28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

R&L Carriers Shared Services, LLC v. Utah Labor Commission · filed 2026-03-25(c)(3)

Because the first two claims for relief fail and are subject to dismissal, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third claim for relief—that the UOSH Act violates the Utah Constitution.

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

Tolley · filed 2026-03-26(c)(3)

There being no remaining claims against Defendants arising under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims for defamation and defamation by implication (Count IV) and for violating her rights under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (Count ITI) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (Counts V and VI).

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

Rooney · filed 2026-03-26(c)(3)

Additionally, as the Court is dismissing all claims arising under federal law, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

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

Fernald · filed 2026-03-26(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims and only state law claims remain. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The state law 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 and considering the relevant factors.

Blowers · filed 2026-03-26(c)(3)

Absent such jurisdiction, and after considering the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under New York State law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim when no affirmative justification supports retaining them.

Miller v. York County Regional Police Department · filed 2026-03-26(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead his First Amendment retaliation claim, there is currently no viable federal claim before the Court to support the exercise of 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.

GARDLEY · filed 2026-03-27(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gardley’s state law claims absent his assertion of a viable federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the only claim within its original jurisdiction, taking account of judicial economy and the state courts’ role in deciding state law.

Blue Ocean Legacy Trust v. Lefkowitz · filed 2026-03-27(c)(3)

After reviewing the record, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims under State law. The Court dismissed the only claim 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.

Getachew · filed 2026-03-27(c)(3)

Further, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ State-law claims (Claims 2—7) 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.

DeLuca's Auto Repair Inc. v. City of Hazleton · filed 2026-03-27(c)(3)

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

Cobham v. N.Y. Racing Ass�n, Inc. · filed 2026-03-30(c)(3)

With this standard in mind, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cobham’s state-law claim after dismissing all of his federal claims.

A potential timing error in declining supplemental jurisdiction is harmless when the court ultimately enters judgment on all federal claims.

Lloyd v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2026-03-30(c)(3)

That action may have been premature, because the District Court had not yet disposed of all Lloyd’s federal claims in the litigation. However, the District Court ultimately did grant judgment to the defendants on all federal claims, so any timing error was harmless. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 2111.

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 at the pleadings stage.

David · filed 2026-03-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed Richardson’s federal law claims under §§ 1983 and 1985(3), as well as the related “breach of trust” claim to the extent it arises under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law unjust enrichment 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.

Marion · filed 2026-03-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “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.” ... The Court finds that it lacks diversity jurisdiction over Marion’s state law claims and 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 within its original jurisdiction.

Keith · filed 2026-03-30(c)(3)

But when the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state law claims. ... These factors counsel against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Keith’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.

Kena · filed 2026-03-30(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims asserted in the Amended Complaint over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and shall dismiss the third count of the Amended Complaint 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.

Davila · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

However, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Davila’s state law claims because I dismissed his federal claims, the only claims over which I 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, taking judicial economy, fairness, and convenience into account.

Ledbetter · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

Because the outcome of this dispute now depends exclusively on issues of state law, the Court finds that judicial economy, fairness, and convenience favor declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ledbetter’s remaining claims against the Retail Defendants and Savage Enterprises.

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

Bagby · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

And the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claim in the absence of a viable federal cause of action.

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

Dargon · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiff’s federal claim in Count I (over which the Court has original jurisdiction) should be dismissed, and because the Court finds that the aforementioned factors weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim in Count II, the Court declines sua sponte (sua sponte given that no party argued that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count II if Count I is dismissed) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

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

Owen · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

This Order dismisses all claims that arise under federal question jurisdiction. Further, this case is in its infancy, and all Defendants are state actors. Declining to exercise jurisdiction is prudent here. Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Jasper · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that remaining state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, by declining supplemental jurisdiction over same.

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

Jordan · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), when all the ‘federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.’” ... No party suggests that this is anything other than the usual case. Accordingly, the Court orders the remaining state-law claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

Huffman · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

But a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when the claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Harmon v. Rahming · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

Because state courts ordinarily should have the final say on state law and because the Eleventh Circuit has encouraged dismissal of state-law claims in cases where federal-law claims have been dismissed prior to trial, this court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims when comity favors doing so.

