28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Thompson v. Nunley · filed 2020-12-04(c)(3)

These state-law causes of action fall under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, which the Court may and should decline to invoke when each federal claim is dismissed before trial. ... Here, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, and it will dismiss the entire FAC.

Section 1367(c)(3) calls for declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed before trial when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness give no reason to retain them.

SHRIEVES v. PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS · filed 2020-12-08(c)(3)

No exceptions apply here. There is no reason to retain jurisdiction over Shrieves’s state law claims, which he may assert in state court.

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

Kaylor v. Damschroder · filed 2020-12-14(c)(3)

Because all federal claims are dismissed well in advance of trial, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims, and remands those claims to the Ottawa County Common Pleas Court.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial.

GROSS-QUATRONE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2020-12-18(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims and will dismiss Counts Five through Nine as to Judge Grant in his individual capacity.

Section 1367 permits retaining state-law claims after dismissal of all federal claims when completed discovery, full summary-judgment briefing, and settled state law make retention serve economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Clemens v. Moody's Analytics, Inc. · filed 2020-01-03(c)(1), (c)(3)

While the Plaintiff argues that the Court should have declined supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the Court also finds it proper to not decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, where the Parties took at least a half dozen depositions, exchanged thousands of pages of documents, and had a full opportunity to brief the claims and any other relevant issues on a motion for summary judgment, it cannot be argued that “economy, convenience, [or] fairness” would be better served by the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Catzin, 899 F.3d at 85-86. As discussed above, comity also would not be served here, where settled state law speaks clearly to the Plaintiff's claims.

After all federal claims are dismissed, a court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention, including the court’s substantial familiarity with the facts.

Williams v. H & H Auto Parts, LLC · filed 2020-01-30(c)(3)

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court considers “factors such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.” Id. (quoting Quinn, 470 F.3d at 1249). Here, the Court has expended significant time familiarizing itself with the facts of this case and, considering the required factors, decides to exercise jurisdiction over Williams’s remaining state-law claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Catano v. Capuano · filed 2020-02-11(c)(3)

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction is DENIED because the Court shall retain jurisdiction for now because of the time expended litigating this case, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor dismissal without prejudice.

Jean v. County Of Nassau · filed 2020-03-16(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of any viable federal claims, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and those state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits discretionary retention of state law claims after dismissal of all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retaining jurisdiction.

Bresilien v. City of New York · filed 2020-03-17(c)(3)

The Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a), (c). “A district court’s decision whether to exercise [] jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary,” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009), and entails weighing several factors including “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). These factors weigh in favor of maintaining jurisdiction. I am familiar with this case, having ____ presided over it since 2016 and adjudicated two dispositive motions.

Section 1367 permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are resolved when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Walker v. Johnson · filed 2020-03-18(c)(3)

The court recognizes that its sole basis for jurisdiction over the state-law claims is supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The court finds that the factors of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction. ... The parties have completed discovery, and a jury trial is scheduled to begin on June 24, 2020.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor declining jurisdiction.

Brown v. Knoxville HMA Holdings, LLC · filed 2020-03-20(c)(3)

Having granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ RICO and FDCPA claims (over which the Court has original jurisdiction) and because the parties are non-diverse, and the aforementioned factors weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction after withdrawal of all federal claims when completed discovery, a ripe summary judgment motion, and straightforward state-law issues favor judicial economy and convenience.

Amox v. South Kentucky Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

Application of Gamel, Harper, and Carnegie-Mellon favors retaining jurisdiction over this case. This case has been on the Court’s docket since August 28, 2018, discovery is complete, and South Kentucky’s motion for summary judgment is ripe for decision. ... As such, judicial economy and convenience weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction over this case. As explained below , the issues on summary judgment are straightforward and require simple application of Kentucky law to the extent it is applicable, so fairness and comity are seemingly inapplicable here. For these reasons, the Court will retain jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor leaving the remaining state-law claims to state courts.

