · filed 2025-09-22(c)(3)

With no federal claims remaining, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against Gorman and CCM, assuming it even was able to do so.

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

Pogue · filed 2025-09-22(c)(3)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim absent a cognizable federal claim.

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

Thompson v. Deschutes County Sheriff's Office · filed 2025-09-23(c)(3)

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

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

United States v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC · filed 2025-09-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed the FCA claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Relator’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.

Schleuderer v. Town of Woodstock · filed 2025-09-23(c)(3)

Given that the bases for this Court’s federal question jurisdiction have been disposed of, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYCSL and NYHRL claims.

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

Krasner Loan Co., Inc d/b/a American Loan Company v. Ferraris · filed 2025-09-23(c)(3)

Without an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court follows the usual Sixth Circuit practice and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Stewart v. Plains Commerce Bank · filed 2025-09-23(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed Stewart’s RICO claims—Stewart’s only claims with original federal jurisdiction—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Mountain Home Flight Serv., Inc. v. Baxter Cnty., 758 F.3d 1038, 1045 (8th Cir. 2014) (holding that district court acted within its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing § 1983 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.

Brooks v. Town of Worthington · filed 2025-09-23(c)(3)

Having found all of Plaintiff’s federal claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

JONES v. GTR ENTERPRISES INC · filed 2025-09-23(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Frye v. Cowman · filed 2025-09-24(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all remaining state-law claims and counterclaims, and will dismiss them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hanks v. Ascension St. Vincent's Hospital · filed 2025-09-24(c)(3)

Because this case is in its initial pleadings phase, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Ms. Hanks’s state law claims in the interests of judicial economy and convenience.

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

KL v. Dunmore School District · filed 2025-09-24(c)(3)

Upon consideration of these factors and the record before us, we find nothing to distinguish this from the usual case. Therefore, the remaining state- law claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Parsey v. Mcinnis, PH.D · filed 2025-09-24(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

RLO Group LLC v. Fonseca · filed 2025-09-24(c)(3)

After analyzing the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, 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.

Jackson v. Tampkins · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Jackson’s state law claims. See Dyack v. N. Mariana Islands, 317 F.3d 1030, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where the district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

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

Konate v. Officer Morelli · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed all of the plaintiff’s federal claims early in the proceedings, the Court concludes that the balance of judicial ... economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction. ... The Court will therefore dismiss Konate’s state law claims without prejudice.

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

Robinson v. Kansas Department of Corrections · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Defendant Hook’s Motion and dismisses the only federal claim in this lawsuit in which it has original jurisdiction, the Court denies Centurion’s Motion as moot as the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim against Centurion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, including when dismissal occurs early in the case.

Jones v. Midland Funding LLC · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses plaintiff’s federal claims at this early stage of the case, it declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims under 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.

Avens v. Dixon · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

Taking these allegations as true (and to the extent they may be proven), and recognizing that the remaining claims involve interpretation of state laws against at least two state government actors, the court finds it within its broad discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss Plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice.

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.

Burdick v. Bath Central School District · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

The Court recognizes that this matter has been passed between state and federal court. That said, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s surviving Section 75-b claim.

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

Gallegos v. Board of Education of Las Cruces Public Schools · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

The balance of Plaintiffs’ claims involve alleged violations of state law. Exercising its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), 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 dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Prospay, Inc. v. CardX, LLC · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

But a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction. Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... Since the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, Prospay’s state-law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ben Umeze, MD v. New York State Department of Health · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Alameda · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ federal claims under Title VII and Section 1981, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law NYSHRL claims.

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

Arteta · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

Having determined that the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining New York Labor Law claim. See id. (citing 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.

Lyles v. McMaster · filed 2025-09-24(c)(3)

Federal courts are permitted to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), however, 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, taking into account the availability of a state forum and the state's interest in deciding those claims.

Walsh v. Alviti · filed 2025-09-26(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction based on Walsh’s ability to pursue his claims in state court and the strong interests of the State of Rhode Island in adjudicating the merits of a state law claim.

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

Annabel, II v. Jackson County Sheriff Department · filed 2025-09-26(c)(3)

But as Judge Patti noted, it is well within the Court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (ECF No. 130, PageID.1842) and is often not only permissible but advisable, see Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254–55 (6th Cir. 1996) (“When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims.”).

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

Bartholomew v. Mount Sinai West · filed 2025-09-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYCHRL claim.

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

Asya Weston and Corinne Marshall v. WIP 800 J Lofts · filed 2025-09-26(c)(3)

As discussed above, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under federal law. Accordingly, at this time, the Court 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 the federal claims.

In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation · filed 2025-09-26(c)(3)

More precisely, the Court dismisses the federal claims in the Indirect Purchasers Complaint for failure to allege a plausible market definition and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the extraordinary number of state law claims the Indirect Purchasers assert.

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

Williams v. City of New York · filed 2025-09-27(c)(3)

A district court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Because that is the case here, plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to their refiling in a state court of appropriate jurisdiction.

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

Groom v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervison · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)

The Court has broad discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McManus v. Tufts Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of the ECPA claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, all of which arise 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.

Hagy v. Sullivan County Tennessee · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 grants district courts the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Therefore, the remaining state law claims are denied without prejudice so that they can be pursued in Tennessee state court.

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.

