28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the sole federal claim is dismissed.

Selimovic v. South Side Associates LLC · filed 2020-05-18(c)

If, however, Abdel Selimovic fails to show cause as to why his Title VII claim should not be dismissed for the reasons explained above, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Ensley v. DeSoto Independent School District · filed 2020-05-18(c)(3)

Here, because the Court dismissed Ensley’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.

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

Fry v. Lamb · filed 2020-05-20(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff's federal law claims will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims.

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

Houston v. Howell · filed 2020-05-20(c)(3)

However, because I am dismissing the federal claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state constitutional claim.

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

Szuszalski v. Fields · filed 2020-05-21(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over standalone state law issues, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and will remand these claims to state court.

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

McDaniel v. The City of New York · filed 2020-05-21(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will dismiss his claims for habeas corpus relief without prejudice, dismiss his remaining 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)(11), and will decline to consider his claims under state law under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it lacks personal jurisdiction on the sole federal claim.

INTELLECT DESIGN ARENA, INC. v. DATACUBES INC. · filed 2020-06-01(c)

Finally, to the extent that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants for the false advertising claim, which is the only federal claim asserted in this case, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims.

When all claims supporting federal jurisdiction are dismissed, a court typically relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

Sciarrone v. Amrich · filed 2020-06-03(c)(3)

When a court in this circuit dismisses all claims supporting federal jurisdiction, as the Court has done here, it typically relinquishes jurisdiction over any supplemental state law claims by dismissing them without prejudice. ... The Court therefore dismisses the Illinois Whistleblower Act and retaliatory discharge claims without prejudice.

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

Landon v. County of Daviess · filed 2020-06-03(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise its 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 federal claims.

Johnson v. Gilbert · filed 2020-06-05(c)(3)

That leaves only state law claims, over which the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Peacock v. Malloy · filed 2020-06-05(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

After dismissing the federal claim, a court must conduct a discretionary inquiry under § 1367(c)(3) before deciding whether to retain the remaining state-law claims.

Kleftogiannis v. Inline Plastics Corp. · filed 2020-06-05(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed this case’s federal claim, the Court must conduct the discretionary inquiry required under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to determine whether it is appropriate to maintain jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it disposes of all federal claims, considering whether there is a compelling reason to retain them.

Birch v. Atchison, Kansas, City of · filed 2020-06-05(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims Plaintiff asserts.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering the case’s procedural stage and the common law factors.

Bryant v. Hope Credit Union · filed 2020-06-11(c)(3)

When federal law claims that serve as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed and only state law claims grounded on supplemental jurisdiction remain, a district court has broad discretion to dismiss the state law claims. ... Therefore, after consideration of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) as well as the applicable common law factors,1 the remaining state law claims should be, and are dismissed without prejudice.

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

GRAY v. HAGNER · filed 2020-06-11(c)(3)

Here, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under federal law. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Sims v. Wexford Medical · filed 2020-06-12(c)(3)

The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gwazdavskas v. Tharp · filed 2020-06-16(c)(3)

To the extent his complaint is intended to assert any related state-law claims, they likewise are dismissed without prejudice because the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gonzalez v. Hannah · filed 2020-06-16(c)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims including the claim for medical malpractice.

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

Doe v. Medford School District 549C · filed 2020-06-16(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims and so those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Torres v. NYC Police Department · filed 2020-06-18(c)(3)

Because the Court accepts the Report’s recommendation and dismisses Plaintiffs federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, to the extent that those are also asserted against the City Defendants.

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

Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2020-06-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed Aya’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental 11 ||jurisdiction over Aya’s state law claims.

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

SHORTER v. PRINCETON RESOURCE ASSOCIATES, INC. · filed 2020-06-22(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal law claims, I may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hirsh v. Midland Credit Management Inc. · filed 2020-06-29(c)(3)

Because the Court finds all of Plaintiff’s federal claims are subject to dismissal, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Allen v. The City of New York · filed 2020-06-29(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will dismiss his claims under federal law as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and for seeking monetary relief from defendants that are immune from such relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Q), (ii), (i11), and will decline to consider his claims under state law under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

St. George v. City of Lakewood Colorado · filed 2020-06-30(c)(3)

The Magistrate Judge recommended that, because Plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim against Defendants, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Plaintiff objects to this aspect of the Recommendation because he believes that his federal claims should be allowed to go forward. (ECF No. 106 at 8.) The Court again disagrees, and the Recommendation will be adopted in this respect. Plaintiff’s state law tort claims are dismissed without prejudice to re-asserting them in state court.

