28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

ALLEN-MURPHY · filed 2025-10-14(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 state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ramos · filed 2025-10-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s claims of which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any of Plaintiff’s claims under state law, including any claims under the NYSHRL and 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.

Middleton · filed 2025-10-14(c)(3)

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

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

Lurch Jr. v. Any · filed 2025-10-14(c)(3)

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

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

Best · filed 2025-10-14(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.

Bradley · filed 2025-10-15(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and instead dismisses such without prejudice so that Plaintiff may pursue them in the appropriate state forum.

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

Artis · filed 2025-10-15(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and instead dismisses such without prejudice so that Plaintiff may pursue them in the appropriate state forum.

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

The Central Orthopedic Group, LLP v. Aetna Life Insurance Company · filed 2025-10-15(c)(3)

The supplemental Jurisdiction statute allows the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39, 56 (2d Cir. 2004) (“if [all] federal claims are dismissed before trial . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well” (internal quotation marks and quotation omitted)). Such is the case here, and the Court dismisses plaintiffs 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.

Braswell · filed 2025-10-15(c)(3)

However, courts “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, in the absence of a plausible federal claim in either the First Action Complaint or the Second Action Complaint, the Court declines to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over any potential state law claims that may be liberally construed from either 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.

Jemal R. Bell Jr. v. Judge Craig Brown · filed 2025-10-15(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

National Fair Housing Alliance v. Bank of America · filed 2025-10-16(c)(3)

The parties have focused entirely on the federal discrimination claims, meaning that this Court will have no advantage over any other court in bringing the nuisance claims to a fair and expeditious resolution. And declining the exercise of jurisdiction will permit the parties to get the important issues relating to the federal claims before an appellate court in a speedier fashion. Weighing all of the Carnegie-Mellon factors, then, this Court will decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Cobble · filed 2025-10-16(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 state-law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after all claims within its original jurisdiction against all defendants have been dismissed.

Queen · filed 2025-10-16(c)(3)

But 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) “require[s] dismissal of all original jurisdiction claims against all defendants before” the Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, so long as the state law claims are part of the same case or controversy as the remaining federal claims. ... Because several Defendants remain in this lawsuit, the Court does not consider whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction despite finding the federal claims against the moving Defendants must be dismissed.

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

Westbrook · filed 2025-10-16(c)(3)

Further, having dismissed plaintiff’s federal claims, there is no basis to exert the court’s pendent 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.

Jones · filed 2025-10-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed Jones’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over and dismisses any state law claims she brings.

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

Norman v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio · filed 2025-10-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed Norman’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claim.

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

Thompson · filed 2025-10-17(c)(3)

After balancing the relevant factors, the court finds they weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Thompson’s state claims.

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

Lyall · filed 2025-10-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed Lyall’s federal-law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and promissory estoppel.

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

Guzzetta · filed 2025-10-20(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court in its discretion 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 it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Golden · filed 2025-10-20(c)(3)

However, the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not mandatory, and a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” As set out above, the court has denied Plaintiff’s motions to reopen his ADA claims in this case, which were the only claims over which this court had original jurisdiction. Consequently, the court also declines to reopen any claims under Rule 59 or Rule 60 over which it would have to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Mahan · filed 2025-10-20(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismisses Plaintiff’s state law claims against the City of Jacksonville for decision by the state 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.

Donahue Land, LLC v. City of Auburn · filed 2025-10-20(c)(3)

Since this Court’s jurisdiction to hear this claim is supplemental and turns on the viability of the federal claims that are being dismissed, the Court elects not to retain supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

LONG · filed 2025-10-20(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Lynches’ 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.

Arias · filed 2025-10-20(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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Waheed · filed 2025-10-20(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 state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Lars St. John v. University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center · filed 2025-10-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court declines jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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.

McMillan · filed 2025-10-21(c)(3)

“As a general rule, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where all of the federal claims have been dismissed.”119 I will take that path here.

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

Thompson · filed 2025-10-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, we will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367 gives district courts broad discretion to dismiss related state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Smola v. Sheriff, Hillsborough County Florida · filed 2025-10-22(c)(3)

We see no abuse of discretion in that decision. Though Smola’s battery claim arose “out of a common nucleus of operative fact” with his Fourth Amendment claim, the district court had “broad discretion” to either exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim or to dismiss it.