Fernandez · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)

Here, subsection (3) applies because the Court has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Thus, the Court may exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

Pollak v. Strong · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

Pursuant to 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.”

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

Reaves v. City of Montgomery · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over Reaves’ state law claims. Accordingly, Counts XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, and XXII 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, unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness justifies retaining them.

HARR v. WASHINGTON AREA HUMANE SOCIETY · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

Upon consideration of the SAC, the Court finds that there is nothing unique about this case such that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide an affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Harr’s state law claims. Accordingly, in this instance, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harr’s state law claims at Counts II, III, V, VII (to the extent it alleges conversion), XI, and XV of the SAC.

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

Sultaana v. McConahay · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State-law claims and, therefore, DISMISSES them WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Lewis v. Keuerleber · filed 2025-09-30(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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Armour v. Gold · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

Having found no viable claims that would provide this Court with original federal 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.

Vazquez v. Selene Finance LP · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims brought against Defendant DLJ in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against this Defendant.

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

Raney v. CitiMortgage, Inc. · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only claim arising under federal law, the Court will determine whether to retain or decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims for tortious interference and civil conspiracy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Finding no factor that distinguishes this case from the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Shelton J. Haynes and Gretchen K. Robinson v. Executive Chamber for the Office of the Governor of New York, Roosevelt Is · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

Because, for the reasons outlined above, all of Plaintiffs’ federal law claims against Defendant Fhala must be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the alleged state law claims against Defendant Fhala. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Camarda v. Snapple Distributors, Inc., 346 F. App’x 690, 693 (2d Cir. 2009).

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

Rhoda · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s Section ADA and RA claims must be dismissed, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Goszczynska · filed 2025-09-30(c)(3)

Applying this standard, 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Underhill Land, LLC v. Town of Catskill · filed 2025-10-01(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Supra. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all weigh in favor of declining 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.

Moore v. St. Claire Regional Medical Center Hospital · filed 2025-10-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over his state-law claims against 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.

Bey v. City of Dothan, Alabama · filed 2025-10-06(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction and concludes that comity and judicial economy are both served by declining to needlessly decide the remaining matters of state law. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), Counts I (Fraud/Deceit), II (Fraud/Suppression), and V (Intentional Interference with Business Relations) of the TAC will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Hartley v. Cate · filed 2025-10-06(c)(3)

The court has discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over these claims even after dismissing the plaintiff’s federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” in such circumstances (emphasis added)).

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

Terrell v. Arias · filed 2025-10-06(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

LONGENBAUGH v. MACK · filed 2025-10-07(c)(3)

To the extent that Ms. Longenbaugh's state-law claims pass muster under the juris- dictional principles outlined above, we nonetheless decline to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction over them. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, "[t]he 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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Joyce 251901 v. Sprango · filed 2025-10-07(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the Court will decline 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.

Mayo v. McFerren · filed 2025-10-07(c)(3)

Because the court dismisses plaintiff's claims arising under federal law, the court has no basis to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Robinson v. Cheatum · filed 2025-10-08(c)(3)

As to Plaintiff’s remaining various state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them 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 when no viable federal claim remains.

Hinchee v. Littleton · filed 2025-10-08(c)(3)

In the absence of a viable federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the asserted state-law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Wilson v. Suffolk County Executive · filed 2025-10-08(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Green Builders LLC v. USA Green Builders Corporation · filed 2025-10-08(c)(3)

In declining jurisdiction under section 1367(c)(3), the Court “must first identify the dismissal that triggers the exercise of discretion”—here, dismissal of Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims—“and then explain how declining jurisdiction serves the objectives of economy, convenience and fairness to the parties, and comity.” ... Plaintiff’s pendent claims involve “[n]eedless decisions of state law” that the Court will avoid “both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law” 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.

Cassel v. Truss Communications · filed 2025-10-09(c)(3)

When a “district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state law claims. ... Here, the Court dismisses all the claims based in federal law, leaving only state law claims. Having considered the foregoing policy considerations, the Court concludes dismissal of the state law claims is warranted.

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

THOMAS v. DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES · filed 2025-10-09(c)(3)

Recognizing this hard-and-fast rule, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims in accordance with the considerable discretion afforded to it by § 1367(c)(3), and it DISMISSES them without prejudice.4 [Doc. 1, p. 7].

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

PINNOCK v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL · filed 2025-10-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed Pinnock’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Rashidi G. Smith v. Department of Corrections · filed 2025-10-09(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when no continuing federal interest remains.

SMALL v. SMITH · filed 2025-10-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed the Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims because I find “there is no continuing federal interest.” Vázquez-Velázquez v. P.R. Highways & Transp. Auth., 73 F.4th 44, 52–53 (1st Cir. 2023); see also 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.

Sinclair v. Culbeaux · filed 2025-10-10(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a state-law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the Court dismisses all federal-law claims well before trial, so the Court dismisses the state-law 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.

SCHNEIDER v. RICHARD CHIPMAN; LEONARD TIERNEY; COAST TO COAST STAFFING LLC; STAFFINVEST HOLDING LLC; MADISON · filed 2025-10-10(c)(3)

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

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

Lozada · filed 2025-10-14(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses Plaintiff’s remaining NYLL 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.

Brooks · filed 2025-10-14(c)(3)

Having found all of Plaintiff’s federal claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.