28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering judicial economy and the need to avoid needless state law decisions.

Hood 304765 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2024-05-15(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Williams 236300 v. Washington · filed 2024-06-20(c)

With respect to Defendants Unknown “John Does” and “Jane Does,” Corrigan, Woodgate, and Dicus, 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, taking comity and judicial economy into account.

J. v. Montgomery County Board of Education · filed 2024-06-28(c)(3)

Because CDJ’s federal claims will be dismissed, comity and judicial economy are both served by declining to decide matters of state law needlessly. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), Counts I, V, and VI of the SAC will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Olson, Daniel v. Sauk County · filed 2024-07-02(c)(3)

Seeing no reason to do otherwise here, the court will decline to consider any possible remaining state law claims and dismiss those claims without prejudice and with leave to file them, as appropriate, in state court, subject to any applicable statute of limitations.

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

Tyson v. Madison County Jail · filed 2024-07-08(c)(3)

To the extent Mr. Tyson intended to bring a claim for medical malpractice under state law, that claim will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Koehler v. New American Funding · filed 2024-07-08(c)(3)

It is within the discretionary authority of this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once the Court has dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (if federal claims are dismissed before trial, remaining state claims should also be dismissed). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all remaining claims in this case and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Khan v. PNC Bank · filed 2024-07-08(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims; thus, such claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Chisholm, II v. Supreme Court Judge, Linda Kevins (N.Y.) · filed 2024-07-08(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state laws claims Plaintiff may have and any such claims are thus dismissed without prejudice.

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

D.R. v. DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2024-07-08(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline jurisdiction where it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... I will therefore dismiss the state law claims without prejudice, should Plaintiffs seek to pursue them in state court.

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

Winmar Construction, Inc. v. Iron Kingdom, Inc. · filed 2024-07-09(c)(3)

By the same token, they “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such] claim[s] . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... These factors weigh against retention here. This case is still in its early stages, the Court is dismissing the federal claims against Defendants on jurisdictional grounds, and, as a result, it has developed no familiarity with the additional issues presented. ... The state-law counts will thus be dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff is free to file in the appropriate state or local court if it so desires.

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

HARDEN v. CHARLES A. TINDLEY ACCELERATED SCHOOLS · filed 2024-07-10(c)(3)

Accordingly, Ms. Harden's state law claim shall 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.

GRIFFIN v. PHILADELPHIA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION · filed 2024-07-11(c)(3)

However, when a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court may—but need not—exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, without subject matter jurisdiction or any reason to exercise its discretionary power of supplemental jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss without prejudice the breach of contract claim and breach of fiduciary duty claim.

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.

Eveland v. City of St. Louis · filed 2024-07-12(c)(3)

As all federal claims have now been dismissed, I will exercise my discretion to dismiss without prejudice the remaining state law claims, which depend solely on determinations of state law, including Missouri’s Constitution.

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

8 ERIE ST. JC LLC v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY · filed 2024-07-12(c)(3)

As previously discussed, Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed for lack of standing. Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of New Jersey, so no diversity jurisdiction exists. This Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Troyer v. Marathon Petroleum Company LP · filed 2024-07-15(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Ms. Troyer’s federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims, which will be dismissed without prejudice.

After dismissing the federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims by weighing judicial economy against the need to decide state law issues.

Young v. Muskegon Heights, City of · filed 2024-07-17(c)(3)

Here, the interests of judicial economy and avoiding multiplicity of litigation do not outweigh needlessly deciding state law issues. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.

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

Warren v. McDermott · filed 2024-07-18(c)(3)

Because the amended complaint does not state a federal claim, the court will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claim. ... The court will dismiss any state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Smith v. Tulane University of Louisiana · filed 2024-07-31(c)(3)

Given that the Court is dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses those without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it grants summary judgment on the federal claims.

Brinkley v. Hamilton County Sheriff · filed 2024-07-31(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

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

Hester v. Chester County, Tennessee · filed 2024-08-02(c)(3)

In light of these factors, the Court will not retain jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims, and those 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.