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

Sargent v. City of Hernando · filed 2025-10-22(c)(3)

Since the underlying federal claims are being dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Sargent’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.

Krens · filed 2025-10-22(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has federal question jurisdiction, it must now consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims under state law. In its discretion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Hubbard v. Aguilar · filed 2025-10-22(c)(3)

Nor is jurisdiction proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. When all federal claims have been dismissed, the general practice in federal court is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims. See Wright v. Associated Ins. Companies Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir. 1994). I’ll follow that practice here and relinquish jurisdiction over Hubbard’s state-law claims without evaluating the merits.

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

Hendon · filed 2025-10-22(c)(3)

If the claims that ... provide a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Azimi · filed 2025-10-23(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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.

Hankins · filed 2025-10-23(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this remaining state court claim and thus dismisses it without prejudice to timely refiling in an appropriate forum.

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

MATTA · filed 2025-10-23(c)(3)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, taking account of the case’s stage and judicial efficiency.

HARTLEY · filed 2025-10-23(c)(3)

I will not exercise the Court’s supplemental ... jurisdiction because the case is in its infancy and there is no efficiency to be gained by having those claims remain in federal 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.

Curtis · filed 2025-10-24(c)(3)

That is appropriate in this case, given that the Court dismisses Curtis’s federal claims well before trial. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Curtis’s remaining state-law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice “so that [they] may be considered, if at all, by the courts of Minnesota.”

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

United States ex rel. Matthew Thomas, Jr. v. Premier Home Health Care Services · filed 2025-10-27(c)(3)

Both § 1367 and § 3732(b) confer federal district courts with supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. ... As a result, “[i]n a qui tam suit involving both state and federal claims, once the federal claims are dismissed . . . a Court may then decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims that were related to the federal claim.” Mohajer, 525 F. Supp.3d at 462. ... The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

Fowler · filed 2025-10-28(c)(3)

Because Fowler’s FLSA claim has been dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his VWPA claim here.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and to dismiss those state-law claims without prejudice.

Aldemur · filed 2025-10-28(c)(3)

Based on its review of the record and because the case remains in its early stages, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s two State-law claims against the City of Cleveland. Therefore, the Court dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

CORDAN · filed 2025-10-28(c)(3)

At this point, as the federal claims have been dismissed, this Court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, as there is no affirmative justification to do otherwise.

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

Yost · filed 2025-10-28(c)(3)

Given the absence of viable federal claims against Defendants, the court determines that the interests of judicial economy, comity, convenience, and fairness weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Yost’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.

Graves · filed 2025-10-29(c)(3)

Although supplemental jurisdiction may allow for plaintiff to bring state law claims, plaintiff cannot bring these claims under Section 1983 because his federal claims fail. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (“[T]he 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.”). ... Therefore, the Court dismisses plaintiff’s state law claims unless or until a federal claim(s) is allowed to proceed.

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

Peralta · filed 2025-10-29(c)(3)

However, having already dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims for relief—i.e., the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction—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 federal claims.

Keen · filed 2025-10-30(c)(3)

Nonetheless, to the extent that Keen intended to assert state-law claims, the court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over such claims after dismissing all federal claims.

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

Wilkins · filed 2025-10-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to screen these potential state law claims because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Stennett · filed 2025-10-30(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 when all federal claims have been dismissed.

Frye · filed 2025-10-28(c)(3)

... Maryland, because all federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims he attempts to raise.

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

Mauk · filed 2025-10-31(c)(3)

Because the Court grants judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff’s federal claims for want of standing, it no longer has original jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute. Accordingly, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state claims under RMLA.

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

Piccolo · filed 2025-10-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Mr. Piccolo’s federal claims, and there being no other basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential 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.

Ventura · filed 2025-11-02(c)(3)

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

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

Wolf · filed 2025-11-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims he brought under various provisions of the Kentucky Constitution.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of all federal claims, especially early in the litigation.

Vianello · filed 2025-11-03(c)(3)

The Court has disposed of all federal questions at this early stage of litigation, before the parties have spent any significant time on the state law claims. Accordingly, 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 dismissing the federal claims.

B.W. · filed 2025-11-03(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of B.W.’s federal due process claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

Staley · filed 2025-11-03(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.

Cooper · filed 2025-11-03(c)(3)

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

Browning · filed 2025-11-04(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Browning has asserted, and the 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 federal claims, particularly before discovery or trial.