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

DECARO v. THE NEWARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS · filed 2020-06-30(c)(3)

To the extent any such state law claim exists, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Evans v. Hood · filed 2020-07-02(c)

Having dismissed the federal claims as barred by the statute of limitations and failing to raise an actionable federal question, the Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining D.C-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Smith v. Woods · filed 2020-07-02(c)(3)

Furthermore, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Moore v. Hatton · filed 2020-07-07(c)(3)

However, if Plaintiff fails to state a retaliation claim in the amended complaint, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims and dismiss them to pursuing them in state court.

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

Landon v. Smith · filed 2020-07-07(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’ □ federal-law claims will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state-law claims for defamation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ryle v. Fuh · filed 2020-07-13(c)(3)

Because the District Court properly dismissed all federal claims against the defendants, it did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, NY · filed 2020-07-13(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under federal law that the Court has not transferred or dismissed in this order for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, see id., and will decline to consider Plaintiff’s claims under state law under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, 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 a federal claim.

Conner, Eric v. Adams, Jamie · filed 2020-07-15(c)(3)

Because plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s proposed state law claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and am dismissing his complaint.

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

Haven v. Whitney Point School District · filed 2020-07-15(c)(3)

To the extent plaintiffs’ pleading contains one or more claims based on state law, supplemental jurisdiction over those matters will be declined.

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

Emiabata v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association · filed 2020-07-16(c)

The only remaining claims in the Complaint are the Plaintiffs’ state law claims. The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 117 (2d Cir. 2013) (“The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is within the sound discretion of the district court.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that dismisses the federal claim to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Dawson v. Johnson · filed 2020-07-17(c)(3)

Because I am dismissing Dawson’s federal claim, I DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under ...state law. Those state law 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 state and local claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Lively v. WAFRA Investment Advisory Group, Inc. · filed 2020-07-17(c)(3)

Because Lively’s federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Lively’s remaining state and city claims.

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

Tennyson v. County of Sacramento · filed 2020-07-20(c)(3)

Where all federal claims are dismissed in an action containing both federal and state law claims, a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Accordingly, at this juncture the court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state claims.

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

Cocca-Rau v. The Standard Life Insurance Company of New York · filed 2020-07-22(c)(3)

In any event, having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to federal law, the Court separately 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 the federal claims.

Mendez v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC · filed 2020-07-23(c)(3)

Because Mendez’s federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state and city claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Supreme Court has instructed that “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). Thus, pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when its factors favor doing so.

Arruda v. Curves International, Inc. · filed 2020-07-27(c)

In this case, as in Parker & Parsley, the Court finds that none of the factors in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) weigh in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and declining supplemental jurisdiction impairs neither judicial economy, convenience, fairness, nor comity.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a supplemental state or local law claim after the federal claim is dismissed.

Young v. Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families · filed 2020-07-27(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), I also dismiss plaintiff’s remaining claim under the New York City Human Rights Law.

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

Mulcahy v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company · filed 2020-07-29(c)(3)

Where, as here, no federal claims7 survive a motion to dismiss, the appropriate course of action is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining causes of action.

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

Venoco, LLC v. Plains Pipeline, L.P. · filed 2020-07-31(c)(3)

A district court with jurisdiction over a federal claim has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case and can choose to decline supplemental jurisdiction if the federal claim is dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)(3).

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

Bush v. Philadelphia Redevelopment Aut · filed 2020-07-31(c)(3)

We are not remanding any of his federal claims, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Robinson v. Roberts · filed 2020-08-06(c)(3)

Jurisdiction over any state law claims shall not be exercised. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ad Lightning Inc. v. Clean.io, Inc. · filed 2020-08-07(c)(3)

But since Ad Lightning’s federal claim is dismissed, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over this state-law claim.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing the only federal claim when the remaining issues can be resolved in state court without prejudice to the plaintiff.

