28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Alonso v. Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County · filed 2023-09-13(c)(3)

After dismissing the federal claims, the district court had discre- tion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, and we would affirm the dismissal of Counts 5 and 6 without prejudice for that reason, too.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after the federal claim is dismissed before trial.

Williams v. Bell · filed 2023-09-13(c)(3)

Because Arkansas offers a meaningful post-deprivation remedy (a state law conversion action), Williams’s § 1983 claim for the return of his money fails, and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.

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

Lassiter v. ECI · filed 2023-09-13(c)(3)

To the extent Lassiter asserts state law claims of medical malpractice and negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and thus will dismiss such claims without prejudice.

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

SMITH v. RUSHING · filed 2023-09-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the federal claims which form the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter, the Court, in its discretion, shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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 a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Holliman v. Col. Bowers · filed 2023-09-14(c)(3)

The Court need not address this state tort claim because it has found that plaintiff is not entitled to relief as to any of the federal claims he has asserted.

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

Butler v. County of San Diego · filed 2023-09-14(c)

To the extent Plaintiff intended to present state law claims, the Court declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims.

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

Ramos v. Tiffany · filed 2023-09-14(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Liu v. Minchella · filed 2023-09-14(c)(3)

To the extent, however, that any of his state law claims survive, I decline 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.

Changamire v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners · filed 2023-09-14(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff’s Complaint includes any state law claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, this Court expressly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because Plaintiff has no remaining federal 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.

Pagan v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections d/b/a SCI-Camp Hill · filed 2023-09-14(c)(3)

Therefore, upon dismissal of the plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims, the remaining state-law claims will be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, for further proceedings.

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

Pagan v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections d/b/a SCI-Camp Hill · filed 2023-09-14(c)(3)

2. Count I of the amended complaint (Doc. 26), asserting § 1983 Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims, is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 3. The court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count II of the amended complaint (Doc. 26), asserting state-law negligence claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); ... 5. The clerk shall mark this case as CLOSED.

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

Tsosie v. N.T.U.A. Wireless LLC · filed 2023-09-15(c)(3)

Because this litigation is at an early stage, 5 || the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law 6 || claims.

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

Gunderson v. Corcoran · filed 2023-09-15(c)(3)

It is within the Court’s discretionary authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Baig v. Coca-Cola Co., 69 F. Supp. 3d 766, 781 (N.D. Ill. 2014), aff’d, 607 F. App’x 557 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

McIntosh v. Crabtree · filed 2023-09-15(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.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Johnson v. Ross Township Board of Trustees · filed 2023-09-15(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted summary judgment on all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson's state law claims.

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

Altidor v. Medical Knowledge Group LLC · filed 2023-09-16(c)(3)

Because, for the reasons outlined above, Plaintiff’s federal law claims are dismissed, the Court does not consider these claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially when the case is in its earliest stages.

Morrison v. Blanchard · filed 2023-04-03(c)(3)

Considering that this case is in its earliest stages, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Morrison’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.

Lopez v. U.S. Department of the Interior · filed 2023-04-03(c)(3)

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

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

MOSLEY v. HUGGINS · filed 2023-04-03(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, having dismissed Mosley’s federal claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim that supplied original jurisdiction, particularly at an early stage of the case.

ABREU v. SCI GREENE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION · filed 2023-04-04(c)(3)

Because the § 1983 claim, which is the sole basis for original jurisdiction, is 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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

HOYLE v. WRIGHT · filed 2023-04-04(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Hoyle’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Simms v. Wetzel · filed 2023-04-04(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. When a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Cheever v. The State of South Dakota · filed 2023-04-04(c)(3)

Thus, because all of Cheever’s federal-law claims have been dismissed, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Caraway v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC · filed 2023-04-05(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that arise out of the same facts that form a basis for a federal claim is a matter of discretion with the court. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, (1966); Vandiver v. Hardin County Board of Education, 925 F.2d 927, 935 (6th Cir. 1991). The factors to be analyzed in making that determination are judicial economy, comity, convenience, and fairness to the litigants. If all federal claims are dismissed before trial, as in the present case, the balance of factors will usually point toward dismissal of 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.