Dogali · filed 2025-11-04(c)(3)

Because all federal claims have been dismissed, however, and the case has not proceeded to trial or discovery, I find it proper to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and to dismiss the state law claim without prejudice.

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

Ricci · filed 2025-11-04(c)(3)

Although supplemental jurisdiction may allow for plaintiff to bring state law claims, plaintiff cannot bring these claims under Section 1983 because his federal claims fail. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (“[T]he 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.”). ... Therefore, the Court dismisses plaintiff’s state law claims unless or until a federal claim(s) is allowed to proceed.

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. Rikers Island OBCC · filed 2025-11-04(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 Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Pearson v. Trempealeau County · filed 2025-11-05(c)(3)

Because neither party identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law wrongful discharge claim, the court will decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction without evaluating its merits.

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

Butler v. Marion County Sheriff’s Office · filed 2025-11-06(c)(3)

Upon due consideration, the Court finds that judicial economy and convenience would not be served by retaining jurisdiction over Butler’s state law claims. Thus, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Butler’s state law claims and will dismiss those claims without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate state court.

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

Bright · filed 2025-11-06(c)(3)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and DISMISSES those claims without prejudice.

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

Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences · filed 2025-11-07(c)(3)

Because, in dismissing Thornton’s claim for retaliation under the False Claims Act, the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and the case has not progressed in federal court past NAS’s Motion to Dismiss, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Thornton’s claims under District of Columbia 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.

Baxter · filed 2025-11-07(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case claims and will dismiss Counts III, IV, VI and VII without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction 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 the federal claims.

Sievers · filed 2025-11-07(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining State-law claims.

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

Brink · filed 2025-11-07(c)(3)

Here, the Court finds that it is appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Thompson · filed 2025-11-10(c)(3)

However, 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. Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Delgado · filed 2025-11-10(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 state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Mimms · filed 2025-11-10(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of state-law claims, however, 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 when no factors warrant retaining the state-law claims.

PENASCINO · filed 2025-11-12(c)(3)

The Court finds that no factors or extraordinary circumstances exist that would warrant it exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Penascino’s state-law claims (i.e., negligence; intentional infliction of emotional distress; defamation; false imprisonment; false arrest; equal protection; perjury; violations of PBP policies; and violations of state law).

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

Cooper · filed 2025-11-12(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 within its original jurisdiction.

Delsantro · filed 2025-11-13(c)(3)

Therefore, Delsantro’s 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Tyson · filed 2025-11-13(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed Tyson’s FCRA claim—the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Tyson’s state law claims and remands them to the District Court of Maryland for Prince George’s County.

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

Agosto · filed 2025-11-13(c)(3)

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

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

Buchanan · filed 2025-11-14(c)(3)

In an effort to promote judicial economy and to avoid making needless decisions of state law, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Buchanan’s state-law claims.

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

Powe · filed 2025-11-14(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(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.” ... At this point, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Count II and dismisses this remaining count without prejudice.

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

Sears · filed 2025-11-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed Sears’ claims under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim (Count IV, invasion of privacy).

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

Horsley v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. · filed 2025-11-17(c)(3)

Because the district court did not err in dismissing the federal claims, “it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state-law claims.” See id. at 1169 (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.

I & O, LLC v. Tower Kauai Lagoons 9B · filed 2025-11-17(c)(3)

Pursuant to statute, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when, inter alia, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction….” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the record presents no reason for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over classic State law claims, such as breach of contract and misrepresentation, following dismissal of the federal securities 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.

Freeman · filed 2025-11-17(c)(3)

“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... It is therefore the judgment of the Court Freeman’s motions to remand, for a TRO, for a preliminary injunction, and for financial reimbursement are all DENIED; and the District’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, such that Freeman’s federal claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and his state law FOIA claims are REMANDED to the Sumter County Court of Common Pleas.

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

Enhanced US LLC v. World Aquatics · filed 2025-11-17(c)(3)

To the extent that Enhanced invokes only the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, see Compl. ¶ 56, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. ... 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) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no viable federal claim remains.

LaClair · filed 2025-11-18(c)(3)

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

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

Taylor · filed 2025-11-18(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) authorizes a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if that court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Taylor’s sole remaining claim, a state law employment claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hale · filed 2025-11-18(c)(3)

Because the ADA claim is dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state-law claims pursuant to 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.