Barzman · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

Because these claims would require the application of a different standard than the one applied to issues already decided by this Court, interests of comity weigh strongly in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Evans · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

After balancing all of the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Equity Partners Group LLC v. City of Scottsdale · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

I therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Kurmangaliyev v. City of New York · filed 2026-04-01(c)(3)

Finally, we conclude that the District Court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Kurmangaliyev’s state law claims was proper in light of its dismissal of all the federal law claims. See Bey v. City of New York, 999 F.3d 157, 171 n.11 (2d Cir. 2021); 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.

HACKNER · filed 2026-04-01(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Mr. Hackner's federal constitutional claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law defamation claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal claim survives initial review.

Womble · filed 2026-04-02(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks relief under North Carolina law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as no federal claim has passed initial review.

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

Young · filed 2026-04-02(c)(3)

Ultimately, given that the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claim and the strong presumption against exercising supplemental jurisdiction in such circumstances, along with the fact that whether the City enjoys immunity from Plaintiff’s negligence claims under the TGTLA is a question better suited for the state court to address, the sole remaining claim for negligence in Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is hereby remanded to 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.

Baldyga · filed 2026-04-06(c)(3)

A district court, however, “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The state law claims are accordingly dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims before trial when there is no basis to retain jurisdiction.

Rehberger · filed 2026-04-06(c)(3)

Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is the only potential source of subject matter jurisdiction over Lancaster’s state law claims. ... There is no basis apparent from the record to retain jurisdiction over these claims, particularly where the fraud claims focus on Illinois’ alcohol and notarization laws, and the promissory estoppel claim would not be barred by a statute of limitations, see 735 III. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-205. Counts IV, V, and VI therefore will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Leask v. City of Minneapolis · filed 2026-04-07(c)(3)

But when all the federal claims are dismissed on a motion for summary judgment “the balance of factors to be considered under the supplemental jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will [usually] point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Id. (cleaned up). The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Necaise · filed 2026-04-07(c)(3)

Since the Court will dismiss every claim over which it had original jurisdiction, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any ancillary state-law claims.

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

Hair · filed 2026-04-07(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) authorizes a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when the court has dismissed all other claims over which the court has original jurisdiction.

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

Ward · filed 2026-04-08(c)(3)

Here, plaintiffs’ federal claims have been eliminated. Accordingly, this court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and exercises its discretion to dismiss those claims.

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

Whigham · filed 2026-04-08(c)(3)

The court has dismissed Whigham’s federal claims. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Whigham’s state-law claims and remands the action to Nash County Superior Court.

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

Quiane · filed 2026-04-10(c)(3)

As a result, there is no basis, and/or the Court declines, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the alleged violations of State law. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a), 1367(c)(3).

After dismissing the federal claim, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, including when the case is still in its early stages.

Gaiter · filed 2026-04-10(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 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s two State-law claims. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Knox v. Medtronic · filed 2026-04-10(c)(3)

The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that because Knox’s sole federal claim is due to be dismissed, further exercise of supplemental jurisdiction should be declined.

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

Lyons · filed 2026-04-13(c)(3)

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

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

Durbin · filed 2026-04-13(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims if all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s FOIA claim—the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction—and the state courts of Arizona have a much greater interest in resolving Plaintiff’s claim under Arizona state law governing inspection of the state’s public records. As such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

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

Boyd v. Shriners Hospitals for Children · filed 2026-04-14(c)(3)

A District Court may, however, “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Given that the District Court properly dismissed the Former Employees’ § 1983 and EUA statute claims, the court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing their 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.

Abbot Family Dynasty Trust v. City of Wilmore · filed 2026-04-14(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because the Court will dismiss the federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hagen’s and Brown’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.

Janota · filed 2026-04-15(c)(3)

At this point, there are no federal law claims left in this lawsuit. Therefore, the Court must decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. ... Accordingly, there are no compelling reasons for retaining jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s state law claims against the EMS Board are DISMISSED.

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.

Wittwer · filed 2026-04-16(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, however, where the court has dismissed all claims over which is has original jurisdiction. § 1367(c)(3). Here, the only claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction is Plaintiffs’ federal RICO claim. Because the Court dismisses that claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under § 1367(c)(3).

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

Mars · filed 2026-04-16(c)(3)

A district court is not required to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Any potential state law claims Plaintiff has alleged are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Montgomery v. Aramark of Tennessee · filed 2026-04-17(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 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly early in the litigation.

