28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Adams v. Kake Tribal Corporation · filed 2021-06-30(c)(3)

...the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims after dismissing the federal claims.

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

Singleton v. New York City Police Department · filed 2021-07-01(c)(3)

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

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

Sudder v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank · filed 2021-07-01(c)(3)

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

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

Bronx Miracle Gospel Tabernacle Word of Faith Ministries, Inc. v. Piazza · filed 2021-07-01(c)(3)

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

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

Johnson v. Dudley · filed 2021-07-02(c)

If the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims it will decline, ... under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, which he can refile in state court.

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

Hall v. Amonette · filed 2021-07-06(c)(3)

To the extent that Hall’s amended complaint can be interpreted as asserting any related state-law claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over them in light of the dismissal of his federal claims.

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

Walker v. Clark · filed 2021-07-06(c)(3)

Because all federal claims will be dismissed, this Court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over the defamation claim raised against McCullough.

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

Griffin-Robinson v. New York City Health and Hospitals · filed 2021-07-06(c)(3)

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

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

Hakaniemi v. Conlon · filed 2021-07-06(c)(3)

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

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

Dixon v. Metro Nashville Police Dept. · filed 2021-07-06(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 remaining state law claims after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Kessack v. Washington State Department of Corrections · filed 2021-07-07(c)(3)

Here, the Court determined that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s federal claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction and some of those state claims for which the Court has supplemental jurisdiction; this triggers the discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction on the remaining state claims.

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

GOFF-COHEN v. GOD · filed 2021-07-07(c)(3)

To the extent she intended to raise any state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Johnson v. Cuyahoga County CSEA · filed 2021-07-07(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege any cognizable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claim Plaintiff may also be attempting to assert.

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

Webb v. GDWG Law Firm · filed 2021-07-08(c)(3)

After determining that dismissal of the federal claims is, the District Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s supplemental state claims.

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

Parra v. Cuyahoga County · filed 2021-07-08(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the federal claims against Mr. Mills in his individual capacity, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State-law claims against him.

Section 1367 does not sustain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal claims are dismissed and the state-law claim has no independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

SHALLENBERGER v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY · filed 2021-07-08

As Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint are being dismissed, and as Count III does not present independent grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over such claim.

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

Barrio Bros, LLC v. Revolucion, LLC · filed 2021-07-09(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once they have dismissed all claims over which they had original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ counterclaims.

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

Fletcher v. Lefevers · filed 2021-07-14(c)(3)

To the extent that any of Fletcher’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 her federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hansen v. Delaney · filed 2021-07-14(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal claims on multiple grounds, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining claims against the attorneys, all of which are based on state law.

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

Rapinoe v. San Diego County Sheriffs Officer · filed 2021-07-15(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims raised in the Complaint at this time.

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

Ritesman v. State of Montana · filed 2021-07-15(c)(3)

Jurisdiction over any state law claims is declined.

Before declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims on its own after disposing of the federal claims, a district court must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard.

March v. First Choice Medical PLLC · filed 2021-07-15(c)

Though the Court is inclined to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, neither party has briefed the issue, and the Second Circuit has held that a district court cannot sua sponte decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction without first affording the parties notice or any opportunity to be heard. Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 2018).

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

(PC) Sanford v. Eaton · filed 2021-07-16(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims.

Harrington v. White · filed 2021-07-19(c)(3)

Because all of the amended complaint’s federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harrington’s state law contract 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.

Geffen v. Westin Monache Resort · filed 2021-07-20(c)(3)

In the instant case, 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ibela v. Allied Universal · filed 2021-07-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff's ADA claim, and there being no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court elects to not exercise its 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 claim.

Martin v. Wellpath · filed 2021-07-22(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiffs constitutional claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Physicians Surgery Center of Chandler v. Cigna Healthcare Incorporated · filed 2021-07-23(c)

A district court has discretion to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Doe v. City Of Concord · filed 2021-07-26(c)(3)

As for plaintiff’s state law claims, counts five through nine, because the Court has dismissed the federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Justice v. Nelson · filed 2021-07-27(c)(3)

The third rationale of § 1367(c) applies here because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Maldanado v. Cultural Care, Inc. · filed 2021-07-28(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs do not have standing to represent the FLSA Class on either of these theories – nor, for reasons to be explained, on their primary underpayment theory — the court will not retain jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims.