Weckel v. Jack Rugar Custom Painting, LLC · filed 2020-08-10(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims and dismiss the case without prejudice to repleading in a proper forum. The issues remaining in the case are state-law issues which can be resolved in a New York court. As the issues have not been joined, and the statute of limitations has not run on any of Plaintiff's claims, the Court finds no prejudice in dismissing the case at this point.

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

Moore v. Parsons · filed 2020-08-12(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of Moore’s only federal claim, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction overMoore’s state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Lopez-Ramos v. Enersys Enginering Corporation · filed 2020-08-12(c)

Since the federal claims are being dismissed at the pleadings stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and all supplemental claims under Puerto Rico law will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims fail to state a claim for relief.

Sellner v. Carter · filed 2020-08-20(c)(3)

Because Sellner has failed to state a federal claim for relief, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related claims to interpleaded funds after the original stakeholder is dismissed.

Perez v. Midland National Life Insurance Company · filed 2020-08-21(a)

Because the Court had jurisdiction over Midland’s Interpleader action, it may retain jurisdiction over Perez I and Perez II’s related claims to the proceeds from the Policies. ... Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this action.

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

Hansen v. The City of Superior, Nebraska · filed 2020-08-21(c)(3)

Without a viable federal question to decide, the court will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, unless an exception applies.

Kempa 3105, LLC v. Sauk Village, Illinois · filed 2020-08-24(c)(3)

In the absence of federal claims, district courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state-law claims unless an exception applies. ... Plaintiffs’ state constitutional and statutory claim is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Madison v. Banks · filed 2020-08-24(c)(3)

To the extent that the AC asserts any state law causes of action, such as claims in tort for theft or assault, the Court declines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

GLD v. City of New York · filed 2020-08-27(c)

Having dismissed their federal law claims against the City Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Doe v. Supreme Court of Kentucky · filed 2020-08-28(c)(3)

And the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over her state-law claims.

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

Wise v. Storie · filed 2020-09-01(c)(3)

Additionally, to the extent Mr. Wise raises state tort claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed and the state claims present complex issues of state law.

Cordero v. Kisner · filed 2020-09-02(c)

However, the court finds that because Cordero’s federal claims are subject to dismissal, the court should exercise its discretion to remand Cordero’s state claims to the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (authorizing a district court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over a supplemental claim); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 349-50 (1988) (discussing the factors in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after removal).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when efficiency favors deciding them.

Brady v. IGS Realty Co. L.P. · filed 2020-09-08(c)(3)

And here, given the close relationship between the state-law claims in Friedlander II to those in IGS Realty II, there is good cause and obvious efficiency for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction so as enable a review of the adequacy of Brady’s pleading of these claims, rather than dismissing them without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The Court therefore exercises supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

BUSH v. MANGROVE · filed 2020-09-09(c)(3)

The Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over any state tort claims as it is dismissing the federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Yakini D. Byrd v. Razo · filed 2020-09-11(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. As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, it will be recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any purported state law claims.

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

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, State of Missouri · filed 2020-09-11(c)(3)

Having granted Defendant City summary judgment on the federal claims against it, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Defendant City and Defendant Deeba and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

DuBois v. Rosner · filed 2020-09-11(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiff’s state law claim for fraud and sexual harassment.

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

Meniooh v. Humboldt County · filed 2020-09-15(c)(3)

As a threshold matter, however, the court will note that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims is committed to the discretion of the court. ... Despite the fact that the issue is committed to the court’s discretion, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly counseled district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed before trial. ... Accordingly, Claims 4 through 6 are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Barr v. Sedgwick County Area Educational Services Interlocal Cooperative 618 · filed 2020-09-17(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim that remains.

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

Miro-Rodriguez v. Metrohealth, Inc. · filed 2020-09-17(c)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and all supplemental claims under Puerto Rico law will be dismissed with prejudice.

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

QUIAH v. THE DEVEREUX FOUNDATION, INC. · filed 2020-09-22(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all Plaintiff’s federal law claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Balderas v. Google LLC · filed 2020-09-25(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court has discretion to continue to hear associated state claims, notwithstanding dismissal of the federal claims, but this is disfavored.