Ams. Choice Veterans Constr. Inc. v. City of New York · filed 2026-04-20(c)(3)

We have long held that district courts do “not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim” where there are no viable federal law claims, particularly at this early stage of the litigation. ... Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s discretionary decision to not exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the federal claim has been dismissed at the pleading stage.

Barnes · filed 2026-04-20(c)(3)

Apart from § 1331, Plaintiff requests that this court exercise its discretionary supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... However, the mere possibility that Barnes may have a federal preemption defense against Plaintiff’s conversion claim does little to persuade this court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction where Plaintiff’s only federal claim was dismissed at the initial pleading stage.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim.

Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage · filed 2026-04-21(c)(3)

Thus, the court properly denied her motion for summary judgment on the FHA claim and, having dismissed the sole federal claim, reasonably declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Ball · filed 2026-04-22(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss all federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims before trial, particularly when it has devoted few judicial resources to the state claim.

Benyoun · filed 2026-04-23(c)(3)

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

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

MOULTRIE · filed 2026-04-24(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim in the second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3), and that claim is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing in state court.

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

Lyons · filed 2026-04-24(c)(3)

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

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

Leise · filed 2026-04-24(c)(3)

The claims over which this court had original subject matter jurisdiction have all been dismissed. ... Judicial economy will not be advanced if those claims are retained and resolved by this court, predicting how Vermont’s highest court would address them. Comity also favors a state court addressing state-law claims. ... Balancing the relevant factors, that outcome is warranted here.

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

Rakestraw · filed 2026-04-24(c)(3)

Because the court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Any claims remaining in Plaintiff’s SAC arise under state law. Although the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, the court declines to do so.

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

King · filed 2026-04-27(c)(3)

King fails to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act, the only law he invokes over which this Court exercises original jurisdiction. King does not plead diversity jurisdiction, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim.

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

Vaughn · filed 2026-04-28(c)(3)

Considering the foregoing factors, the Court finds that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims, which are not within its original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no plausible federal claims remain.

Taylor · filed 2026-04-30(c)(3)

Because I have concluded that there are no facially plausible federal law claims against any of the named Defendants, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Taylor’s state law claims pursuant to 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.

Guzzetta · filed 2026-04-30(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims are being dismissed, the lawsuit is in its early stages, and there are no other factors favoring the retention of jurisdiction over the state law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

HERTIG · filed 2026-04-30(c)(3)

Without any federal claims, the Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law breach of contract claim.

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

Marks · filed 2026-04-30(c)(3)

Although the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, the court declines to do so. See Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1248 (10th Cir. 2011) (“When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McCorkle-Turner · filed 2026-05-06(c)(3)

In the exercise of its discretion, the Court will decline any further consideration of Plaintiff’s state law claims, leaving the merits of those claims to be determined 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.

The Preserve v. Kamas City · filed 2026-05-06(c)(3)

Having resolved the federal claims and because the case is otherwise in its infancy, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and will dismiss the 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.

Wilson · filed 2026-05-08(c)(3)

Having found summary judgment in favor of Defendants is warranted on all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 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 a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims.

Perkins v. District of Columbia · filed 2026-05-12(c)(3)

Since the former claim must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may “decline to exercise jurisdiction” over the latter.

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

Jones v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart P.C. · filed 2026-05-12(c)(3)

Having properly dismissed appellant’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over appellant’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Shekoyan v. Sibley Int’l, 409 F.3d 414, 424 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

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

Assured Testing Laboratories LLC v. PerkinElmer Health Sciences · filed 2026-05-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ sole federal law claim—the RICO claim in Count I, as well as the state law claims at issue in these motions—the Court will remand the remaining state law claims to state court for further proceedings. The decision to remand or exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing federal claims “is a ‘pragmatic and case-specific’ one” at the district court’s discretion.

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

Peet · filed 2026-05-15(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 the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Lambert · filed 2026-05-15(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s only federal claim at the pleading stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Brommer · filed 2026-05-15(c)(3)

While this Court previously acknowledged its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) to handle Mr. Brommer’s state law claims that are part of the same controversy as his RICO claim, the Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Based on this and the dismissal of Mr. Brommer’s RICO claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, particularly when the case is in its early stages.

Diaz · filed 2026-05-18(c)(3)

We’ll decline to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction here. The case remains in its early stages.

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

Sanchez · filed 2026-05-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under Section 1367, and dismisses 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.

Quintana · filed 2026-05-20(c)(3)

Because each of the federal claims asserted in the amended complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claim asserted under state law.