CHADWICK v. CROUSORE · filed 2023-04-06(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here over any and all claims that sound in state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) ("The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection . . . 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.

VAN LEER v. CENTURION HEALTH OF INDIANA, LLC · filed 2023-04-06(c)(3)

However, because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, as discussed above, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hounsell v. Crowd Lending Fund LLC · filed 2023-04-06(c)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims against those defendants in light of its dismissal of the RICO claim. Where a complaint fails to state a viable claim under federal law and jurisdiction over the remaining claims is based solely on supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a “district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.” Uphoff Figueroa v. Alejandro, 597 F.3d 423, 431 n.10 (1st Cir. 2010); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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.

Bourne v. Rookies Inc. · filed 2023-04-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s disability discrimination and retaliation claims under the ADA, the Court no longer has original jurisdiction over any claim and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law negligent hiring, training, and supervision claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the court may reserve that decision while granting leave to amend the federal claims.

Osby v. City of New York · filed 2023-04-10(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... As the Court is granting Plaintiff leave to amend, the Court has not dismissed the federal claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction. Thus, the Court reserves its decision whether to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims Plaintiff is asserting.

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.

Fountain v. Isaacs · filed 2023-04-12(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff may be trying to bring a state-law negligence/malpractice claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

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

GS Labs, LLC v. Medica Insurance Company · filed 2023-04-12(c)(3)

The Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3). ... Therefore, for all of these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over GS Labs’ state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

El v. Tutthill · filed 2023-04-12(c)(3)

Given the absence of a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Rankins v. Phillips · filed 2023-04-12(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a District Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental claims arising under state law if the Court has dismissed all of the 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.

Pue v. New Jersey Transit Corp · filed 2023-04-13(c)(3)

Finally, having properly dismissed Pue’s potential federal claims, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law breach-of-contract claim. ... A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction “under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

LEINHEISER v. SHAKIR · filed 2023-04-13(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, including any attempted negligence or medical malpractice claims.

After all federal claims are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) gives the district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Government App Solutions, Inc. v. City of New Haven · filed 2023-04-14(c)(3)

Once all federal claims have been dismissed from a case, whether to retain jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims is left to the discretion of the district court. ... The court concludes that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims is not warranted in this case.

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, considering comity, convenience, judicial economy, and fairness.

Hoffschneider v. Marshall · filed 2023-04-14(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court—in light of its dismissal of Mr. Hoffschneider’s § 1983 claim— declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his extreme and outrageous conduct claim.

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

Arnold v. S2 Matthews, LP d/b/a Shore House · filed 2023-04-14(c)(3)

As such, upon consideration of the § 1367 factors and the “traditional rationales for pendent jurisdiction, including judicial economy and convenience,” see Palmer, 22 F.3d at 1569, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Houston Land and Cattle Company, LC v. Bisso Case remanded to (the 239th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Tex · filed 2023-04-17(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any alleged violations under the Texas Constitution. 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.

Miroth v. County of Trinity · filed 2023-04-17(c)(3)

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

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

Pearson v. State of California · filed 2023-04-17(c)(3)

At the hearing, Plaintiffs said the Court should decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims if the federal claims are dismissed. The Court agrees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see, e.g., Perez, 591 F. Supp. 3d at 761.

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

Hilson v. Waukee Community School District · filed 2023-04-17(c)(3)

Here, the relevant factors weigh against assertion of supplemental jurisdiction. Because this case remains at the pleading stage, sending it back to state court will come at no cost to judicial economy or convenience. By contrast, it is fair to allow Hilson to pursue her state claims in the forum of her original choosing. Comity principles also favor remand because at least one of Hilson’s claims—namely, “[b]ullying, in violation of Iowa Code § 280.28”—raises a question of actionability not yet addressed by Iowa’s appellate courts.