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

Eichenberger v. Jamison · filed 2020-09-25(c)(3)

Because the Court lacks, or alternatively abstains from exercising, jurisdiction to review Eichenberger’s lone federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Eichenberger’s remaining state claims for false imprisonment, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Walker v. Pitnell · filed 2020-09-26(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing all federal claims, especially when the parties have spent little time on the state claim.

Elven v. Johnson County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners · filed 2020-09-28(c)(3)

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

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

Cox v. The City of New Rochelle · filed 2020-09-28(c)(3)

The Court here has again dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims and again declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Razaq v. California Department of Corrections · filed 2020-09-29(c)(3)

As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, it will be recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any purported state law claims.

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

Western Illinois Service Coordination v. Illinois Department of Human Services · filed 2020-09-29(c)(3)

Because there are no remaining federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Richardson v. Buckheit · filed 2020-09-29(c)(3)

Because the Court concludes that it must dismiss Richardson’s claims under Section 1981 and Title VI, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Section 1367(a) does not support keeping state-law claims in federal court after the federal claims are dismissed.

Flynn v. Memphis Pathology Laboratory (AEL) · filed 2020-09-29(a)

These state law claims for defamation and breach of contract, unaccompanied by federal law claims, belong in state, not federal, court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, taking account of the stage of litigation and the novelty of the state-law issues.

Yazdi v. Lafayette Parish · filed 2020-09-30(c)

Considering these factors, the Court will DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Yazdi’s remaining claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and vicarious liability arising therefrom, and orders that these claims be dismissed.

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

Jean-Laurent v. Nunez · filed 2020-09-30(c)(3)

With respect to Plaintiff’s state law claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as all the federal claims have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Davis v. CoreCivic · filed 2020-09-30(c)(3)

In conclusion, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case in its entirety as follows: ... jurisdiction over the claims arising under Tennessee law is declined, and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Brown v. So · filed 2020-10-06(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing all federal claims in the plaintiff’s complaint, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law. The Court DISMISSES the state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Petitt v. Badura · filed 2020-10-07(c)(3)

For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES Petitt’s federal law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). To the extent that the complaint may be construed to allege state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Sweeting v. Erdos · filed 2020-10-08(c)(3)

To the extent plaintiff claims the actions of Warden Erdos violate the state law of Ohio, the Court should DECLINE TO EXERCISE PENDENT JURISDICTION over such claims because plaintiff fails to state a viable federal law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Sentementes v. Bethel · filed 2020-10-09(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Sentementes’s state law claims. These claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Thorne v. American Dairy Queen Corporation · filed 2020-10-14(c)(3)

Because Thorne’s federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining New York State and City claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims when it has already committed substantial judicial resources and the state claims’ outcome is clear.

Teague, Samuel v. Hoffman · filed 2020-10-15(c)(3)

Here, because judicial resources have already been committed to this case, and because it is clear that plaintiff cannot prevail on his medical negligence claims, the court will retain jurisdiction over these claims to grant summary judgment in favor of defendants.

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

Cost v. Borough of Dickson City · filed 2020-10-15(c)(3)

Because the court has entered summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining state law claims in Count III for assault and battery and Count IV ... for false arrest and false imprisonment, and these claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits remand of remaining state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed; ordinary delay from remand does not itself make remand prejudicial.

Gooden v. Batz · filed 2020-10-20(c)(3)

There will always be some delay in cases remanded pursuant to § 1367(c), and the one-year delay predicted by the Butler Township Defendants is not inordinate or inherently prejudicial to them.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after it dismisses the sole federal claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Reyes v. First Judicial District Attorney's Office · filed 2020-10-21(c)(3)

This decision is consistent with § 1367(c). Since the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ sole federal claim, the Court must dismiss this claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As for Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, since they arise under New Mexico state law, those claims should be heard by the appropriate New Mexico state court and so for this reason, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Lax v. The City University of New York · filed 2020-10-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiff’s claims under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL.

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

Reed v. Williams · filed 2020-10-21(c)(3)

In the absence of any federal basis for Reed’s suit, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state claim, if indeed the claim against ... Somerset Hospital is actionable at all.