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

Hood · filed 2026-05-20(c)(3)

The Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hood’s North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claim. That claim is best reserved for the state court to decide.

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.

Rigby · filed 2026-05-20(c)(3)

Here, obviously (3) applies because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims and therefore all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. ... Ultimately, the factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and counterclaims.

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

Lawson · filed 2026-05-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her 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, following a balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Ward · filed 2026-05-22(c)(3)

Because the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it must decide whether to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over Mr. Ward’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, after balancing the factors set forth in Gibbs and Cohill, the Court will decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Patel v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2026-05-26(c)(3)

Because all federal claims were properly dismissed, the district court had the discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

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

Miller v. Kansas Department of Children · filed 2026-05-26(c)(3)

At this preliminary stage, the Court finds no persuasive reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to decide the merits of plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Williamson · filed 2026-05-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed the sole federal claim asserted in the Complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law causes of action.

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

Rice · filed 2026-05-28(c)(3)

As noted, Rice has failed to adequately state any constitutional or federal claims against the Defendants. Rice has also failed to proffer any facts showing that the court has diversity jurisdiction over his state law claims. Under the circumstances, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rice’s state law 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.

Anderson · filed 2026-06-01(c)(3)

Here, because the Court grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s federal Due Process claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state IIED and NIED claims against these Defendants at this time.

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

DAVIS v. WILBERT NELSON, Individually and in His Professional Capacity, and THE CITY OF KOSCIUSKO, MISSISSIPPI · filed 2026-06-03(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “[t]he district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... For these reasons, the Court 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 when no federal claim survives initial review.

Riddle · filed 2026-06-09(c)(3)

Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief under North Carolina law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as no federal claim has passed initial review.

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

Sencial · filed 2026-06-09(c)(3)

District courts have discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Broughton · filed 2026-06-11(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

Scott · filed 2026-06-15(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, which will be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim and dismiss it without prejudice.

Estate of Dejarnett v. City of Decatur · filed 2026-06-15(c)(3)

So the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), GRANTS the Defendants’ motions to dismiss with respect to Count III, and dismisses Plaintiffs’ wrongful death 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.

Sena · filed 2026-06-16(c)(3)

Since this Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction as to MedCaribe and Millennium, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Puerto Rico law claims filed against them. 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 federal claims.

Clark v. State of Connecticut · filed 2026-06-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Clark’s federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims raised in Counts Two through Four and Eight through Ten pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Kimble · filed 2026-06-18(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I, IV, V, and VI, and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Weise · filed 2026-06-23(c)(3)

Because all claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction are patently meritless or, in the alternative, because Richmond has not properly served Woods Fuller, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Richmond’s state-law claims against Woods Fuller. 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 claims.

Fosu v. Steven Richard, et al. · filed 2026-06-25(c)(3)

There is no cognizable federal claim, and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Dunlap · filed 2026-06-25(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed Dunlap’s federal claims, and it is not in the interest of judicial economy or comity for the Court to hear those brought pursuant to state law. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for negligence arising under Tennessee state law and they are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Robinson v. City of Seattle · filed 2024-10-21(c)(3)

Robinson has not plausibly stated a federal claim upon which relief may be granted. As such, the Court will not exert supplemental jurisdiction over her 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.

In re: Wells Fargo & Company Stockholder Derivative Litigation · filed 2022-02-04(c)(3)

In this instance, as the case remains at the pleading stage, there are no apparent considerations weighing in favor of retaining jurisdiction over the state law claims, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not favor retaining them.

City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Co. · filed 1998-01-06(c)(3)

In addition, it is recommended that the Court decline to exercise pendent supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims (Counts III-VIII) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), as the concerns of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties are not present at this early stage of the proceedings.

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

Gelb v. Board of Elections · filed 1999-09-30(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (codifying existing case law and giving District Courts discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). ... because no Federal claims remain, Plaintiffs state law claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to decline jurisdiction over remaining state claims after dismissing all claims within their original jurisdiction.

Goodwyn v. Simons · filed 2004-02-24(c)(3)

We have recognized that "trial courts enjoy wide latitude in determining whether or not to retain jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims have been extinguished." Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995). ... The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to retain juris- diction over the state law claims.

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

Hardage v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. · filed 2005-11-01(c)(3)

Because Hardage appeals from the district court's dismissal of his state WLAD claims against Sparks only by arguing they should be reinstated if summary judgment for CBS is reversed, we affirm the district court's dismissal of this claim as well.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when it dismisses all federal claims, particularly early in the case.