Fitzhugh v. Miller · filed 2020-04-02(c)(3)

Thus, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Al Maqablh v. Carter · filed 2020-04-10(c)(3)

Instead, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. The Court has no independent basis for jurisdiction over these claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and the balance of judicial economy, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed when identical liability standards require no additional judicial resources and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Oliver v. New York State Police · filed 2020-04-13(c)(3)

However, where, as here, the “standards of liability are identical under [federal law] and the NYSHRL; deciding the state-law claims does not require the investment of additional judicial resources,” and there is no “substantial comity concern raised by this Court’s application of state law with which courts in this District are eminently familiar,” the Court concludes “the ‘values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,’” support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims. Henry v. NYC Health & Hosp. Corp., 18 F. Supp. 3d 396, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction sua sponte after dismissing all federal claims, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Britton v. Keller · filed 2020-04-16(c)(3)

The Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” under § 1367(a) if the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court has discretion to decide sua sponte whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims. ... Therefore, judicial economy and convenience are not served by exercising supplemental jurisdiction. ... The Court will therefore dismiss the state law claims without prejudice to asserting them in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed when extensive pretrial proceedings, judicial economy, and party convenience favor retention.

Jamerson (ID 74123) v. Heimgartner · filed 2020-04-21(c)(3)

Given the voluminous record in this case, judicial economy counsels in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses the federal claims, based on fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity.

Vose v. City of Pawtucket · filed 2020-05-01(c)(3)

Without the federal claims, the Court needs to reassess its jurisdiction. “Where a federal court has dismissed the anchoring federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ over the remaining state law claims.” ... The Court has evaluated all the factors and balanced the competing interests and finds that Mr. Vose should litigate the remaining state claims in state court.

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

Biomin America, Inc. v. Lesaffre Yeast Corporation · filed 2020-05-12(c)(3)

The values of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness would not be served by retaining jurisdiction under these circumstances. Therefore, considering the various factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Biomin’s remaining state law claims.

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

Butler v. Laurel County Detention Center · filed 2020-05-14(c)(3)

To the extent Butler intended to allege various violations of state law, this Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. The Court has no independent basis for jurisdiction over the state claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and the balance of judicial economy, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy and fairness favor retention, including when the case has been substantially litigated.

BURGA v. CITY OF PLAINFIELD · filed 2020-05-15(c)(3)

In short, the presumptive rule is that the state claims shall be dismissed, unless reasons of economy and fairness dictate otherwise. ... Here, I will exercise my discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over these state claims. The matter is not in its early stages; it has been substantially litigated. This matter was filed three years ago; discovery has been completed; we are at the summary judgment stage; and the evidence underlying the state claims substantially overlaps that underlying the federal claims. I therefore find that it would be inefficient, inconvenient, and unfair to force the litigants to recommence this litigation in state court.

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

Velasquez v. City of New York Department of Buildings · filed 2020-05-22(c)(3)

Therefore, principles of judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity will be best served by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Velasquez’s state law claims.

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

Oliver v. Lexington Fayette Urban County Government · filed 2020-06-02(c)(3)

To the extent that Oliver alleges various violations of state law, including the Kentucky Open Meetings Act, the Court has no independent basis for jurisdiction over the state claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and the ... balance of judicial economy, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction, which the Court will do.

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

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

Here, declining jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims would not disserve the principles of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness. The Court has determined that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of the federal claims. ... Accordingly, the Court declines jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state claims.

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

EIG Energy Fund XIV, L.P. v. Keppel Offshore & Marine LTD. · filed 2020-06-26(c)(3)

Having weighed all of the Cohill factors, this Court concludes that the circumstances here are not typical or “usual,” and that accordingly the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate.

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

Drew v. The City Of New York · filed 2020-07-09(c)(3)

In light of that, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims to the extent that he pleads any. ... Thus, the traditional “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” that the Court must consider do not counsel in favor of exercising jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, Drew’s state-law claims (to the extent he pleads any) are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

JERMC LTD. v. Town of Redington Shores · filed 2020-07-23(c)

In light of the Court’s dismissal with prejudice of the federal claims in Counts V, VII, and IX, and in the interest of judicial economy and convenience, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over Plaintiffs’ claims arising under state law.

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

Iazzetti v. Town of Tuxedo · filed 2020-07-27(c)(3)

Here, however, the balance of factors supports exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims. The standards of the ADEA and the NYSHRL are virtually identical (as discussed below) and would be applied to the same set of facts. Moreover, because the standards are identical, deciding the NYSHRL claims would not require an investment of additional judicial resources, and there would be no comity issues triggered.