STICKNEY · filed 2025-11-19(c)(3)

Finally, as the Recommended Decision correctly concluded, because Mr. Stickney’s federal claims are subject to dismissal, I decline 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.

Agbi · filed 2025-11-20(c)(3)

Returning to the question of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, the absence of any remaining claims over which the court has original jurisdiction counsels against exercising supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court will therefore decline to do so and dismiss Plaintiff’s state 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.

Fulkerson · filed 2025-11-20(c)(3)

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

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

Fouts · filed 2025-11-21(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs 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 remaining state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Maxey · filed 2025-11-21(c)(3)

Considering the early procedural posture of this case, as well as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the court will exercise its discretion and decline to entertain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state causes of action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Religious Tech., 971 F.2d at 367-68.

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

FOREMAN · filed 2025-11-24(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to raise state law claims for false imprisonment and defamation, the Court declines to address those as the Court will dismiss all of Plaintiff's federal claims and will not assert supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.

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

Ashbrook · filed 2025-11-24(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claim, the Court will DECLINE to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Deel · filed 2025-11-25(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state-law claims here. The parties will not be inconvenienced or unfairly prejudiced because they could bring their state-law claims in state 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.

Fitch · filed 2025-11-25(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). ... Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court only has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law negligence claim. This is not an unusual case that requires a departure from the usual practice.

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

Bowden · filed 2025-11-25(c)(3)

Here, all claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction are subject to dismissal, and the Court will not retain jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Accordingly, any state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Balubhai Patel et al. v. Crystal Pak et al. · filed 2025-11-25(c)(3)

Because “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The court finds this is “the usual case” where the balance of the Gibbs factors “point[s] toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Id. Accordingly, the court DISMISSES the breach of contract claim WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND but 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Franco · filed 2025-11-25(c)(3)

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

Staley · filed 2025-11-25(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.

Frazer · filed 2025-11-25(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of 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.

Poupore · filed 2025-11-26(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss all federal claims, it will also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Poupore’s state law claims.

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

Chacko · filed 2025-11-26(c)(3)

In light of the Court's dismissal of Plaintiff’s sole federal claim in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, which are therefore dismissed 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 the federal claims, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Hamilton · filed 2025-12-01(c)(3)

Here, because the Complaint contains no plausible federal claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims in the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims, including under the New York State Child Victims Act, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214–g, to the extent that the Complaint brings any such claims.

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

Karr · filed 2025-12-01(c)(3)

Without the § 1983 claim, the PSAC only contains state law claims between non-diverse parties. ... The Court finds these concerns exacerbated where the remaining state law claims were neither raised in the Complaint nor the FAC. Accordingly, the Court would not exercise supplement jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Smith v. Dart · filed 2025-12-01(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the FLSA claim over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Shopek · filed 2025-12-01(c)(3)

Shopek’s state-law claims (Counts V–VII, XI–XII) are DISMISSED because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims 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.

Myers · filed 2025-12-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ sole claim under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and defers addressing the merits of those 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.

Northcraft · filed 2025-12-02(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ remaining claims for defamation, false light, and IIED.

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

SULLIVAN · filed 2025-12-02(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because it will dismiss all claims against the Individual Defendants 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.

MAPP · filed 2025-12-02(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claim at the earliest possible stage of the proceedings and exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any possible state law claims.

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

Rueb · filed 2025-12-03(c)(3)

ORDERED that the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims and those claims are DISMISSED 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.

Zayed · filed 2025-12-03(c)(3)

District courts “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim … if [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

Holyfield · filed 2025-12-04(c)(3)

A federal 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). Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Coleman · filed 2025-12-05(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court dismisses plaintiff’s state law claims unless a federal claim(s) is allowed to proceed.

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

Roach · filed 2025-12-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining non-federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39, 56 (2d Cir. 2004).

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

McIntyre · filed 2025-12-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed McIntyre’s claims under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims (ECF No. 1, PageID.8 (citing Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.248(1), 750.175)).

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.

Lowrey · filed 2025-12-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court, in its discretion, declines under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims in Counts 2-9.

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.

Moore · filed 2025-12-09(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims because he has failed to state a 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.

REEVES · filed 2025-12-10(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), where a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over any pendent state law claims. ... As the Court will enter judgment in favor of Defendant Bergen County on Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims in Counts Three, Four, Five, and Six.