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

Banks v. Hughes · filed 2021-07-29(c)(3)

Without a viable federal question to decide, the court will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that when a district court has disposed of all federal claims that conferred original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims).

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

Enciso v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services · filed 2021-07-29(c)(3)

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

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

Leto v. Bridges Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2021-07-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court will decline at this juncture to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Leto’s breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, but will delay remand of these claims as described above.

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

Hageman v. Minnesota Department of Corrections · filed 2021-07-30(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that Hageman’s Amended Complaint does not plausibly allege violations of federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

BELL v. MAPLEWOOD · filed 2021-07-30(c)(3)

The Court, however, has dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims. Accordingly, 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Raymond v. Ivest Properties, LLC · filed 2021-08-02(c)(3)

Finally, the Court notes that without a federal cause of action in this case, the Court may also follow the “general rule” in this Circuit and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

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

Scherer v. Simco Financial Services Inc. · filed 2021-08-02(c)(3)

However, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a state law claim if, as here, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Velazquez v. City of Long Beach, 793 F.3d 1010, 1029 (9th Cir. 2015).

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.

Justice v. Nelson · filed 2021-08-04(c)(3)

The third rationale of § 1367(c) applies here because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Aziyz, Najiy-Ullah v. Cameca, Inc. · filed 2021-08-06(c)(3)

Because the federal claims have been dismissed, the court would not use such claims as a basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims, even if the court was permitted to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction); Sullivan v. Conway, 157 F.3d 1092, 1095 (7th Cir. 1998).

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

Luke Caines, Jr. v. Interian · filed 2021-08-06(c)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Caines’s state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing his constitutional claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, taking account of unsettled state law issues and the parties’ ability to use completed discovery in state court.

Devonwood-Loch Lomond Lake Association Inc v. City of Fayetteville · filed 2021-08-06(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ remaining claims involve seven hotly contested and unsettled issues of state tort law. Moreover, although the parties have engaged in extensive discovery, they will be able to use that discovery in state court. Accordingly, after balancing the relevant factors, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly early in the case.

HONERKAMP v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY · filed 2021-08-06(c)(3)

Here, in its discretion the court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Justice v. Petersen · filed 2021-08-06(c)(3)

The third rationale of § 1367(c) applies here because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants over which it had original jurisdiction.

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.

Warren v. Parsons · filed 2021-08-09(c)(3)

Thus, because the Court has found none of the allegations in Warren’s FAC are sufficient to state a plausible First or Fourteenth Amendment claim for relief, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all his state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Flores-Grgas v. The Administration of Children's Services of the City of New York · filed 2021-08-09(c)(3)

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

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

Vazquez-Velazquez v. Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority · filed 2021-08-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal law claims, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Article 1802 claims arising from Puerto Rico law.

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

ERL v. Adoption Specialist · filed 2021-08-09(c)(3)

Because there are no federal claims remaining, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.

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

Messinger v. Moore · filed 2021-08-10(c)(3)

Further, pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to consider the state claims in Counts VII, VIII, X, XI, and XII and these claims are also DISMISSED.

When an anchoring federal claim is reinstated, dismissal of a related state-law claim under § 1367(c)(3) must be reversed.

Ogbechie v. Covarrubias · filed 2021-08-11(c)(3)

Because we reverse the grant of summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s anchoring federal claim, we reverse the district court’s dismissal of his state-law negligence claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), too.

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

Garcia v. Apple Seven Services SPE San Diego, Inc. · filed 2021-08-11(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed Garcia’s ADA claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claim.

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

SWEET v. MILES · filed 2021-08-11(c)

Finally, having dismissed Sweet’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims Sweet may be attempting to raise based on loss of property or emotional claims arising from the humiliation he allegedly suffered during the strip search.

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

Taccino v. Act 1st Federal Credit Union · filed 2021-08-12(c)(3)

A federal court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims where it “has dismissed al! claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Jd § 1367(6)(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.