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

Sanchez v. Gregg Pancero, Inc.d/b/a Trio Bistro · filed 2020-08-20(c)(3)

Upon consideration of the briefings, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and the relevant Carnegie– Mellon factors, the balance of interests weighs in favor of deciding not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.

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

Dietrich v. County Of Orange · filed 2020-09-01(c)

Having determined that the Amended Complaint fails to state any federal law claims on which relief can be granted, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law causes of action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Ajenifuja v. Dangote · filed 2020-09-02(c)(3)

The relevant factors weigh against retaining Ajenifuja’s remaining state-law claims now that all of the federal claims have been dismissed. ... Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ajenifuja’s state-law claims, it will dismiss Counts III and V for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

After all federal claims are dismissed, Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims when judicial economy favors deciding them.

Zenie v. College Of Mount Saint Vincent · filed 2020-09-14(c)(3)

Despite the general presumption, the Court concludes that, in the interest of judicial economy, it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Zenie’s NYSHRL age discrimination and retaliation claims, as it is well established that the standards for evaluating them are the same as the standards under the ADEA.

After dismissal of the federal claim, a court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness support doing so.

Miller v. Watson · filed 2020-09-25(c)(3)

Although the Court dismissed the federal claim that originally conferred subject matter jurisdiction, the Court has determined that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness support the Court’s pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Gonzalez v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO · filed 2020-10-23(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss Ms. Gonzalez’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim without prejudice as a result.

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

Royalty v. Chandler · filed 2020-11-03(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors retention.

Cornel v. State of Hawaii · filed 2020-11-17(c)(3)

Here, however, judicial economy favors retaining supplemental jurisdiction—the case was filed in state court over two years ago, the court has spent considerable time analyzing a confusing record in two substantive motions (and has already addressed several state law issues), and the remaining state law questions are straightforward.

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

White v. Corrigan · filed 2020-12-17(c)(3)

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

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

Fisher v. Plaza Amarillo, LLC · filed 2020-12-23(c)

In determining whether it should “relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state law claims,” a Court must look “to the statutory factors set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and to the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” as set forth by Carnegie-Mellon. ... Thus, under the relevant factors and case law, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims for breach of restrictive covenants, public and private nuisance, takings, injunctions, and declaratory judgments, and will DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE those claims against the remaining Defendants.

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

Hackney v. Collier · filed 2021-01-04(c)(3)

The court is dismissing plaintiff’s federal law claims. Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim asserted in his amended complaint. 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.

Gorokhovsky v. State Public Defender Office · filed 2021-01-05(c)(3)

Because the court will dismiss the federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

FRYER v. PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY · filed 2021-01-05(c)

Having dismissed his federal claims, I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims for negligence.

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

Cooper v. Doe · filed 2021-01-07(c)(3)

In the absence of any federal law claims, I otherwise decline in my discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over any 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.

Jackson v. Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity · filed 2021-01-07(c)(3)

Because all of the federal claims are being dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to the remaining 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 it dismisses the federal claims.

Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Newlin · filed 2021-01-13(c)(3)

Because the federal claims have been dismissed, the Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining single breach of contract claim and GRANTS dismissal of that claim.

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

Paleja v. KP NY Operations LLC · filed 2021-01-15(c)

Because Paleja’s FLSA claim has been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his NYLL claims.

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

Joe Schroeder Legacy, LLC v. Service247 of Illinois, Inc. · filed 2021-01-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Tucker v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2021-01-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed Tucker’s only federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Tucker’s remaining New York City and State law claims. See id. at *4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

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

PERCIAVALLE v. CITY OF ALIQUIPPA · filed 2021-01-27

As the Court has dismissed all of Perciavalle’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Pennsylvania tort claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). There are no “extraordinary circumstances” which warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.

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

Illum'maati v. Bailey · filed 2021-01-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed the plaintiff’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear any state law claims set forth in the complaint.

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

West v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2021-02-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

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

Lander v. Blanchard City of · filed 2021-02-02(c)(3)

As a result, no federal claim remains. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on the statutory factors.