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

Soberri · filed 2025-12-11(c)(3)

And since no federal claims remain and no other basis for federal jurisdiction is asserted, the court relinquishes jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

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

Proctor · filed 2025-12-12(c)(3)

As explained further below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count III as it fails to state a plausible deliberate-indifference claim. Under the discretion accorded to this Court in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining State 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.

SPENCER · filed 2025-12-12(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s § 1983 and constitutional 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including at an early stage of litigation.

NAQVI · filed 2025-12-12(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, at this early stage in litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining 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.

Green · filed 2025-12-16(c)(3)

Having granted the motion to dismiss as to the § 1983 claims, 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 related state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

KLINGENSMITH · filed 2025-12-16(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Klingensmith’s state law claims. This case in its initial stage, and the Court finds that it is in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties to decline jurisdiction over Mr. Klingensmith’s state-law claims. Accordingly, the state law claims will be 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.

Mohammed · filed 2025-12-16(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mohammed’s state common-law claims in Counts VII, VIII, and IX pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and those claims are 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.

Zajradhara · filed 2025-12-17(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims and will instead dismiss the 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.

Robitaille · filed 2025-12-17(c)(3)

However, because the Court has dismissed the federal claims that formed the basis of its jurisdiction over this case, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

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.

MARTIN · filed 2025-12-17(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), where a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over any pendent state law claims. ... As the Court will enter judgment in favor of all Defendants on Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

W&W Danley Electric v. Walter Danley Electrical Contracting LLC · filed 2025-12-17(c)(3)

Here, none of these considerations warrant exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. The Court therefore dismisses the Complaint 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.

Harrison · filed 2025-12-18(c)(3)

And, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harrison’s state-law breach of contract claim.

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

Mascuzzio · filed 2025-12-18(c)(3)

Given that Plaintiff has not stated a claim for relief under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims for conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

Hester v. Chester Cnty., Tenn. · filed 2025-12-19(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225, 245 (2007). ... When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, courts consider and weigh the “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” ... The district court did not abuse its discretion when it balanced the relevant factors and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

GBOHUNMI · filed 2025-12-19(c)(3)

Finally, as indicated in the Court’s Order dismissing the prior complaint, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Rollins · filed 2025-12-22(c)(3)

But if all claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction (i.e., all federal claims in the Complaint) are dismissed, the Court in its discretion may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

Richardson-Henderson · filed 2025-12-22(c)(3)

Finally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), given that the Court has dismissed the only claim over which it would have had original jurisdiction (the RICO claim), the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Canter · filed 2025-12-22(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims. See id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

FOLGUERAS · filed 2025-12-22(c)(3)

This case is at an early stage and there are no significant circumstances of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness that suggest a justification for retaining jurisdiction over Dr. Folgueras’ WPCL claim. Therefore, Count I will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to § 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.

Robertson · filed 2025-12-29(c)(3)

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

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

Goldman · filed 2025-12-30(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Rojas · filed 2025-12-30(c)(3)

With no surviving claims giving rise to federal question jurisdiction, the Court determines that it is appropriate to remand Rojas’s remaining state law claims to state court.

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

JENSEN · filed 2025-12-30(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed the federal claims at an early stage and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims at this time.

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

SEWARD · filed 2025-12-31(c)(3)

The Court does not address the parties’ disputes as to any of the remaining claims under state law because it concludes that the claims under federal law must be dismissed and it exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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 related state law claims when all claims supporting original federal jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Bailey · filed 2026-01-02(c)(3)

Because none of Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims survive initial review, the Court declines to consider his numerous 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.

CLAY · filed 2026-01-02(c)(3)

Since Plaintiff has alleged no viable federal claim in the present civil action, 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 claims after dismissing all federal claims, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Kaspiev · filed 2026-01-02(c)(3)

Here, while this action has been pending for two years, and Defendants would prefer to continue litigation in this forum, weighing the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court finds no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Houston v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. · filed 2026-01-05(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s pendent 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.

WILSON · filed 2026-01-05(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having found that there is no federal question presented in this lawsuit, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims asserted by Plaintiff under the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance.

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.

Sims · filed 2026-01-07(c)(3)

In regard to Plaintiff’s claim for legal malpractice, that is a claim under state law, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

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

Smarr · filed 2026-01-08(c)(3)

Because the only remaining claims are state law claims, this Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over them and remand the case to state court.