Bowen v. New Century Mortgage Corporation · filed 2010-03-22(c)(3)

No basis for considering equitable tolling has even been offered, and there is no reason for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 at this early stage of the case once the federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Rooker v. Ouray County · filed 2012-12-05(c)(3)

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

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

Williams, Jr. v. City of New York Department of Corrections · filed 2020-07-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any non-federal claims over which it could have supplemental jurisdiction if the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Having disposed of all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate the remaining state law claims, and the Court declines to retain 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Bailey v. Trump · filed 2020-10-22(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all of the plaintiffs federal claims, and concludes that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction over any claims asserted under state law.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a court must decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness affirmatively justifies retaining it.

ROGERS v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY · filed 2021-05-10(c)(3)

In this case, Plaintiff offers only the types of concerns that arise in any case that might be dismissed after the dismissal of federal claims. Without more, the Court cannot continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claim.

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

Alejandro v. Quiros · filed 2021-11-16(c)(3)

Alejandro has not stated a plausible claim for relief under federal law, and the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

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

Aiello v. Grasmick · filed 1998-06-09(c)(3)

However, remand is unnecessary here because the district court has already indicated in dicta that it would exercise its discretion under § 1367(c)(3) to dismiss the plain- tiffs' state law claims once their IDEA claims were dismissed.

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

Owens v. Thornton · filed 2025-03-21(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s only federal claim is subject to summary judgment. In these circumstances, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims for assault and battery. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McGuire v. Roseville Joint Union High School District · filed 2026-01-06(c)(3)

“Because the district court did not err” when it dismissed the federal claims, “it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state-law claims.” Bryant, 289 F.3d at 1169 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

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

Caddell v. Helena Elderhousing, Inc. · filed 2012-10-18(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims after it properly ... dismissed Caddell’s federal claims.

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

Phx. Entm't Partners, LLC v. J-V Successors, Inc. · filed 2018-03-31(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is within the Court's discretion if it has "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." ... Having dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims that were based on a federal question under 28 U. S.C. § 1331, and there being no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Gross v. Morgan State Univ. · filed 2018-04-19(c)(3)

Having disposed of all federal claims in the lawsuit, the Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claim when all claims over which court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed).

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

Stinson v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ. · filed 2019-02-05(c)(3)

But where, as here, a district court "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction," it "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Stinson's common-law claims raise difficult and important issues of Alabama law that a state court should address in the first instance. So to promote judicial economy and comity, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Akers v. Md. State Educ. Ass'n · filed 2019-04-18(c)(3)

With no federal claims remaining in this case, this Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Haworth v. City of Walla Walla · filed 2023-03-21(c)(3)

However, if a district court has ... dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to ... exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the only remaining claim is a state malicious prosecution claim for ... which the Court declines to exercise 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.

LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council · filed 2019-09-11(c)(3)

Since plaintiff's federal claims over which this court had original jurisdiction shall not be permitted to proceed to trial against State Council, the court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims against union 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.

Perry v. Phillips (TV2) · filed 2020-02-12(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims arising under federal law, namely their §§ 1983, 1985 and 1988 claims, it will also DISMISS without prejudice plaintiffs’ remaining state- law claims under the GTLA.

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

Waid v. Lyon County · filed 2022-02-15(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims under which the Court had original ... jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the sole federal claim when retaining the claim would not serve judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Johnson v. Do Raku, Inc. · filed 2022-05-12(c)(3)

The Court declines to ... exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim here because “it would not ... further the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.” Techbusiness, ... 2020 WL 7013596, at *3 (citation omitted).

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

Erickson v. Huber · filed 2022-06-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal law claims asserted against Defendant ... Castelda, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law ... claims asserted against him.

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

Martinez v. Pierce County · filed 2023-07-26(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim that plaintiff may have intended to present. See 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.

Shahrokhi v. Boutos · filed 2024-01-22(c)(3)

Further, the court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over ... this claim. ... A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed ... all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Erasmus v. Chien, D.D.S. · filed 2023-04-14(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Angelone v. Brown · filed 2024-10-29(c)(3)

In the absence of a viable federal constitutional claim, ... the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law ... claims.

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

Garrow v. First Convenience Bank · filed 2025-01-02(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff ... cannot sustain a cause of action over which this Court has jurisdiction, it will decline to ... exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim.