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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Lawrence v. Lawson · filed 2023-04-17(c)(3)

Having considered the applicable law, the complexity of Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, and the fact that the trial of this matter has not yet been set, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and dismisses Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims without prejudice.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a defendant after dismissing the federal claims against that defendant, while retaining state-law claims against defendants with pending federal claims.

Floyd 603580 v. Surety · filed 2023-04-17(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Surety, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against that Defendant. Those claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring those claims in state court. Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Newcomb and Grondin, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against them.

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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Lowther v. Children Youth and Families Department · filed 2023-04-17(c)(3)

Nevertheless, the district court has discretion to retain its jurisdiction over state law claims and should consider “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” in determining whether to do so. Henderson v. AMTRAK, 412 F. App’x 74, 79 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Having considered these factors, the Court determines that they weigh in favor of adjudication by a state court. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims and dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

Woods v. Kasztl Walsh, LLC · filed 2023-04-17(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s ADA claim for lack of Article III standing, it has not addressed whether the Complaint states a claim under the ADA, and it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in Plaintiff’s 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.

Nunez v. Fraser · filed 2023-04-17(c)(3)

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

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

Davenport v. City of Brundidge · filed 2023-04-18(c)(3)

Having disposed of Davenport’s federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Davenport’s remaining state-law claims. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Vesley v. Illinois School District 45 · filed 2023-04-18(c)(3)

And absent a viable federal claim, Bryan’s state law claims are properly dismissed due to lack of supplemental jurisdiction. ... This presumption is statutorily expressed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides for the discretionary relinquishment of jurisdiction over state claims when the claims providing original jurisdiction (here, federal-question jurisdiction) have been 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, particularly when dismissal occurs early in the proceeding.

B.L. v. FETHERMAN · filed 2023-04-18(c)(3)

Section 1367(c), however, provides that a “district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims, which provide the Court with subject-matter jurisdiction, at the earliest possible stage of the proceeding. As a result, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Seven, Nine and Ten.

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

Rasmussen v. State of South Dakota · filed 2023-04-18(c)(3)

But the 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). Thus, because all of Rasmussen’s federal-law claims have been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Conquistador v. Corcella · filed 2023-04-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Conquistador’s federal claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims.

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

Mosley v. Gott · filed 2023-04-19(c)

Because the federal claims must be dismissed, the court will also dismiss this state law claim without prejudice. See Doe–2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir.2010) (“Ordinarily, when a district court dismisses the federal claims conferring original jurisdiction prior to trial, it relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).”).

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

El v. Daniels · filed 2023-04-19(c)(3)

However, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed without leave to amend.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially when the case is at an early stage and a state court is better suited to resolve the remaining issues.

Bristol v. Town of Camden · filed 2023-04-19(c)(3)

As this litigation is in an early stage, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over matters that might better be addressed by a New York State court more versed in those issues.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when those claims were dismissed on threshold grounds.

Jones v. City Of Cincinnati · filed 2023-04-19(c)(3)

The Court declines to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over Jones’s three remaining state law claims. The Court has dismissed Jones’s federal law claims on threshold grounds: a condition precedent and the statute of limitations.

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

BAKER v. THE HOME DEPOT · filed 2023-04-19(c)(3)

But I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 without any federal claims remaining in the case.

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

Rasheed v. Sabadish · filed 2023-04-19(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts broad discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Silas v. Sheriff of Broward County, Florida · filed 2022-12-14(c)(3)

A district court, exercising its already broad discretion, will rarely err by declining supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims that supported its jurisdiction are dismissed.

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

Passwaters v. Garner · filed 2022-12-14(c)(3)

Because the complaint fails to state a federal claim as Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s supplemental ... state law claims.

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

Talley v. The Housing Authority of Cook County · filed 2022-12-14(c)(3)

There is no longer any basis of federal jurisdiction in the case, and I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law dispute between plaintiffs and defendant Lee.