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

Makasci v. Utah Valley University · filed 2020-10-26(c)(3)

Having herein dismissed Makasci’s first and second causes of action, the court now DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Makasci’s remaining state-law claims and therefore DISMISSES THIS ACTION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Kooker v. Baker · filed 2020-10-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, I will exercise my discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kooker’s 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 the federal claim is dismissed, even when the parties have spent substantial time litigating in federal court.

Rosolen v. Home Performance Alliance, Inc. · filed 2020-10-28(c)(3)

Without the TILA claim, there is no basis for original federal jurisdiction, and HPA invites the Court to dismiss the Rosolens’ remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). (Doc. 91, 8.) ... While the Court appreciates that the parties have expended a substantial amount of time litigating this case in a federal forum, and that dismissal of the state-law claims would require them to begin anew in state court, it nevertheless concludes that dismissal of the Rosolens’ remaining claims is appropriate.

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the court has a cognizable federal claim, but the court may decline to address state law claims when none remains.

Shiloh v. County of Kern · filed 2020-10-29(a)

Although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In the absence of any cognizable federal claims, the Court declines to address any purported state law claims.

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

MYNATT v. WALL · filed 2020-10-30(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Mr. Mynatt's federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these possible state constitutional claims.

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

THOMAS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2020-11-12(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining it.

Johnson 286979 v. Valiquette · filed 2020-11-18(c)

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction.

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

Santana v. The City of New York · filed 2020-11-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Taylor v. LaSalle Management Co · filed 2020-11-23(c)

When, as here, all claims which conferred federal subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... As the Louisiana state court is better left to analyze Taylor’s negligence claim under a duty risk analysis and his claim for unfair trade practices under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, the state claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

5464 Route 212, LLC v. New York State Department of Transportation · filed 2020-11-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines, in its discretion, to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

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

McCollum v. City of New York · filed 2020-11-25(c)(3)

Moreover, having dismissed all of the federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiff’s claims under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Brown v. Fire Department of the City of New York · filed 2020-11-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Lexis v. Bellemare · filed 2020-11-30(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed all of Lexis’s federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, including the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Lebowitz v. The New York City Department of Education · filed 2020-11-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiff’s claims under NYSHRL and the NYCHRL.

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

Gill v. The City Of New York · filed 2020-11-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiff’s claims state claims.

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

SIMMONS v. FANO · filed 2020-12-02(c)

To the extent that Simmons intended to raise state law defamation claims based on these allegations, because the Court has dismissed Simmons’s federal claims against all Defendants, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

Saved Magazine v. City of Spokane · filed 2020-12-03(c)(3)

In the absence of any surviving federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim, which is dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Citizens for Free Speech, LLC v. County of Alameda · filed 2020-12-03(c)(3)

Because the district court dismissed all federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion in declining to assert supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Weaver v. Roger E. Siegel, Esq. · filed 2020-12-03(c)(3)

Therefore, and for the reasons set forth in the comprehensive Report and Recommendation, this Court exercises its inherent power to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim as to the federal-law counts. Having done so, I 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 claim.

Adams v. Hicks · filed 2020-12-04(c)(3)

To the extent that any of Adams’s factual allegations can be interpreted as attempting to assert a state-law claim, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any such claim, given the dismissal of his federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hudson v. Grady · filed 2020-12-04(c)(3)

For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under Section 1983. The Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims asserted in the Complaint.

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

MILLS · filed 2020-12-10(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Mills’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

Anderson v. Hopper · filed 2020-12-14(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Anderson’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over Anderson’s state law wrongful death claim. Doe- 2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Directors, 593 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed all federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, taking account of the case’s early posture and deference to state law development.

Matthews v. District of Columbia · filed 2020-12-15(c)(3)

When a court dismisses all federal claims in a suit, it has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) to exercise—or decline to exercise—supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. ... Given the early posture of this case, and out of deference to the development of state law, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

SANABRIA v. ST. LUKES HOSPITAL (SACRED HEART CAMPUS) · filed 2020-12-15(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Mr. Sanabria’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any of Mr. Sanabria’s state law claims.

When a federal claim survives appeal, a decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction because all federal claims were dismissed must be vacated for reconsideration.