Burke v. City of Fort Worth Texas · filed 2021-02-02(c)

Having weighed both the statutory and common-law factors, nothing suggests the Court should depart from the general rule of declining supplemental jurisdiction over Burke’s Texas Whistleblower Act claims. As a result, without making findings or any statement about the claim’s merits, the remainder of the case is REMANDED.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when no special circumstances favor retaining them.

Hamilton v. Moran · filed 2021-02-03(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Stockbridge’s state claims, which may be pursued in state court.

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

Maldonado v. County Of Cook · filed 2021-02-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Grant v. Carter · filed 2021-02-08(c)(3)

Because Mr. Grant has failed to state a federal claim for relief, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims he attempts to advance.

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

CRUZ v. ASPEN LANDSCAPING CONTRACTING, INC. · filed 2021-02-08(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court has discretion to decline jurisdiction over remaining claims after all federal claims have been dismissed from the action.

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

Clay (ID 102093) v. Esparza · filed 2021-02-10(c)(3)

This Court is not obliged to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, even if valid, given that Plaintiff's federal constitutional claims are subject to dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court would not assert supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Blain v. Wyandotte County Detention Center · filed 2021-02-10(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 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

SMITH v. ALTERNATIVE COUNSELING SERVICES · filed 2021-02-10(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(a) does not support supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim left without an anchoring federal claim.

Duran v. Morton · filed 2021-02-11(a)

Thus, having concluded that Plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be dismissed, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state health care law claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), over any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting in his Complaint. A purely state law claim, untethered to a claim arising under federal law, fails to provide a basis for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Johnson v. Foster · filed 2021-02-12(c)(3)

Finally, Johnson asserts a common-law negligence claim; however, because the Court has concluded that he has no federal claim, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of the federal claims, including when state courts are better positioned to address the remaining dispute.

Notz v. Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities · filed 2021-02-13(c)(3)

Because the state courts of Connecticut are best positioned to address Notz’s claims of improper conduct by a state agency, I once again decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2013).

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

SHORT v. HARTMAN · filed 2021-02-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the claims under federal law and recognizing that the remaining claims operate purely under state law principles, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over them. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 109 (4th Cir. 1995) (finding that “federal courts generally have discretion to retain or dismiss state law claims when the federal basis for an action drops away”).

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

Carroll v. Mid-Kansas Investment, Inc. · filed 2021-02-19(c)

This court has discretion when deciding whether to retain jurisdiction over a state law claim when the federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Perry v. Maynard · filed 2021-02-22(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any such state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After the federal claims are dismissed, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim.

PBT Real Estate, LLC v. Town of Palm Beach · filed 2021-02-22(c)(3)

Because the federal claims were ... properly dismissed, the District Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” this state law claim on remand. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3)’s presumption favoring relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction is not triggered when federal claims remain against other defendants, even if all federal claims against a particular defendant have been dismissed.

Sterling v. Evanston Township High School District 202 · filed 2021-03-03(c)(3)

In this case, however, the Court has not dismissed all federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court still has federal-question jurisdiction over the Section 1983 claims against Rhone and Haywood. As such, the Court’s presumption to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction has not yet been triggered.

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

Amor v. John Reid & Associates, Inc. · filed 2021-03-04(c)(3)

Because Amor cannot state a federal claim against JR&A, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Amor’s state law claims against JR&A.

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

Jeffers v. Woodson · filed 2021-03-05(c)

As the Complaint is currently alleged, the court has dismissed all federal claims against Dr. Flam and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Gregory v. Currituck County · filed 2021-03-05(c)

Because: (1) the court concludes that Plaintiffs’ federal civil-rights claims must be dismissed; (2) the court concludes, as explained infra, that Plaintiffs’ claims against the State Defendants must also be dismissed; and (3) Plaintiffs and the County Defendants lack diversity of citizenship within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against the County Defendants.

After dismissing the federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state and local law claims.

Shine v. The New York City Department of Correction · filed 2021-03-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed Shine’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims brought under New York City or State law.

Section 1367 allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims closely tied to dismissed federal claims and to decline jurisdiction over state claims that are not factually or legally intertwined with them.