Dewald v. Black Tusk Global, LLC · filed 2021-08-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed of all Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

United States of America ex rel SW Challenger, LLC. v. Evicore Healthcare MSI, LLC. · filed 2021-08-13(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which it may do under the FCA if ... it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

REACT ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. v. BUZAN · filed 2021-08-13(c)(3)

“A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim where ‘the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” ... Given this guidance, we will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

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

Collins v. San Francisco Unified School District · filed 2021-08-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the federal claims, the Court, in its discretion, declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims unless and until Plaintiff can state a valid federal 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.

Silver v. Wolfson · filed 2021-08-17(c)(3)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because there is no longer a federal claim over which I have original jurisdiction.

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.

Bradford v. Leichstein · filed 2021-08-17(c)(3)

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

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.

Dos Santos v. Assurant, Inc. · filed 2021-08-17(c)(3)

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

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

(PC) Chiprez v. Warden · filed 2021-08-18(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. ... The Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s purported state law claim.

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

Ye v. New Castle County Police Department · filed 2021-08-18(c)(3)

This Court has dismissed all federal claims. To the extent there remain supplemental state claims, this Court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the related federal claims against those defendants.

Pitts v. Espinda · filed 2021-08-18(c)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims against Mee, Agaran, or Hayase.

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

SOMERSET ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES, P.A. v. HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. · filed 2021-08-18(c)(3)

Specifically, § 1367(c)(3) provides that a “district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... As discussed, Plaintiffs’ federal law claims are dismissed, and those claims formed the basis of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the Court does not reach any issues concerning the counts over which it exercises supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Richards v. City of New York Comptroller · filed 2021-08-18(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state claims.

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

Baker v. Carnine · filed 2021-08-18(c)(3)

Here, if the district court were to maintain supplemental jurisdiction, only Ohio law claims would be left to resolve. The Court should therefore decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Misuraca v. Washington County Detention Center/Jail · filed 2021-08-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

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

Keith Burley, Jr. v. Bernstine · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

Further, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Burley’s state law claims after his federal claims were dismissed. A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction “under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Doe v. Mercy Cath. Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 567 (3d Cir. 2017).

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

Garcia v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal claims, and Plaintiffs do not allege any other federal claims in the First Amended Complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. “[T]he district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Monbo v. Upper Chesapeake Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

Those claims will be dismissed, and 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Annabel 414234 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” The Court finds no error with this recommendation.

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

C. Pepper Logistics, LLC v. Lanter Delivery Systems, LLC · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

Because the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it will exercise its broad discretion under § 1367(c)(3) and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims remaining in the case.

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.

Lawtone-Bowles v. The City of New York (NYC) · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

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

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

Pullom v. Jefferson County, Alabama · filed 2021-08-24(c)(3)

To the extent Mr. Pullom’s complaint could be construed as asserting other state-law negligence claims against Sheriff Pettway or the County, see Doc. 1 at 5—7, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those 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.

Russell Coleman Contracting, Inc. v. ELA Group, Inc. · filed 2021-08-24(c)(3)

The remaining parties concede that the claims now before the Court are state law claims over which the Court has no original jurisdiction. Accordingly, declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is appropriate.

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

Byrd v. Nelson · filed 2021-08-24(c)(3)

In this case, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and thus declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's pendant 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.

Roseberry v. Harvey · filed 2021-08-25(c)(3)

As for plaintiff’s state-law whistleblower claims, “[a] district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Because plaintiff’s federal claims are being dismissed, her state law whistleblower claims are also dismissed.

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

Mayfield v. Presbyterian Hospital Administration · filed 2021-08-25(c)

Under § 1367(c), the district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Luchetti v. The New Mexico State Personnel Board · filed 2021-08-25(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the federal claims and the remaining claims are based entirely on state law, the Court will remand this proceeding to state court for adjudication of those claims.

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

Decina v. Horry County Police Department · filed 2021-08-26(c)(3)

As the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s sole federal claim herein, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state claims per 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (providing that the district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to claims forming the same case or controversy as those within the court’s original jurisdiction if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Goonewardena v. Zuker Hillside Hospital · filed 2021-08-27(c)(3)

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

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

OTERO v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY · filed 2021-08-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims raised in the Seventh Amended Complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under state law.