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

Henry v. Fentress · filed 2022-12-14(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff alleges negligence or other state-law claims, having determined that the federal claims, which provide the jurisdictional basis of this suit, should be dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 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.

MCKINNEY v. PIAZZA · filed 2022-12-14(c)(3)

Where the 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).

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

Petty v. Bono · filed 2022-12-14(c)(3)

Having found that all of Plaintiff's federal claims are subject to dismissal, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's 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 when the federal claims are dismissed.

Copes v. State University of New York · filed 2022-12-14(c)(3)

Having found that Plaintiff's only federal claim is subject to dismissal, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.2 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 fail to state a cognizable claim.

Alo v. Fresno City College · filed 2022-12-15(c)(3)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. It will be recommended that the district court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Hopper v. Salazar · filed 2022-12-15(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims under Federal Law is appropriate, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under state law, including the claim pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-241 et seq. A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state law claim if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Langer v. Home Depot Product Authority, LLC · filed 2022-12-16(c)(3)

Under these circumstances, and where Home Depot has raised numerous, independent arguments about why Langer’s ADA and Unruh Act claims fail on the merits, the Court finds it appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and DISMISSES that 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.

Hollobaugh v. Pohl Transportation, Inc. · filed 2022-12-14(c)(3)

Should Defendant fail to file an amended counterclaim within those thirty days, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims raised in the Amended Answer and Counterclaim against Plaintiff Michael P. Hollobaugh Sr. and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a State Court of competent jurisdiction and the matter terminated from the Court's docket.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims before trial, guided by judicial economy and the avoidance of needless state law decisions.

Jones v. Naert · filed 2022-12-15(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 are properly dismissed without prejudice.

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

Matzura v. Macy's Inc. · filed 2022-12-15(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiffs ADA claim for lack of Article II] standing, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and municipal law claims included in Plaintiff's Complaint.

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

Moore v. Effectual Inc · filed 2022-12-19(c)(3)

The Court declines to exert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s other state law claims.

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

Loftus v. Kitsap County · filed 2022-12-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal law claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claim.

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

Cherner v. Westchester Jewish Cmty. Servs., Inc. · filed 2022-12-20(c)(3)

We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cherner’s state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (explaining that once only state-law claims remain, it is well within a district court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental 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.

Harmon v. Quiros · filed 2022-12-20(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the 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....” As the Court has dismissed the possible federal law claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after dismissing the federal claim for lack of Article III standing.

Matzura v. Regal Cinemas, Inc. · filed 2022-12-20(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiff's ADA claim for lack of Article III standing, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and municipal law claims included in Plaintiff's Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

MALEY v. CARMICHAELS-CUMBERLAND JOINT SEWER AUTHORITY · filed 2022-12-19(c)(3)

Because this count constitutes the only federal claim in the operative complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claim, particularly when the case is at an early stage and the state court is better placed to decide the state law issue.

Cavasos v. Garden City, Kansas, City of · filed 2022-07-01(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s remaining claim is one under state law. Although the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim, 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.”) (quoting Smith v. City of Enid ex rel Enid City Comm’n, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir. 1998)); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). There are no compelling circumstances that justify this court retaining jurisdiction and the state court is in a better position to evaluate whether Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim under Kansas law. In addition, this case is in the early stages as a scheduling order has not been entered and no formal discovery has been exchanged. Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

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

Cheng v. Speier · filed 2022-07-04(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise 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. Because this Court has dismissed the federal cause of action, this Court DECLINES to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining causes of action brought under California state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally counsels declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Bibbs v. Meiser · filed 2022-07-06(c)(3)

A federal court should generally decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because Plaintiff’s federal claims must be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) requires a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction before trial, unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness requires retaining them.