Whipple v. Reed Eye Associates · filed 2021-03-08

Plaintiff’s other claims under New York law are for tortious interference with business relations, and defamation, both of which are brought against Reed/Westfall. Unlike her HRL claims, these are not factually or legally intertwined with her federal claims, but relate to events that took place when she was seeking employment after her departure from Reed Eye. Accordingly, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Stampfli v. Susanville Sanitary District · filed 2021-03-11(c)(3)

Because all of plaintiff’s federal claims must be dismissed, in its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims at this time.

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

McMahan v. Jones · filed 2021-03-11(c)(3)

To this end, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Howard v. Detroit · filed 2021-03-12(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiffs’ federal law claim, 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 law claims after dismissing the federal claims on which that jurisdiction depends.

Thornton v. Daly City · filed 2021-03-15(c)(3)

Having stayed one federal claim and dismissed the remaining federal claims, the Court, in its discretion, declines to address the remaining state law claims against Defendants unless and until Plaintiff can state a valid federal claim.

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

Johnson v. Simmons · filed 2021-03-22(c)(3)

Even had Plaintiff stated a claim with respect to those state law torts, because Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are dismissed, this Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Lopez v. Peapod, LLC. · filed 2021-03-22(c)(3)

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

GREEN v. SERGEANT WHITE · filed 2021-03-26(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed his 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Pittman v. Viamonte Investments Group LLC · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, the district court also properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Pittman’s claims under state law, Wilson v. Price, 624 F.3d 389, 395 (7th Cir. 2010), and they remain open to suit in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed, including at an early procedural stage.

Brooke v. Superb Hospitality LLC · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

Considering the early procedural posture of this case (a scheduling order has not yet been entered), for purposes of permitting amendment, the Court will exercise its discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the FAC’s Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed, especially when the case has not been substantially litigated.

TAYLOR v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

Because the matter has not been substantially litigated, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Rupp v. The City Of Buffalo · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

Accordingly, in the alternative, this Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim and would instead dismiss it under 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) Wilson v. Torres · filed 2021-03-31(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.

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

Ashley v. Bridgeport · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims initially supporting such jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Niewenhous v. Burns · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the federal claims and there is no complete diversity of citizenship, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Sears-Barnett v. Syracuse Community Health Center, Inc. · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

A district court that has dismissed all federal claims in a case relying on federal question jurisdiction may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any lingering state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the proposed federal claim would be futile.

MCCLAIN v. CAUSEY · filed 2021-04-01(c)(3)

Because Mr. McClain’s Fourth Amendment claim would be futile if filed, the Court would also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state tort claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially at the outset of litigation.

Metroflex Oceanside LLC v. Newsom · filed 2021-04-05(c)(3)

Here, because the Court is dismissing the only federal claims at the outset of the litigation, it is more appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the underlying federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Dignity Health v. Lightbourne · filed 2021-04-07(c)(3)

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ underlying federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) makes relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims appropriate after dismissal of all federal claims when no exception to the general rule applies.

Hasan v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc, The · filed 2021-04-15(c)(3)

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

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

STROTHERS v. MONAHAN · filed 2021-04-15(c)(3)

As Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed against Monahan for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, this Court will exercise its discretion to decline 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 the federal claims.

Shabtai v. Shabai · filed 2021-04-16(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the federal claim brought in this action, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Lundy v. Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department · filed 2021-04-19(c)(3)

Finally, as the report suggests, the court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3) over any state claims that plaintiff may be construed as raising since all of his federal claims are being dismissed.

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

Lundstrom v. Young · filed 2021-04-21(c)(3)

If the district court ultimately dismisses all of Lundstrom’s federal claims, it need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hall v. Simmons · filed 2021-04-22(c)

Any state law claims Hall may wish to bring here are thus not independently actionable under § 1983, and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them in this action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the sole federal claim is dismissed for lack of standing.

(PS) Strojnik v. Capitol Regency, LLC · filed 2021-04-30(c)(3)

Without standing to bring the ADA claim, the court should decline to exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

(PC) McRae v. Dikran · filed 2021-05-03(c)(3)

In this case, the court has found that Defendant Betz’s motion for summary judgment should be granted as to Plaintiff’s federal claims. Therefore, this court should 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 federal claims.

Sentementes v. Lamont · filed 2021-05-03(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all federal claims have been dismissed).