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

Williams v. Vegas Venture 1 LLC · filed 2021-08-31(c)(3)

A district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed or if the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Since the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

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

Little v. Siskin Hospital for Physical Rehabilitation, Inc. · filed 2021-08-31(c)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims when the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Upon consideration of the relevant factors, the Court will exercise its discretion and decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Steinhardt v. Bernardsville Police Dept · filed 2021-09-02(c)(3)

The District Court thus permissibly concluded that Steinhardt failed to state any federal claim on which relief could be granted against any defendant in her Fourth Amended Complaint, and, in turn, permissibly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Steinhardt’s state and common law claims.

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

SZUCS v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE · filed 2021-09-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining 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 a state law claim after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Song v. Tromberg, Morris & Poulin, PLLC · filed 2021-09-02(c)(3)

Considering the balance of factors, I find that none of the factors support exercising supplemental jurisdiction over this remaining claim.

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

Lewis v. Westchester County · filed 2021-09-02(c)(3)

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

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

Goureau v. Lemonis · filed 2021-09-02(c)(3)

Plaintiffs then append the state-level claims to this action, seeking to avail themselves of the Court’s discretionary supplemental jurisdiction. Am. Compl. ¶ 27; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs do not make out a valid claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 for a RICO violation, it declines at this juncture to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state level claims alleged in the Amended Complaint.

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

Moore v. Robinson · filed 2021-09-03(c)

And, with no viable federal claim, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Moore’s state-law tort claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

McFadyen v. County of Tehama · filed 2021-09-03(c)(3)

If Plaintiffs choose not to amend their federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and dismiss the action.

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

A.H. v. County of Tehama · filed 2021-09-03(c)(3)

When a federal court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may, at its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... If Plaintiff chooses not to amend his federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state claims and dismiss the action.

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.

Phommathep v. County of Tehama · filed 2021-09-03(c)(3)

When a federal court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may, at its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... If Plaintiffs choose not to amend their federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and dismiss the action.

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

Buie v. District of Columbia · filed 2021-09-07(c)(3)

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

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

Simon Jr. v. Burtlow · filed 2021-09-07(c)(3)

Lastly, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court agrees that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims is proper.

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

Suedrohrbau Saudi Co., Ltd. v. Bazzi · filed 2021-09-07(c)

Given that, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Vidurek v. Cassadine · filed 2021-09-07(c)(3)

Having determined that all of the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Plaintiffs’ potential remaining state law causes of action. See id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

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

Loding v. Schaefer · filed 2021-09-08(c)(3)

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

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

Cecil v. Kentucky Community and Technical College System · filed 2021-09-09(c)(3)

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

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

Souran v. Garden Grove Inc · filed 2021-09-10(c)(3)

Having concluded that Souran has no federal claim, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Dillon v. Searcy Police Department · filed 2021-09-10(c)(3)

The Court has granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Toler and dismissed all of Ms. Dillon’s federal claims against Officer Toler. To the extent Ms. Dillon intended to raise state law claims against Officer Toler, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Ms. Dillon’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and ordinarily favors doing so absent extraordinary circumstances.

SIMMONS v. TAYLOR · filed 2021-09-10(c)(3)

But pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. In such situations, it is appropriate to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over the state law claims “in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.” Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, Inc., 540 F.2d 187, 196 (3d Cir. 1967). With the dismissal of Simmons’s federal claims, and in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Simmons’s IIED claim.

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

Hatch v. Barrett · filed 2021-09-13(c)(3)

Thus, given that the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal law claims arising under the FHA, see supra Section 3.1.1, the Court will also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law defamation claim.

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

Larkin v. A-B Petroleum Inc. · filed 2021-09-13(c)(3)

The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Ms. Dickson herein because Plaintiffs ADA claim against Ms. Dickson is moot for the reasons articulated in the Recommendation, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims against Ms. Dickson.

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

City Of New York v. Singh · filed 2021-09-13(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the federal law claims against Singh, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Sack v. Barbish · filed 2021-09-13(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and dismissed the three federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once they have dismissed all claims over which they had original jurisdiction.