GEBRE v. PHILADELPHIA WORKS, INC. · filed 2024-08-06(c)(3)

We find no basis to justify our retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Gebre’s Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law and common law wrongful discharge claims. We decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Rodriguez v. Ochoa · filed 2024-08-08(c)(3)

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

Barton v. Clark · filed 2023-10-19(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 the Complaint may be asserting.

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

Delacruz v. Tanimura & Antle, Inc. · filed 2023-10-20(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Delacruz’s remaining state law claims unless and until a viable federal ADA claim is adequately pled.

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

Barton v. Clark · filed 2023-10-20(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ruiz v. Parkchester Public Safety Department · filed 2023-10-20(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 that Petitioner may be asserting.

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

Ortiz v. Syno Capital · filed 2023-10-20(c)(3)

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims under federal law for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and declines to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Alcala v. Ortega · filed 2023-10-23(c)(3)

To the extent the Amended Complaint alleges any claims under New Mexico law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Baca's remaining state-law claims and will remand those claims to state court.

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.

Begay v. Beckstead · filed 2023-10-23(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent Begay sought to state a state-law tort claim for malicious abuse of process, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction the claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(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”).

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

CHRIN HAULING, INC. v. CHRIN · filed 2023-10-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Given this guidance, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

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

Walters v. Fast AC, LLC · filed 2023-10-24(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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

Borrego v. New Mexico Livestock Board · filed 2023-10-24(c)(3)

A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and therefore will remand Plaintiff’s remaining claim.

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

HUBER v. FUDEMAN · filed 2023-10-24(c)(3)

Because the §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 claims are being dismissed and due to the early stage of the proceedings, this Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, taking account of the early stage of litigation and the state’s interest in applying its laws.

Farmer v. Clermont Northeastern Middle School · filed 2023-10-25(c)(3)

Given the early stage of this litigation, as well as Ohio’s interest in interpreting and applying its own laws, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 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.

Cody v. PENNRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2023-10-25(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Diggles v. Wortham · filed 2023-10-26(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and will dismiss them without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Guerra v. Clary Corporation · filed 2023-10-26(c)(3)

Since the sole federal claim is dismissed as time-barred, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FFCRA claim, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and REMANDS this action to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Shat Acres Higland Cattle, LLC v. American Highland Cattle Association · filed 2023-10-26(c)(3)

Given this altered procedural posture, “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Mowrey v. Delaney · filed 2023-10-26(c)(3)

The Court dismisses Plaintiffs federal law claims against Defendant DeLaney and, to the extent the Court has jurisdiction over any state-law claims, 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 a remaining state-law claim after it dismisses the federal claim, especially when state courts are better suited to resolve the state-law issue.

LEE v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2023-10-26(c)(3)

Considering that the application of Pennsylvania wage laws to a Pennsylvania agency is particularly suited to resolution in the Pennsylvania courts, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s state-law claim under PMWA will be dismissed without prejudice to filing 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.

East v. McDermott · filed 2023-10-27(c)(3)

As for supplemental jurisdiction, because the Court is dismissing the federal claims for failure to state a claim, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Snelling v. Edgewater Mental health · filed 2023-10-27(c)(3)

However, because the Court is dismissing the federal claims for failure to state a claim, 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.

McKenzie v. Guerrino · filed 2023-10-27(c)(3)

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

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

Smith v. The State of New York · filed 2023-10-27(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Rodriguez v. Hogar, Inc. · filed 2023-10-27(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, and cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will dismiss this action; the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under the ADEA and the ADA for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and will decline to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law, including his claims under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, 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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

Mora v. Burn and Plastic Hand Clinic · filed 2023-10-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed Ms. Mora’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Mora’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

When a district court dismisses all federal claims before trial, § 1367(c)(3) strongly favors declining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, and a decision to retain jurisdiction must be explained sufficiently for appellate review.