HAQQ v. WARREN COUNTY · filed 2022-07-06(c)(3)

As this Court has dismissed the sole claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction—Plaintiff's patently improper § 1983 claims against the jail—this Court must decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

GOLDSTEIN v. PRESIDENT AND CHIEF COUNSELOR DEPT. OF HEALTH, WASHINGTON, DC · filed 2022-07-06(c)(3)

To the extent Goldstein seeks to assert state law claims, the Court, having dismissed her federal claims, will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim when the federal claims are dismissed.

Hartman v. Gratz Borough · filed 2022-07-06(c)(3)

Hartman will be granted leave to file an amended complaint; however, should he decline to do so, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the sole state law claim and will remand this action to the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas.

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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Huff v. City of Brookings Police Department · filed 2022-07-06(c)(3)

In this case, the Court concludes that the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity generally favoring remand before trial.

Manyweather v. Woodlawn Manor · filed 2022-07-07(c)(3)

We test a remand under subsection (c)(3) by assessing the common-law factors of “judicial economy, convenience, fair- ness, and comity.” Heggemeier, 826 F.3d at 872 (citation omitted). Applying those factors, we’ve held that a court generally “should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial.” Ibid. (cleaned up). So here. The district court re- manded during the pleading stage. No discovery had taken place. Any trial was a distant possibility—months, if not years away—if it would happen at all. The court did not abuse its discretion by remanding.

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

Gover v. Detroit · filed 2022-07-08(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion as to the 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 a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim, including at summary judgment.

Kovacevic v. American International Foods, Inc. · filed 2022-07-08(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss Kovacevic’s federal claim, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her claim under state law. “‘[A] federal court that has dismissed a plaintiff’s federal-law claims should not ordinarily reach the plaintiff's state-law claims.’” Burnett v. Griffith, 33 F.4th 907, 915 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting Rouster v. Cnty. of Saginaw, 749 F.3d 437, 454 (6th Cir. 2014)). That principle applies at the summary judgment stage. See id. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the CERA claim 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 it dismisses the federal claims before trial, taking account of judicial economy and whether deciding state-law issues is necessary.

Berkshire 371645 v. Jackson · filed 2022-07-08(c)(3)

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

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

Morris v. The City of New York · filed 2022-07-08(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Floyd v. Filipowski · filed 2022-07-08(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to extend its supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims that Plaintiff asserts under state law.

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

Ogden Regional Airport Association v. Ogden City Airport · filed 2022-07-11(c)(3)

Because the court ultimately finds that they have not, which results in the dismissal of all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and therefore dismisses them without determining their plausibility.

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.

Cooper v. Jones · filed 2022-07-11(c)(3)

Here, because all of Cooper’s constitutional claims are subject to dismissal, the undersigned will relinquish 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.

Wimbush v. Carter · filed 2022-07-11(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law claims of libel and slander against Defendant Carter.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on judicial economy and the concern about needlessly deciding state-law issues.

Cassaday v. Pure Options · filed 2022-07-11(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims are properly 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.

Nieves v. Johnson · filed 2022-07-11(c)(3)

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

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

Ahmed v. Domino's Pizza LLC · filed 2022-07-11(c)(3)

The “traditional ‘values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity’” weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial. Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Having determined that the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claims. See id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

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

Jones v. New York City · filed 2022-07-11(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the federal claims under Section 1983 will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), will decline supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may seek to assert.

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

Erickson v. Huber · filed 2022-07-30(c)(3)

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

When federal claims are dismissed early, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Redd v. Watts · filed 2022-08-01(c)(3)

“When, as here, the federal claim is dismissed early in the case, the federal courts are inclined to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice rather than retain supplemental jurisdiction.” ... To the extent Redd raises a medical malpractice claim under Maryland law, it will be dismissed, without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after granting summary judgment on all federal claims.

Brown v. Scaglione · filed 2022-08-01(c)(3)

Because the court has already awarded summary judgment to Defendants on all federal claims at issue, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the single remaining state law claim (Count IV).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on judicial economy and the risk of needlessly deciding state-law issues.