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

Williams v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections · filed 2021-09-13(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Scotts must be dismissed, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS not exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Sairam v. Mercy Retirement and Care Center · filed 2021-09-14(c)

This is because, in the absence of a federal claim, the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Shahin v. Berrie · filed 2021-09-14(c)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's supplemental state law claims, wherein she alleges that “[a]lthough this case is actually . . . ‘redress’ under [the] provision|s] of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, each and every Defendant will be accused under separate provisions of the State Statutes.” (D.1. 1 at 2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367; De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 309 (3d Cir. 2003); Shahin ». Darling, 350 F. App’x 605, 607 n.2 Gd Cir. 2009) (“To the extent that Shahin may have been alleging state law violations, the District Court was correct in declining to extend supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.”).

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

Weiser v. Castille · filed 2021-09-14(c)(3)

In the present case, § 1367(c)(3) applies because the court is dismissing plaintiff’s constitutional and federal statutory claims as to all moving parties.

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

Francisco v. Mohamad · filed 2021-09-16(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims at this time.

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

JERRY v. CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM · filed 2021-09-16(c)

Because the court has dismissed Jerry’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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Edstrom v. Jane Does 1-3 · filed 2021-09-17(c)(3)

Applying the foregoing authority here, the Court finds that it is appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Edstrom’s state law claims since the sole federal law claim has been dismissed.

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

Nieves v. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation · filed 2021-09-17(c)(3)

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

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

LeRoy v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital · filed 2021-09-20(c)

As a result, no federal claim remains, and, consistent with the Seventh Circuit’s directive, this 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 disposing of all federal claims that conferred original jurisdiction.

Muhammad v. Frakes · filed 2021-09-20(c)(3)

Without a viable federal question to decide, the court will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that when a district court has disposed of all federal claims that conferred original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims).

Section 1367(a) permits jurisdiction over a state law claim related to a federal claim as part of the same case or controversy; the court treats dismissal of all federal claims as ending jurisdiction over the state claims.

Herndon v. Henderson Police Department · filed 2021-09-20(a)

A district court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a pendent state law claim if there is a federal claim so related to it that they form part of the same case or controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Because no federal claims remain, the Court no longer maintains subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

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

Bella Layne Holdings, LLC v. Southern Nevada Water Authority · filed 2021-09-20(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if all original jurisdiction claims have been dismissed. ... The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Williams v. The City of New York · filed 2021-09-20(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint asserts a claim for a medical malpractice claim under state law, see Defs.” Mem. at 17-18, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiff’s state law claims since the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998).

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

Brooks v. Kumer · filed 2021-09-21(c)(3)

To the extent that any of Brooks’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.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim when the federal claims have been dismissed and the statutory and common law factors favor dismissal.

Roberts v. Lessard · filed 2021-09-21(c)

In sum, nearly all relevant factors strongly favor declining to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendent negligence claim, and no factor obviously demands maintaining jurisdiction.

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

Quattrone v. Erie 2 Chautauqua-Cattaraugus Board of Cooperative Educational Services · filed 2021-09-21(c)(3)

Having determined that all of Plaintiff’s claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims, all of which involve issues of state law that are better left to a state court.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, and doing so is within its discretion.

Golf Village N., LLC v. City of Powell, Ohio · filed 2021-09-23(c)(3)

We have described as a “fundamental principle” that “declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an action with no remaining federal claims is not an abuse of discretion.” Southard v. Newcomb Oil Co., — F.4th —, 2021 WL 3378933, at *1 (6th Cir. Aug. 4, 2021).

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

(PC) Lipscomb v. Olivas · filed 2021-09-23(c)(3)

Plaintiff has been unable to state a cognizable §1983 claim, and the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction without a cognizable federal law claim.

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

Curtis v. Greenberg · filed 2021-09-23(c)

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

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

McGugan v. Clarke · filed 2021-09-27(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of McGugan’s federal claims against Defendants Mullins and Smith, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law tort claims alleged against ... them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Squires v. Gallaudet University · filed 2021-09-27(c)(3)

Under those circumstances, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the lone state law claim. A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” when the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a decision that is “left to the discretion of the district court” and reviewed for “abuse of discretion.”