Cotterman v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio · filed 2023-10-30(c)(3)

This principle applies here too. The district court’s failure to explain why it retained jurisdiction “prohibits us from examining the soundness of its discretionary judgment.” DWG, 962 F.2d at 1202.

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

Urmancheev v. United States · filed 2023-10-30(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims in the FAC, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims at this time.

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

Hart v. Shmayenik · filed 2023-10-30(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Johnson v. Sammy's Restaurant, Inc. · filed 2023-10-31(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if, among other things, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” Given that the ADA claim is subject to dismissal, the undersigned recommends the court decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the case is still in its early stages.

Heartland, Inc. v. Povolny Specialties, Inc. · filed 2023-10-31(c)(3)

As for Povolny’s remaining state-law counterclaim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... There is no reason to deviate from this general rule here, where the case remains in its earliest stages and all that remains is a 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, particularly when litigation is still at an early stage.

Necaise v. Mississippi Department of Revenue · filed 2023-10-31(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if. . . (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court sees no reason to depart here from this well-established practice, as this case remains in a relatively early stage of litigation. ... The Court therefore dismisses these state law claims without prejudice.

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

Winnon v. Lozano · filed 2023-08-08(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental (or "pendant") jurisdiction over remaining state claims.

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

Sartin v. Humphreys University · filed 2023-08-08(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ second claim is under state law. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim, and accordingly GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action as well.

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

Holmes v. New Rez, LLC · filed 2023-08-08(c)(3)

Given the early stage of these proceedings and the absence of any remaining federal issues, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claims.

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

Nassry v. The Pennsylvania State University · filed 2023-08-08(c)(3)

It is well established that, “[u]nder 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if ‘the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” ... Because this Court has “dismissed the Title VII claim that provided the court with its jurisdiction,” it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Nassry’s remaining state law claims, and those claims will be 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.

Liebich v. DelGiudice · filed 2023-08-09(c)(3)

Because the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims.

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

Open Justice Baltimore v. Baltimore City Law Department · filed 2023-08-10(c)(3)

As to the State law claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Therefore, I shall remand the State law claims to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

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

Peterson v. Young · filed 2023-08-10(c)(3)

Generally, upon dismissal of all federal claims, balancing those considerations will lead to the dismissal of the state law claims. Id. at 952 (citation omitted). Here, the Court has determined Plaintiff’s federal claims must be dismissed because some defendants are immune from suit and his federal claims otherwise fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. None of the considerations raised by Gamel require this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Accordingly, it declines to do so.

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

Gordon 202825 v. Smitter · filed 2023-08-10(c)

Because there is no federal question jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. The Court will dismiss any 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.

TALBERT v. BEAL BANK USA · filed 2023-08-10(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Talbert’s state law claims because we dismissed all claims over which we have 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, taking efficiency and fairness into account.

LOPEZ v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC · filed 2023-08-11(c)(3)

No such extraordinary circumstances or considerations of efficiency and fairness are present here. Lopez’s state law claims depend on the same factual allegations as her federal law claims. (See generally Compl. pp. 6–20.) Lopez’s federal claims are dismissed without prejudice and Lopez may file an amended complaint within 30 days of this opinion. Because Lopez may also amend the facts supporting her state law claims, it is more efficient to decline supplemental jurisdiction now and revisit the issue if and when Lopez files an amended complaint that sets forth a federal-law cause of action.

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

Chesley v. Mesquite · filed 2023-08-14(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that Chesley’s federal claims fail, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Chesley’s 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.

GARCIA v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE, INC. · filed 2023-08-15(c)(3)

Because the Court dismissed all federal claims, 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.

Brathwaite v. Zimmerman · filed 2023-08-15(c)(3)

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims under federal law for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and declines to consider, under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law, 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.