Molina-Aranda v. Black Magic Enterpri · filed 2020-12-21(c)(3)

The vacatur of the district court’s ruling on this point is solely because the district court’s dismissal decision was premised on the now-changed ground that it had dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Thomas v. Stitt · filed 2020-12-21(c)(3)

As Plaintiff has not alleged a viable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

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

Hilliard v. City of Venice, Illinois · filed 2020-12-22(c)(3)

And with no federal cause of action, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims (and thus will not analyze their sufficiency).

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

Rodman v. Jean-Charles · filed 2020-12-22(c)(3)

The remaining counts asserted in the amended complaint, Counts II, VI, and VII, are state law claims over which the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Leal v. Azar · filed 2020-12-23(c)(3)

The section 1367 factors and Carnegie-Mellon weigh heavily in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. As for the section 1367 factors, the Court has dismissed all federal claims by Plaintiffs Leal and Von Dohlen. § 1367(c)(3). These claims were the only hook for supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Jones v. Kirchenbauer · filed 2020-12-28(c)(3)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any supplemental state law claims Plaintiff has attempted to raise.

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

Mulgrew v. Louisville Metro Department of Corrections · filed 2020-12-28(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff alleges medical malpractice 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

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

Intrepid Financial Partners, LLC v. Fernandez · filed 2020-12-30(c)(3)

Count Three, asserting a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims are eliminated before trial and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh against retaining jurisdiction.

DOE v. Patrick · filed 2020-02-03(c)(3)

The Valencia factors weigh against exercising jurisdiction in this case. First, there is no issue of federal preemption. Second, because the federal claims have been eliminated before trial, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity weigh against exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining local-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial and the court has had minimal involvement in discovery and motion practice.

Domingo v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. · filed 2020-02-18(c)(3)

Having disposed of all the federal claims in this case before commencing or even scheduling trial, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining NYCHRL claims. The Court’s prior involvement in this case does not weigh in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction. The Court has had only minimal involvement in discovery, and there has been no motion practice in this case besides the instant motion.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state-law claims without prejudice when the federal claims are dismissed before trial and the relevant considerations weigh against retaining jurisdiction.

Daugherty 200709 v. Washington · filed 2020-02-28(c)

Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. Id. 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 claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a court may relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when limitations, judicial economy, fairness, and comity do not warrant retaining them.

PARTLOW v. BROWN · filed 2020-03-04(c)(3)

The Court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state-law claims. ... The Court finds no reason to deviate from the usual practice in this case. ... For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) supports relinquishing jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims are resolved before trial when no exception to the general rule applies.

Bergholz v. John Marshall Law School · filed 2020-03-05(c)(3)

Because no exception applies, relinquishing jurisdiction over the state law claims is the appropriate course under § 1367(c)(3).

After all federal claims are resolved before trial, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when judicial economy and comity favor state court and fairness and convenience do not outweigh those factors.

Garrison v. New Fashion Pork LLP · filed 2020-03-27(c)(3)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. First, the Court finds judicial economy does not weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. ... Thus, unfairness and inconvenience do not outweigh the other factors. For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Thus, plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims before trial, with dismissal without prejudice allowing refiling in state court supporting that exercise of discretion.

Owens-Benniefield v. BSI Financial Services · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

We conclude from the record here that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims when it dismissed Owens’s federal law claims with prejudice. First, the district court dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice, allowing Owens to refile in state court—which she did.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice when all federal claims have been resolved before trial.

Pittman v. Trump · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

As no federal claims remain against Defendants, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and will dismiss them 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 and local claims and dismiss them without prejudice after all federal claims have been resolved before trial.

Nunez v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2020-04-17(c)(3)

Given that no federal claims remain, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. ... Those claims are dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff is free to pursue them further in state court.

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

Wiley v. V A of Birmingham · filed 2020-04-29(c)(3)

Thus, in light of Wiley’s failure to plead a plausible federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wiley’s state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Sanders, Jr. v. Wolff · filed 2020-05-19(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental Illinois state law claim for unlawful arrest raised in Count 3 or any others raised in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Normally, when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial on qualified immunity grounds.

Franklin v. Griffith · filed 2020-05-28(c)(3)

Because claims against the Griffiths are being dismissed pretrial on the basis of qualified immunity, the Court should decline jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Keating v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 660 F.3d 1014, 1018–19 (8th Cir. 2011).