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

Mattingly v. Jurek · filed 2025-06-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court DECLINES supplemental jurisdiction ... over all state-law claims against Defendants Quintero, McKenna and Walters and ... so dismisses these claims without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to pursue them, ... as appropriate, in a state court action.

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

Gellos · filed 2026-01-30(c)(3)

The Court thus declines to ... exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims: Counts J, ... Il, and Ill.

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

Sacco v. APS Electric Company · filed 2021-02-05(c)(3)

Because the sole federal claim in this action ... has been dismissed without leave to amend, the Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hilts v. Ellis Hospital · filed 2024-08-14(c)(3)

Using its discretion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims, ... because it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original ... jurisdiction.”

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

Garduno v. Quaker Oats Co. · filed 1994-09-01(c)(3)

Although the court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over this claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), it also has discretion to decline to take jurisdiction over the state law claim under the doctrine of United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). ... This court has not found has not found any extraordinary circumstances which would lead it to believe that the retention of jurisdiction over the state law promissory estoppel claim is necessary in this case. Accordingly, plaintiffs action for promissory estoppel is dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff refiling it in the Illinois courts.

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

Boldthen v. Independent School District No. 2397 · filed 1994-10-25(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... For all of these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts IV through IX of Plaintiffs complaint.

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

Havens v. Time Warner, Inc. · filed 1995-08-17(c)(3)

With respect to Havens' state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them on the present record, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Havens' state law claims are therefore HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; they may be reinstated, if Havens complies with the foregoing.

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

Douglas v. Doe · filed 2024-01-04(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

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, especially when litigation remains at an early stage.

Nygard v. Orono, City of · filed 2024-01-05(c)(3)

Because this case remains in the very early stages of litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. These claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after it dismisses every claim within its original jurisdiction, taking statutory and common law factors into account.

McGee v. Felder Services, LLC · filed 2024-01-05(c)(3)

Because consideration of the § 1367(c) factors and common law factors weigh against this Court retaining supplemental jurisdiction over McGee’s state law claim against Oxford Health, McGee’s state law claim against Oxford Health is DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Houchin v. Williams · filed 2024-01-08(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent Houchin intended to assert any state claims in addition to federal claims, the Court will dismiss them without prejudice in light of its dismissal of the federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Kowal! v. Benson, 18 F.4th 542, 549 (6th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 88 (2022).

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

Perez v. New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center · filed 2024-04-08(c)(3)

As I have dismissed all of Plaintiff’s ADA claims – the only federal claims in her Complaint – I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and NYLL claims, and dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Berry v. Adams · filed 2024-04-09(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the state-law claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the related federal claims are dismissed.

Haner 508463 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2024-04-10(c)

With respect to Defendants MDOC, Washington, Bush, Dodds-Dugan, Rewerts, and Artis, because Plaintiff’s federal claims against these Defendants will be dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants 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.

Motykie v. Motykie · filed 2024-04-11(c)(3)

The statute provides, however, that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Redwood v. Dobson, 476 F.3d 462, 467 (7th Cir. 2002) (“A court that resolves all federal claims before trial normally should dismiss supplemental claims without prejudice.”). Consistent with this principle, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

JOHNSON v. OMNI PROPERTY SERVICES MANAGEMENT, INC. · filed 2024-04-18(c)(3)

The Court, invoking its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no viable federal claim or diversity jurisdiction remains, dismissing the state claims without prejudice.

Graves v. Patton · filed 2024-04-25(c)(3)

“Absent a viable federal claim -- or diversity of citizenship -- the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” and dismiss Plaintiffs state law claims for medical malpractice and fraud without prejudice to refiling those claims in the state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, based on the balance of relevant considerations.

Crawley 230375 v. Hope College · filed 2024-04-30(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims. Thus, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law breach of contract claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Moore v. Hamline University · filed 2024-05-01(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Moore’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Crow v. Rasmussen · filed 2024-05-07(c)(3)

However, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the court dismisses the accompanying federal claims. Id. § 1367(c)(3). Here, because the § 1983 claim has been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim. Therefore, the Court dismisses the false arrest claim without prejudice.

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

Alford v. Rice · filed 2024-05-14(c)(3)

Although the complaint is unclear on the issue of claims for relief under Ohio law (see Doc. No. 1), any remaining state law claims that Plaintiff may have alleged should be dismissed without prejudice. A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).