GIBSON v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON · filed 2023-08-15(c)(3)

Having dismissed all outstanding federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. A court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction [over state law claims] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Chambliss v. Brevard County Sheriff's Office · filed 2023-08-17(c)(3)

Having disposed of the only federal claims against Sheriff Ivey, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims involving him. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when claims giving rise to original jurisdiction have been dismissed). Accordingly, Chambliss’s negligent retention claim (Count V) and Sheriff Ivey’s counterclaim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Winch v. Centurion of Florida, LLC · filed 2023-08-17(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent ... state-law claims, which are best resolved by the 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.

Tinoco v. City of Hidalgo, Texas · filed 2023-08-18(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Defendant Guadalupe Amaya.

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

Williams v. Oriental Bank · filed 2023-08-18(c)(3)

Where, as here, a “district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it may exercise its discretion and “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining territorial 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.

Myles v. Walmart Inc. · filed 2023-08-18(c)(3)

Second, because the court grants the Motion to Dismiss all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

STEVENS v. MERCER COUNTY CORRECTIONS CENTER · filed 2023-08-18(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed the federal claims at an early stage and declines 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 claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

DRIFT v. DIAMOND MATERIALS, LLC · filed 2023-08-18(c)(3)

Insofar as Counts I and II of the Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim and Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead diversity jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III–V of 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.

Sachs v. Dicarlo · filed 2023-08-21(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over Sachs’s remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts 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.”).

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.

Sachs v. Branton · filed 2023-08-21(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over Sachs’s remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts 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.”).

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

Sachs v. Kiffmeyer · filed 2023-08-21(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over Sachs’s remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts 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.”).

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

Shores v. Hay · filed 2023-08-21(c)(3)

Because summary judgment has been granted in favor of Defendants as to all of the federal claims, and the Court’s jurisdiction is based on federal question jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law medical malpractice claim.

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

Fisher v. Hudson Hall LLC · filed 2023-08-21(c)(3)

Because, for the reasons above, Fisher’s federal law claim is dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and does not consider their merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claim early in the case when comity and judicial economy favor doing so.

Czaja v. Delta Airlines · filed 2023-08-21(c)(3)

So comity and judicial economy favor declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here, and there is no reason to believe that the remaining considerations—fairness and convenience—might suggest otherwise.

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.

Wolfla v. Washington State Patrol · filed 2023-08-22(c)(3)

“[D]istrict courts 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). Federal subject matter jurisdiction exists when a controversy involves diversity of citizenship between the parties or a question of federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1)–(4). Wolfla’s complaint was premised on the Court’s jurisdiction over his federal claims, which the Court has now dismissed. So dismissal of Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, including Count 6, is proper.

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

Hernandez v. Chandler, City of · filed 2023-08-22(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Sifuentes v. Department of Child Support Services Kings County · filed 2023-08-22(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent the Court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims by virtue of the fact that the FAC purported to contain federal claims, the Court declines to do so. 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 claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Sakon v. Johnson · filed 2023-08-22(c)(3)

Because the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to any claims against the State or Ferreira in his official capacity over which the court might have original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to the extent that there are any remaining state law claims against the State or against Ferreira in his official capacity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McLaughlin v. Onslow County Board of Elections · filed 2023-08-22(c)(3)

Accordingly, where all federal claims are dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state constitutional claim.

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

Crane v. X-Parker · filed 2023-08-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims against Captain Nixon, Captain Doe, and Lieutenant Doe of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting against these defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain and no other reason for declining jurisdiction is given.

Munoz v. The Group US Management LLC · filed 2023-08-22(c)(3)

Because, as described above, several of the FLSA claims may proceed and Defendants offer no other reason for dismissal, any remaining state law claims may proceed.

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

Ramirez v. Sosa · filed 2023-08-22(c)(3)

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims under federal law against the United States of America, the SSA, and against Defendant Sosa and any other individual defendant, in their official capacities as federal officers, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), and consequently, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), as well as any claims under federal law against Defendant Sosa and any other individual defendant, in their individual capacities, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, see § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Court declines to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, any claims under state law that Plaintiff may be attempting to assert, see 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 claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy, convenience, and fairness informing that choice.