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

Dutchover v. Moapa Band of Paiute Indians · filed 2021-05-03(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the only federal claims are extinguished. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Parra v. PacifiCare of Az., Inc., 715 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013). Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and the remaining claims for civil conspiracy, intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring/retention are dismissed.

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

Williams v. Aetna Inc · filed 2021-05-04(c)(3)

Here, the Court has found that Plaintiff has failed to state any federal claims. Thus, it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction on any potential remaining claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and finds that Plaintiff’s remaining claims fail for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

PRITCHETT v. GLOBAL TELL LINK CORP · filed 2021-05-06(c)(3)

Moreover, because Plaintiff fails to state a federal claim or to allege diversity jurisdiction, the ... Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim. 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.

Simmons v. Charleston · filed 2021-05-07(c)(3)

Even if subject matter jurisdiction were not lacking, dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims is appropriate for failure to state a claim and the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Shutsha v. Cao · filed 2021-05-10(c)

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

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

Maffick LLC v. Facebook Inc. · filed 2021-05-11(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the only federal claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Patterson v. Crowder · filed 2021-05-11(c)(3)

Because this Court determines that Patterson’s Complaint fails to state a federal claim, it declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Patterson’s state law claim.

Section 1367 generally counsels against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint fails to state a federal claim for relief.

McConnaughy v. 106.3 The River Radio Network · filed 2021-05-12

Finally, pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 should not be exercised to consider any state-law claims that are alleged in the complaint because plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim for relief.

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

Doe v. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools · filed 2021-05-17(c)(3)

Having determined that the claims over which the court has original federal question jurisdiction should be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, the court will decline to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

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

Esposito v. Ridgefield Park Board of Educa · filed 2021-05-18(c)(3)

Having properly dismissed K.M.’s federal claims, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over K.M.’s NJLAD claims.

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

Jones v. Grant · filed 2021-05-19(c)

Because Jones’ federal claims are subject to dismissal, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over her state law claims. See Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 647 (8th Cir. 2006) (Congress unambiguously gave district courts discretion in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to dismiss supplemental state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed).

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

Farid v. The City of New York · filed 2021-05-20(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s ADEA and OWBPA claims for age discrimination and retaliation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s age related discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.

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

WELLS v. NOGAN · filed 2021-05-21(c)(3)

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, fraud, or property tort claims.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Rote v. Marshall · filed 2021-05-26

Because this dismissal was jurisdictional, the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Rote’s state law claims. See Herman Family Revocable Tr. v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir. 2001) (if federal claims are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a district court lacks the authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367).

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

Rios v. Parole and Probation · filed 2021-05-27(c)(3)

Therefore, as explained below, since this Court is dismissing the federal question claims brought under § 1983, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state attorney malpractice claims as well.

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

Mullins v. Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority-Abingdon · filed 2021-05-28(c)(3)

Lastly, to the extent that any of Mullins’s claims can be interpreted as state law tort claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over them in light of the dismissal of his federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

MOSES v. AMAZON.COM DEDC LLC · filed 2021-05-28(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff's Title VII claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining NJLAD claims.

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

Boggs v. City of Cleveland · filed 2021-05-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims asserted under the Ohio Constitution and state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Dismissal of all claims within original jurisdiction does not automatically end supplemental jurisdiction; the district court may decline to exercise it under § 1367(c).

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Davidson · filed 2021-06-02(c)

While a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a court does not automatically lose supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claims are dismissed.

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

Mackey v. Salem State University · filed 2021-06-02(c)(3)

Because the purported federal claims are dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any purported supplemental 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.

(PS) Harris v. New Rez, LLC · filed 2021-06-03(c)(3)

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

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

Friends of Lubavitch, Inc v. Baltimore County Maryland · filed 2021-06-03(c)

In its 2019 Opinion, having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court dismissed their defamation claim for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (providing that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim [if] . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). Because the Court will not grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint with respect to their federal claims, the Court will not reconsider its decision to dismiss Plaintiffs’ defamation claim.

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

Campbell v. Garlington · filed 2021-06-03(c)(3)

As the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff Patrick Campbell’s 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.

Arana-Santiago v. Tapia-Maldonado · filed 2021-06-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, we, in our discretion, decline to exercise jurisdiction over the pendant state-law claims.