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

Singer v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation · filed 2020-06-02(c)(3)

Having disposed of all the federal claims in this case before even scheduling trial, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining NYCHRL claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after all federal claims are dismissed before trial; the usual practice is dismissal without prejudice, subject to exceptions.

BELLOWS v. DECATUR COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT · filed 2020-07-24(c)(3)

The Seventh Circuit has stated consistently that “the usual practice is to dismiss without prejudice state supplemental claims whenever all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.” ... Under these circumstances, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law negligence claim brought against the Defendant.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the court must decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness affirmatively justify retaining them.

SMITH v. SMITH · filed 2020-08-06(c)(3)

With dismissal of all of Plaintiff’s Section 1985 and Section 1983 claims, only her state law claims remain. The Court does not have original jurisdiction over these claims and may only hear them through its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. But the Third Circuit has held that where all federal claims are dismissed before trial, “the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). No such affirmative justification is apparent here. Consequently, these claims must also be dismissed, without prejudice to refiling in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Leppla v. Julie Kagel, formerly Marion County Clerk of Court · filed 2020-08-31(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and thus dismisses – without prejudice – Plaintiff’s state law claims of false arrest and imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses the federal claims before trial.

Brownlee v. The Mississippi Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-09-14(c)(3)

Although discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the general rule in the Fifth Circuit is for federal courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this context. ... This Court therefore 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 when it dismisses all federal claims before trial.

White v. Holloway · filed 2020-09-16(c)(3)

Because all federal claims are being dismissed prior to trial, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) makes continued supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims discretionary after the federal claims are dismissed before trial; those state law claims should ordinarily be dismissed.

Ovation Finance Holdings 2 LLC v. Chicago Title Insurance Company · filed 2020-09-23(c)

While the Court’s continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Supreme Court has made clear that when federal claims are dismissed before trial, supplemental state law claims should ordinarily be dismissed as well.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favoring that choice.

Beverley v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. · filed 2020-09-25(c)(3)

The Court notes that, having dismissed all federal claims,it would alsohavedeclinedto exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Beverley’s NYCHRL claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Where, as here, all federal law claims are eliminated before trial, the “traditional ‘values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity’” weigh in favor of declining 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 the federal claims before trial.

Cantore v. New York City Law Department · filed 2020-09-28(c)(3)

“Time and time again, the Second Circuit has held that ‘if a plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well.’” Lederhouse v. Landau Arnold Laufer LLP, No. 15-CV-8668 (AT) (SDA), 2018 WL 1635030, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2018) (quoting Brzak v. U.N., 597 F.3d 107, 113–14 (2d Cir. 2010)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Having dismissed the Cantores’ federal claims on res judicata grounds, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) makes continued jurisdiction over supplemental state-law claims discretionary after federal claims are dismissed; those state-law claims ordinarily should be dismissed if the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Allred v. Chicago Title Company · filed 2020-10-01(c)

While the Court’s continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Supreme Court has made clear that when federal claims are dismissed before trial, supplemental state law claims should ordinarily be dismissed as well.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial when judicial economy and the circumstances favor retention.

Watts, William v. Kidman, Mark · filed 2020-10-06(c)

Normally, when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims rather than resolving them on the merits. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Miller v. Herman, 600 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir. 2010). But a district court is never required to relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims merely because the federal claims were dismissed before trial. Id. I will retain jurisdiction over Watts’s state law claims for three reasons.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses all federal claims before trial.

Reynolds v. Talberg · filed 2020-10-30(c)(3)

Where, as here, adjudication of a motion to dismiss leaves the plaintiff without any federal causes of action, courts should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of a remaining state-law claim to the district court’s discretion after the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Gurley 290528 v. Hatton · filed 2020-11-04(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 claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

After dismissing all federal claims before trial, a district court generally should decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims unless factors favor retaining them.

DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURERS' COALITION v. DIAMOND TOOLS TECHNOLOGY, LLC · filed 2020-11-30(c)(3)

On balance, "the nature of the state law claims at issue, their ease of resolution, and the actual, and avoidable, expenditure of judicial resources" weighs against the retention of supplemental jurisdiction in this case.