Pileggi v. Mathias · filed 2023-08-23(c)(3)

Because the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to any claims against DCF over which the court has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to any remaining state law claims against DCF or against the individual defendants in their official capacity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Considering the factors set forth in United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966), the court concludes that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness point toward declining jurisdiction over such claims as to these defendants.

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

Begay v. Beckstead · filed 2023-08-23(c)(3)

Since Begay has failed to state a viable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law tort claim of malicious abuse of process.

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

Coleman v. The City and Borough of Juneau · filed 2023-08-25(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff's federal claims the Court will not 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lewis v. Kohler · filed 2023-08-25(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under federal law, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim that the Petitioning Laws violate Article I § 2 Connecticut Constitution.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, based on factors such as comity, judicial economy, and convenience.

Anderson v. Seat Pleasant Police Department · filed 2023-08-25(c)(3)

A federal court’s supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims is not extinguished as a matter of course when all pending federal claims are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 109 (4th Cir. 1995). A court “may,” however, “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). ... The values of comity, judicial economy, and convenience support dismissal. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 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.

Werman v. Joyner · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed all of the plaintiff’s federal claims early in the proceedings, the Court concludes that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed on initial review.

Elmore v. Mecklenburg County Courthouse · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

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 over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor declining jurisdiction.

McCoy v. Roche · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of a plausible federal claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any state law claims that may be reasonably construed from the complaint.

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

Silas v. The City of New York · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff raises state law claims,9 the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. “District courts may use their discretion in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing a plaintiff’s only federal claims, so long as the federal claims were not dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Probiv v. PayCargo LLC, No. 22-cv-2907, 2023 WL 159788, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2023); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(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.”); see also Cangemi v. United States, 13 F.4th 115, 134 (2d Cir. 2021).

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

Hussey v. Beth Israel Medical Center · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

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

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

Garrett v. Cummberbatch · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

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

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

Hussey v. Torres · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

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

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

Hussey v. Bellevue Hospital Center · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

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

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

Hussey v. Giannone · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

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

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

Hussey v. Saint Lukes Roosevelt Hospital Center · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

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

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

Hussey v. The New York City Health and Hospital Corporation · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

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

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) and remand remaining state law claims based on economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

VJH Homes, LLC v. City of Cleveland · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

Similar to this Court’s ruling on the City of Cleveland’s motion to dismiss in connection with any state law claims raised in the Amended Complaint, given that all the federal claims pled in the Amended Complaint against Cuyahoga County Land Bank over which this Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the Court finds that the interests of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity are best served by remanding the remaining state law claims back to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ziglar v. Skiles · filed 2023-08-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Associated Builders & Contractors Western Penn v. Community College of Allegheny · filed 2023-08-29(c)(3)

Because we agree that the federal claims fail, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state law claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting a district court to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if it “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, particularly while the case is in its preliminary stages.

DEPTFORD COMMONS LLC v. TOWNSHIP OF DEPTFORD · filed 2023-08-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 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.

Alvear v. Kamel · filed 2023-08-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Alvear’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law tort claims for assault and battery, false arrest and imprison- ment, and malicious prosecution.

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

Barrow v. Dayton Living Word · filed 2023-08-29(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s federal claims fail to advance beyond initial review, so the balance of considerations counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims. ... Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for a lack of supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Pouncey v. Bryant · filed 2023-08-29(c)(3)

However, federal courts are permitted to decline supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Here, as previously noted, Plaintiff’s federal claims are subject to summary dismissal. Thus, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Robins v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2023-08-30(c)(3)

Here, Plaintiff has dismissed the sole federal claim over which the Court had original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally favors dismissing supplemental state-law claims without prejudice when all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed before trial, unless circumstances warrant retaining them.