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

Y.I. v. County of San Diego · filed 2021-09-27(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ sole federal claims it has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

Mamot v. Bilingual · filed 2021-09-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any claims under state law Plaintiff may be asserting, including any claims under New York’s Freedom of Information Law with regard to the DOE’s alleged failure to provide Plaintiff with requested records.

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

Gold Country Development, LLC v. County of El Dorado · filed 2021-09-28(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead a constitutional basis for their federal claims at this time, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims at this time pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Bassow v. Delphin-Rittmon · filed 2021-09-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Krist v. Beth Israel Medical Center · filed 2021-09-28(c)(3)

Thus, because the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the sole federal claim is dismissed and no other federal claim shares a common nucleus of operative facts with it.

LYLES v. NORTH AMERICAN DENTAL GROUP LLC · filed 2021-09-28

Further, the Court declines exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because, absent the ADA claim, the Plaintiff has asserted no other federal claim with which the breach of contract claim might share a common nucleus of operative facts.

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.

Ferrer v. Aikens · filed 2021-09-29(c)(3)

Here, the District Court dismissed all of the Ferrers’ federal claims, leaving only the state-law claim, so the prerequisites for § 1367(c)(3) were met.

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

HORSH v. CLARK · filed 2021-09-29(c)(3)

As Plaintiffs medical malpractice claims are entirely grounded in state law, the Court will exercise its discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. Id. at 68: see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Wilson v. Clarke · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

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

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

Craighead v. King · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of Craighead’s federal claims against Defendants Clarke, Robinson, Manis, Zook, and Anderson, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law tort claims alleged against them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gomez v. Hoo · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

Nevertheless, to the extent Plaintiff is relying on these provisions, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over such state law claims given its dismissal of the federal claims based on qualified immunity.

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.

KELLY v. DOUGHERTY COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims after it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, 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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Thiele v. Board of Trustees of Illinois State University · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

In the absence of any remaining federal claims, and as the parties are not diverse, see Am. Compl. 3–4, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Kemp v. Kickert School Bus Lines, Inc. · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

Indeed, this presumption is statutorily ex- pressed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides for the discretionary relinquishment of jurisdiction over state claims when the claims providing original jurisdiction (here, federal-question jurisdiction) have been dismissed.

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

Jones v. City Of New York · filed 2021-09-30(c)

Having dismissed all federal claims, the Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.

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

Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where, as here, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim in Count 9.

Section 1367(a) does not support supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state-law claims when her federal claims have been dismissed with prejudice.

Johnson v. Belcher · filed 2021-09-29(a)

Because Hodges-Johnson’s federal claims are dismissed with prejudice, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over her state-law claims.

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

Favors v. Harpstead · filed 2021-10-05(c)

The Court, in its discretion, will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 342 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating that district courts have discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to dismiss any supplemental state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed).

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

JACKSON v. MILLER · filed 2021-10-05(c)(3)

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

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

Thomas v. Columbus City Schools (Columbus Board of Education) · filed 2021-10-05(c)(3)

“[A] federal court should typically decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state-law claims after dismissing the plaintiff’s federal claims.” Brown v. Cassens Transport Co., 546 F.3d 347, 363 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)). Nothing about this case takes it outside the scope of that general rule. The Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Ms. Thomas’s state law claims.

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

Reid v. Ryan · filed 2021-10-05(c)(3)

Further, as this dismisses all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Cheatham v. Olajide · filed 2021-10-07(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” Here, Ms. Cheatham’s Request is purely a matter of state law that only is in federal court due to Mr. Olajide’s frivolous counterclaims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over her Request and thus lacks jurisdiction to decide Mr. Olajide’s Motion to Dismiss.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims after it dismisses the claim supporting original jurisdiction.

Vasquez v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC · filed 2021-10-07(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs indicate that they will cease to pursue at least their third cause of action (and offer no argument in support of it), that claim is dismissed with prejudice. The Court then declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of the case, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and remands what remains of the case back to Los Angeles County Superior Court.