Brooks 351208 v. Whitmer · filed 2022-08-01(c)

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

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

Bell v. Plante · filed 2022-08-01(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the time allowed, the Court will enter judgment dismissing this action; the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under federal law for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, see id., and the Court will decline 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 state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Sterling v. Human Resources Administration (Social Services) · filed 2022-08-01(c)(3)

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

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

FREEMAN v. MCGORRY · filed 2022-08-01(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)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it has resolved all federal claims before trial.

Sigstedt v. Colorado Mountain Local College District · filed 2022-08-02(c)(3)

This case is now in a fundamentally altered procedural posture given that the Court is herein granting summary judgment to Defendants on all of Plaintiff’s federal law claims. Plaintiff’s remaining claims are all grounded in state law. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Cook 290601 v. Leitheim · filed 2022-08-02(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, in light of the Court’s dismissal of the federal claims against Defendants, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction as to them. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants will be 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 when no affirmative justification supports retaining them.

COMEGYS v. VALLEY FORGE MILITARY ACADEMY & COLLEGE · filed 2022-08-10(c)(3)

Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and the Third Circuit’s directive, and because there is no affirmative justification to do otherwise, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, absent an affirmative justification to retain them.

MORGAN v. VALLEY FORGE MILITARY ACADEMY & COLLEGE · filed 2022-08-10(c)(3)

Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and the Third Circuit’s directive, and because there is no affirmative justification to do otherwise, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify keeping it.

Dixon v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2022-08-11(c)(3)

Given this Court’s familiarity with the case, and the existing analysis of the related federal claims, we find it would be prudent for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law negligence claim, despite the federal claims being dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Martin v. Diocese of Buffalo · filed 2022-08-12(c)(3)

Although the court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court elects to retain jurisdiction over those claims in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

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

Amorosa v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY · filed 2022-08-19(c)

Here, there is no basis to depart from that general rule. That is, given the relatively early stage of the case, the traditional “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” that the Court must consider do not counsel in favor of exercising jurisdiction. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). Accordingly, Amorosa’s state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling them in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the related federal claim, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

FLORENCE v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC · filed 2022-08-25(c)(3)

The relevant factors weigh in favor of the Court following the "usual practice" in the Seventh Circuit and relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after all federal claims have been dismissed when the statutory factors and considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity support retention.

Papin v. University of Mississippi Medical Center · filed 2022-09-01(c)

The 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) factors support the Court’s continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Dr. Papin’s breach-of-contract claim does not raise “a novel or complex” state-law issue.

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

Busey Bank v. Turney · filed 2022-09-06(c)

But because the Court dismisses the DTSA claim over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Busey’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the state-law issues are not novel or complex and judicial economy and fairness favor retention.

Barney v. Suggs · filed 2022-09-20(c)

More, even though the Court has dismissed all of the federal claims, the remaining state claims do not raise novel or complex issues of state law. On the contrary, the standards for the state law claims resemble the standards for the federal law claims. So principles of judicial economy and fairness favor this Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Burney’s common law false arrest, assault, and battery claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claim when the state-law claim is intertwined with it and equally insubstantial.

Demisse v. Medstar Washington Hospital Center · filed 2020-01-30(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s negligence claim intertwines with the federal claim, and it is equally insubstantial. So, it is appropriate to retain jurisdiction and dismiss that claim as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of all federal claims when an anticipated amendment to revive those claims makes retention conserve judicial and party resources.

Kelly v. Town of Abingdon, Virginia · filed 2020-02-03(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed Kelly’s ADA claims, which provide the basis for federal question jurisdiction, I could decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law breach of contract claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). I will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count V, however, because plaintiff’s counsel indicated several times during oral argument that he intends to move to amend the Complaint to add further factual allegations in support of the ADA claims. In light of that stated intention, I find that retaining jurisdiction over this case will best conserve judicial and party resources.

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

Potter v. Port Jervis Police Department · filed 2020-02-03(c)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after granting judgment on the federal claim and dismiss the state law claim without prejudice.