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

LIVINGSTONE v. U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC. · filed 2021-06-04(c)(3)

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

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

Felix v. Doughtie · filed 2021-06-08(c)(3)

Further, insofar as any state law claims remain after dismissal of plaintiff’s federal law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. 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.

Swoope v. Dearth · filed 2021-06-08(c)(3)

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

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

Ondina-Gordo v. Banco Santander Puerto Rico · filed 2021-06-08(c)(3)

Because the section 1983 is dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction regarding the Puerto Rico causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to the district court’s discretion after it dismisses every claim within its original jurisdiction.

Nuevos Destinos, LLC v. Peck · filed 2021-06-09(c)(3)

“A district court’s decision whether to exercise [supplemental] jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.” ... The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the remaining claim requires interpretation of state law.

Bymun v. City of Kimberly · filed 2021-06-09(c)(3)

In its discretion, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over Bymun’s IPPEA claim. With the dismissal of Bymun’s FSLA claim, a federal question no longer exists.

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

CARR v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2021-06-09(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Carr’s federal claims, to the extent the Complaint can be read to assert a state law claim for negligence, 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Lockett v. Does · filed 2021-06-10(c)(3)

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

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

BROWN v. RESOURCES FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT · filed 2021-06-11(c)(3)

Having dismissed Brown’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 remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Cui v. Waveland Ventures, LLC · filed 2021-06-14(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims.

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

Oparaji v. Municipal Credit Union · filed 2021-06-14(c)(3)

The Court need not address these portions of the Second Report because, having dismissed Oparaji’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Oparaji’s 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.

Hawkins v. Carter · filed 2021-06-15(c)(3)

Because the federal claims are being dismissed, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Rogers v. Hamilton · filed 2021-06-15(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims as the sole federal claim has been dismissed.

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

JACOBS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2021-06-16(c)(3)

Now that all federal claims will be dismissed, the court declines under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Jacobs’ remaining state claim against the PPD defendants for violating the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. § 1423.

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

International Security, LLC v. Berry · filed 2021-06-17(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s claim arising under federal law will be dismissed, 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Anderson v. City of Jellico, Tennessee (RLJ2) · filed 2021-06-21(c)(3)

The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is not mandatory, and a district court may decline to exercise that jurisdiction when it has dismissed all other claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Cano v. Garcia · filed 2021-06-22(c)(3)

The Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law tort claims, because all of the claims over which the Court had original federal question jurisdiction fail as a matter of law and should be dismissed.

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

Greenspan v. Qazi · filed 2021-06-23(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all of the federal claims that are the basis of its jurisdiction over Qazi and Smick, and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims until a federal question is plausibly alleged.

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

Park v. New York University College of Dentistry · filed 2021-06-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed Park’s federal law claims under Section 1981, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Park’s state law claims under the NYCHRL and NYLL Section 741.

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

Parker v. West Carroll Special School District · filed 2021-06-24(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff has alleged claims based on state law, the Court accepts the recommendation that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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

Fourstar v. Berkebile · filed 2021-06-25(c)(3)

But, as all of his federal claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint fails to state a federal claim.

Ashley v. Bush · filed 2021-06-25(c)(3)

Because the complaint fails to state a claim for a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Love v. Handlery Hotels, Inc. · filed 2021-06-21(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed the only federal claim before it, and that claim provided the only basis for its original jurisdiction, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants when the federal claims against them have been dismissed.

Saunders v. Busha · filed 2021-06-28(c)

Finally, because no federal law claims are currently proceeding against the Doe defendants, I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Saunders’ state law claims for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) against the Doe defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Schaefer v. Town of Victor, 457 F.3d 188, 210 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[U]nder 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the only federal claim when the equities do not favor retaining them.

Hubbard v. Miandmo Investments LLC · filed 2021-06-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s only federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the balance of the equities does not “tip in favor of retaining the state-law claims.” Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988).

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

Clark v. Dills · filed 2021-06-29(c)(3)

See also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Without a cognizable federal claim against Burke, any pendent state claim for medical malpractice is also dismissed.

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

Isaacs v. Konawa Public School District I-004 · filed 2021-06-29(c)

Here, based on the authority in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims of negligence.