Austin v. Auto Handling Corporation · filed 2023-08-30(c)(3)

Because that disposition leads to the dismissal of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court must address whether to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claims and rule on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment related to those claims. ... In sum, the Court finds that none of the exceptions to the “usual practice” applies here. As a result, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice on Plaintiff’s state-law claims and dismisses those claims with leave to refile in state court.

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

Sabaj v. Westville Cor Facility · filed 2023-08-31(c)(3)

Mr. Sabaj might be trying to assert negligence, malpractice, or some other Indiana law tort claim against Dr. Nottage, but without a viable federal claim, the court declines to allow him to litigate this potential state law claim 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.

Santana v. County of, Wayne and Wayne County Treasurer · filed 2023-08-31(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Santana’s inverse-condemnation and Michigan Constitution claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claims, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing that choice.

Scelza v. Porter · filed 2023-08-31(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of a plausible federal claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any state law claims that may be reasonably construed from the complaint.

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

King v. New York State · filed 2023-08-31(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of a plausible federal claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any state law claims that may be reasonably construed from the complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims contained in Plaintiff's complaint and dismisses any such claims without prejudice.

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

THOMAS v. KYRA COOPER · filed 2023-08-31(c)(3)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims, having dismissed all of Thomas’s federal claims.

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

SABER v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION · filed 2023-08-31(c)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims, having dismissed all of Saber’s federal claims.

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

Megha v. Los Angeles County Recorders Office · filed 2023-09-01(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed its sole federal claim to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Ivanovich v. City of Union Missouri · filed 2023-09-01(c)(3)

Here, after consideration of the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, which involve numerous questions of state law that would be better determined by the Missouri state courts.

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

Williams v. Kemp · filed 2023-09-01(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s negligence claims, including Plaintiff’s claim under N.C. Gen. Stat § 162-22 and against the surety on the Sheriff’s official bond, because no federal claim has passed initial review.

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

Whitener v. The Rutherford County Detention Center · filed 2023-09-01(c)(3)

However, the Court declines to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s negligence against Defendant Patterson, as all of the federal claims have been dismissed. 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.

Estate of Kenneth Dale Sumner v. State of CA · filed 2023-09-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed these claims with prejudice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and city claims after dismissing all federal claims, including at summary judgment.

Pasquarello v. Crothall Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2023-09-05(c)(3)

Therefore, because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims, see supra Discussion §§ I-III, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state and city claims.

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

Thompson v. Quilty · filed 2023-09-05(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Canter v. The State Of Maryland · filed 2023-09-06(c)(3)

In the absence of a viable claim that comes within federal question jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining State law claims.

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

Bond v. Verdecia · filed 2023-09-07(c)(3)

In as much as Plaintiff raises state-law defamation, slander, and liable claims against Verdecia, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

A.J. TRUCCO, INC. v. REDCELL CORP. · filed 2023-09-07(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Trucco’s only federal claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Trucco’s state law claims under the NJCROA and for invasion of privacy, and such claims shall be dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, upon consideration of the applicable factors.

Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Baker Botts L.L.P. · filed 2023-09-07(c)(3)

All federal claims having been dismissed, and having considered the applicable factors, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining 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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Feenstra v. Sigler · filed 2023-09-07(c)(3)

Because of the administrative demands on this court, the important state-law issues that are best resolved by the Oklahoma courts, and the general disfavor for retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims prior to trial, the court finds that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate in this case.

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.

BLACKWELL v. LEHIGH VALLEY HEALTH NETWORK · filed 2023-09-07(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal 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.” Because this Court dismisses Count One of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over which this Court held original federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim for violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor that choice.

Burrow v. Gordon · filed 2023-09-08(c)(3)

Burrow’s wrongful discharge claim based on Arkansas public policy is dismissed without prejudice because the balance of factors to be considered in whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—points towards declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Barlow-Johnson v. The Center for Youth and Family Solutions · filed 2023-09-08(c)(3)

Furthermore, having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim.