Corey v. Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, Inc. · filed 2020-02-07(c)(3)

Because the Court will grant judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s Title VII claim, the Court will exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline jurisdiction ... over Plaintiff’s state law claim. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Duncan v. Wiggins · filed 2020-02-10(c)

The Court notes that it exercises its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

After federal claims are dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction permits affirmance of summary judgment on remaining state-law claims that are plainly correct and present no substantial question of state law.

Robinson v. Town of Marshfield · filed 2020-02-14(c)(3)

Notwithstanding that the federal-law claims have been dismissed, we may affirm the portions of a grant of summary judgment on remaining state-law claims "that are so plainly correct that no substantial question of state law is presented," id., as this course best serves "the interests of fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity," id. (quoting Desjardins v. Willard, 777 F.3d 43, 45-46 (1st Cir. 2015)).

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

FOSTER v. KLASKO · filed 2020-02-27(c)(3)

However, as the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims for the reasons set forth above, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

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

Eckert v. Suffolk County Jail · filed 2020-02-27(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Velez v. Stratford · filed 2020-03-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Lieutenant Velez’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, and dismisses them for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed, and declining to resolve an unsettled state constitutional right of action is not an abuse of discretion.

Nagel v. City of Jamestown · filed 2020-03-09(c)(3)

When the district court has disposed of all federal claims that conferred original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The district court, declining to take the “extraordinary step” of inferring a right of action under the North Dakota Constitution when the Supreme Court of North Dakota has not done so, dismissed these claims without prejudice so Nagel may pursue them in state court. There was no abuse of discretion.

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

Truell v. City of New York · filed 2020-03-09(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c) permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissal of the federal claim against particular defendants when the relevant facts largely overlap with the rest of the case.

Choi v. 37 Parsons Realty LLC · filed 2020-03-16(c)

In light of the dismissal of plaintiffs’ federal RICO claim against the Lau Defendants, the Court has the option to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims against those defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Although the Lau Defendants request this result, it makes more sense for the Court to maintain jurisdiction as the facts relevant to the state claims largely overlap with those undergirding the rest of the case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of all federal claims when the remaining state and city claims require separate analysis and retaining jurisdiction would not significantly conserve judicial resources.

Williams v. Geiger · filed 2020-03-19(c)(3)

Because, however, the Court is dismissing all of the federal claims in this case, the Court has discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over any pendent state law claims. ... In circumstances such as this, where Williams’s state and city law claims require an analysis separate from her ADA claims, the Court’s retention of jurisdiction will not significantly conserve judicial resources.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed when discovery is complete, summary judgment motions are ripe, and the court’s investment in a trial-ready case favors retention.

Shaw v. Ferndale, City of · filed 2020-03-20(c)(3)

The Court has discretion to dismiss state law claims when the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This case has been on the Court’s docket since September 21, 2018, the discovery closed on August 29, 2019, the case is before the Court on the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, and the Court has apprised itself of the facts of the case and has invested significant time in the matter. Neither comity nor judicial economy favors dismissal of a trial-ready case in its present posture.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits discretionary relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed, with a presumption favoring relinquishment.

Ramirez v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP · filed 2020-03-25(c)(3)

Indeed, this presumption is statutorily expressed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides for the discretionary relinquishment of jurisdiction over state claims when the claims providing original jurisdiction (here, federal-question jurisdiction) have been dismissed. So the Court dismisses the state claim without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of all federal claims when the remaining state claim is readily resolved on timeliness grounds, presents no novel or complex state law, and raises no fairness concerns.

Rajaratnam v. Motley Rice, LLC · filed 2020-03-26(c)(3)

Though the RICO claims have been dismissed at an early stage of the litigation, the court finds that its discretion is ... properly exercised by adjudicating the remaining state law defamation claim. As discussed immediately below, the defamation claim may be readily disposed of on timeliness grounds, does not involve the application of novel or complex state law, and does not raise concerns of unfairness to plaintiff, given his selection of the instant forum.

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

Charles Gilbert, Jr. v. ATF · filed 2020-03-27(c)(3)

But we have not reversed any of the federal claims, so this argument lacks merit. The district court would still be well within its discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over an amended complaint raising purely state law claims.

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

Conley v. Alexander · filed 2020-03-30(c)(3)

Because all of Mr. Conley’s federal claims will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Conley’s state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

KORNHAUSER v. ORTIZ · filed 2020-03-30(c)(3)

As no federal claims remain against the Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, including any attempted negligence or ... property tort claims.

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

Snow v. Corizon Health Inc. · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has already been given the opportunity to amend and still has not stated a plausible claim for relief under federal law, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice. ... Plaintiff's state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiffs asserting them in state court, as the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint fails to state any federal claim upon which relief may be granted.

Peterson v. IMSI Medical · filed 2020-04-02(c)(3)

Moreover, because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims in any. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice.

Carroll v. Schrader · filed 2020-04-16(c)(3)

“When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” ... Therefore, this Court recommends that Judge Moore grant Hirsch’s motion to dismiss (without prejudice) Plaintiff’s seventh claim asserted in the FAC.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when discovery is complete and the remaining state law claim involves settled law.

Chevalier v. The City of New York · filed 2020-04-16(c)(3)

Here, discovery is complete. Chevalier’s only state law claim is for false arrest, and it is well-settled law in New York that “probable cause is a complete defense to a false arrest claim under . . . New York law.” Rodriguez v. County of Suffolk, 63 N.Y.S.3d 693, 694 (App. Div. 2017). Chevalier’s claim thus does not raise a novel issue of state law, as it is controlled by well-settled precedent. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction over Chevalier’s state law false arrest claim.

After disposing of all federal claims, a court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when substantial judicial resources have been expended and the disposition of the state claim is clear.

Wagoner v. NPAS Inc · filed 2020-04-27(c)(3)

The court elects to retain jurisdiction over Ms. Wagoner’s state law claim and decide it on the merits for two reasons. First, the court has expended substantial judicial resources on this case. ... Second, because the statutes coterminously define “debt collector,” it is clear how the state claim should be decided.

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

Schwab v. Kobach · filed 2020-04-28(c)(3)

Instead, exercising its discretion, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims because they are the only remaining claims in this lawsuit now that the court has dismissed all of plaintiffs’ federal claims.

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

Ochoa v. Mesa, City of · filed 2020-05-01(c)(3)

Now that the federal claim is dismissed, the Court has discretion to either retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), or remand the action to state court. ... The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim.

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

Smith v. Pollino · filed 2020-05-01(c)(3)

Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Mendez v. City of Boise · filed 2020-05-04(c)(3)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Walker v. Kanode · filed 2020-05-05(c)

To the extent that Walker may have some claim against the defendants under state law, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such state-law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Hollingsworth v. Theatrical Teamsters Union Local 817 IBT · filed 2020-05-07(c)(3)

However, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court concludes that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims is unwarranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bacy v. Chickasaw Nation Industries Inc · filed 2020-05-07(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff has asserted a state-law negligence claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

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

Neal v. State Employees Credit Union · filed 2020-05-08(c)(3)

Moreover, to the extent plaintiff seeks to assert an alternative state law claim, supplemental to his federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand supplemental state law claims in a removed case after it grants summary judgment on all federal claims.

Nowlin v. Dodson Brothers Exterminating Co., Incorporated · filed 2020-05-08(c)(3)

The Court concludes that because this action was removed from state court and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, Plaintiff’s state law claims are properly remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and Hinson.

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

Johnson v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2020-05-12(c)(3)

The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims against Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and accordingly dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

Cline v. State of Utah · filed 2020-05-13(c)(3)

Based upon the above, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to plead any cognizable federal claims against Defendants McPhie and Packer and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims against them.