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

Passarelli 954240 v. Gibbons · filed 2023-09-08(c)(3)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Gibbons, Hilson, Johnson, Winters, Kacel, Hepworth, and Baker. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Plaintiff intended to raise, and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Monarchy Real Estate Acquisitions & Holdings, LLC v. Vance · filed 2023-09-08(c)(3)

The Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. § 1367(c)(3).

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

United States of America v. U.S. Oncology, Inc. · filed 2023-09-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed Omni’s FCA claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state, local, and common law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); 31 U.S.C. § 3732(b).

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

HELMS v. WILLIAMS · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)

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

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

Tallman v. Gugler · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)

Because the court is dismissing all federal claims for failure to exhaust, the court will relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law medical malpractice claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed early in the case, leaving only state-law claims.

Robert R. Cushing, et al. v. P Sherman Packard, in his official capacity as Speaker of the House for the N.H. House of R · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)

The court’s jurisdiction over these claims rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which confers supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that relate to federal law claims. ... Generally, “[w]hen the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.” ... The court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses plaintiffs’ state constitutional claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Mpoy v. District of Columbia · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)

Having dismissed the two federal claims, the Court has discretion in deciding whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Edmondson & Gallagher v. Alban Towers Tenants Ass'n, 48 F.3d 1260, 1265–66 (D.C. Cir. 1995). For the following reasons, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is declined.

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

Moorish Holy Temple of Science of World, Free and Sundry v. Connecticut · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)

Insofar as all federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, if any, against Defendants Sansom and Guilfuchi.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily permits dismissal of remaining state-law claims without prejudice unless circumstances favor retaining supplemental jurisdiction.

Austin v. Auto Handling Corporation · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)

Because that disposition leads to the dismissal of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court must address whether to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claim for wrongful termination and rule on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment related to that claim. ... In sum, the Court finds that none of the exceptions to the “usual practice” applies here. As a result, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice on Walters’ state-law claim and dismisses that claim with leave to refile in state court.

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, guided by federal policy, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Rosero v. Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here, where it has dismissed all federal claims, the Complaint presents no federal policy issues, and the Court has an extensive docket of cases over which it exercises original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, ordinarily without prejudice when the case is still at an early stage.

Cushing v. NH House of Representatives, Speaker of the House · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)

The court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses plaintiffs’ state constitutional claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Altamura v. Reliance Communications, LLC · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims where it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Where, as here, the alleged basis for the Court’s original jurisdiction was based upon manufactured violations of the FLSA that were bootstrapped onto claims rooted purely in state law, and the Gibbs factors counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s first objection.

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

Massey v. CoreCivic, Inc. · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)

Given, in particular, the failure of the FAC to allege particularized facts, in conjunction with the court’s determination that the FAC fails to state colorable claims under § 1983, the court ... will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

(PC) Edwards v. County of Sacramento · filed 2023-09-12(c)(3)

As set forth above, the undersigned as determined that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to state a § 1983 claim. Accordingly, the undersigned 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 claims within its original jurisdiction, especially early in the litigation.

HomeRoom, Inc. v. Shawnee, Kansas, City of · filed 2023-09-12(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed the federal constitutional claims against Defendants. The litigation is in the very early stages. Indeed, the magistrate judge has not yet convened the initial planning and scheduling conference. See Doc. 21 (deferring scheduling until after resolution of motion to dismiss). The remaining claim is a matter of state law regarding interpretation of the Kansas Zoning Enabling Act, which is an issue uniquely situated for resolution by a state court. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claim and dismisses that claim 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 disposing of all federal claims.

MARSHALL v. MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY · filed 2023-09-12(c)(3)

Having disposed of all Plaintiffs' federal claims, the Court 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims supporting original jurisdiction.

Walker v. Village Green Health Campus · filed 2023-09-12(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims under Ohio law.