28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

WILLIAMS v. LACSON · filed 2021-10-07(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Williams federal claims against Lacson and the BCOPD, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

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

MAJERSKA v. United States · filed 2021-10-12(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, including any claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

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

Evans v. Ortiz · filed 2021-10-12(c)(3)

Because it is dismissing all of Plaintiff's federal-law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims.

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

MURRAY v. United States · filed 2021-10-13(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, including any claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

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

Sam v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. · filed 2021-10-13(c)(3)

If Sam does not amend his complaint to correct the deficiencies outlined above, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sam’s remaining state law claims.

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

Brooke v. Sai Ashish Inc. · filed 2021-10-14(c)(3)

The Court typically has discretion to refuse to exercise supplemental 2 jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 3 1367(c)(3).

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

Whitaker v. Motel 6 Operating L.P. · filed 2021-10-14(c)(3)

Whitaker’s ADA claim provided the only basis for original jurisdiction. As the Court has dismissed Whitaker’s ADA claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over what remains of his state law claim.

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

Wiggins v. Prummell · filed 2021-10-14(c)(3)

Even assuming these are properly pled, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court will exercise its discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Glover v. Oklahoma County of · filed 2021-10-14(c)(3)

Upon dismissing Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Jones v. Gallatin County · filed 2021-10-15(c)(3)

The Court dismisses Jones’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) without leave to amend. The Court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Jones’s claims for relief under state law. 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.

Dixon v. Hunt · filed 2021-10-15(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff alleges violation of the Ohio statutes, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where the 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 claim.

Cassaday v. Loepp · filed 2021-10-18(c)(3)

Having found that Plaintiff does not sufficiently plead a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

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

Washington v. Ciccone · filed 2021-10-19(c)(3)

Magistrate Judge Lovric correctly found that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Human Rights Law claim because the Court has dismissed all claims for which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Dkt. No. 5 at 12. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Lovric's recommendation and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Human Rights Law claims.

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

Hoyle v. Shelton · filed 2021-10-20(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hoyle’s state law claim.

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

Edwards v. Lavespere · filed 2021-10-20(c)(3)

In the instant case, having recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court further recommends that supplemental jurisdiction be declined in connection with Plaintiff’s potential state law claims.

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

Smith v. Lutheran University Association Inc The · filed 2021-10-21(c)(3)

The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 based on its original jurisdiction to hear the federal statutory claims. However, because the Court is dismissing the federal claims for failure to state a claim, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

(PS) Allen v. City of Citrus Heights Police Dept. · filed 2021-10-22(c)(3)

Should the district court accept the undersigned’s recommendations on the Section 1983 claims, no federal question would remain in this case. Because there are no feasible diversity allegations against Citrus Heights, the court should decline to retain jurisdiction over the Records Act claim.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within their original jurisdiction.

Manyweather v. Woodlawn Manor Inc · filed 2021-10-22(c)

Section 1367(c) provides federal district courts the discretion to exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction.

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

Falls-Miller v. Savannah-Chatham County Public School Board · filed 2021-10-25(c)(3)

Further, because the district court properly dismissed the only federal claim, it also did not err by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Langer v. B R Guest · filed 2021-10-26(c)(3)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, among other things, “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 a state-law claim once the federal causes of action are dismissed.

Estate of Sandra Lee Harmon v. County of San Mateo · filed 2021-10-26(c)(3)

Even if the claim was properly pled, the Court would decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over it once the federal causes of action are dismissed. 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 all viable federal claims have been dismissed and the relevant factors favor declining jurisdiction.

Nguyen v. Foley · filed 2021-10-27(c)(3)

Nguyen has not pleaded any viable claim under federal law, and the relevant factors favor not exercising jurisdiction over Nguyen’s tort claims.

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

Paschalidis v. The Airline Restaurant Corp. · filed 2021-10-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

THOMAS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2021-10-28(c)

Since Thomas’s federal claims have been dismissed, subject matter jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims can be found only through diversity jurisdiction or the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). This Court, however, will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims unless there is an independent basis for jurisdiction.

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

Nichols v. Parker · filed 2021-10-29(c)(3)

The court, therefore, will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any independent 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 federal claims.

Corvin v. Almarode · filed 2021-11-01(c)(3)

Finally, inasmuch as I will dismiss all of Corvin’s federal claims under § 1983 for failure to state a claim, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim asserted in his pleadings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Margaret H. Walker, Plaintiff v. School Administrative Unit Sixteen, David Ryan, Ed. D., Superintendent, and Patricia Wo · filed 2021-11-01(c)(3)

Given that the federal claim in Walker's complaint is resolved, and taking into account the factors identified in Camelio, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Walker's state law claim.

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

Aikens v. Meyer · filed 2021-11-01(c)(3)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim and to the extent Plaintiff attempts to raise a common law copyright claim under Delaware law, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claim.

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.

Lang v. County of Barren KY · filed 2021-11-04(c)(3)

However, because Plaintiff’s federal claims are being dismissed, 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Surpris v. Hartison Police Department (New York) · filed 2021-11-05(c)(3)

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

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

CORREA-MARTINEZ v. RAHWAY HOSPITAL · filed 2021-11-08(c)(3)

To the extent the Complaint asserts state law negligence and medical malpractice claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Patterson v. Doe · filed 2021-11-08(c)(3)

To the extent Mr. Patterson alleges any state law malicious prosecution claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over that claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may defer deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims while the state supreme court reviews whether dismissal would bar those claims from being refiled.

Carter v. Griffin · filed 2021-11-09(c)(3)

But the court can’t decline supplemental jurisdiction over those state law claims without first addressing a novel holding by the Kansas Supreme Court. ... The court stays the case on its own motion, pending the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in its review of Herington v. City of Wichita, 479 P.3d 482 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

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

Moore 208380 v. Whitmer · filed 2021-11-09(c)

Here, balancing the relevant considerations, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law bond claims.

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

BESS v. ALBERT EINSTEIN HOSPITAL · filed 2021-11-09(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state common law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lyles v. U.S. Retirements & Parents · filed 2021-11-10(c)

Accordingly, even if the Complaint could somehow be read to assert common law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (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.”).

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

Mohnkern v. Equifax Information Services, LLC · filed 2021-11-10(c)(3)

As a result, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims alleged under New York General Business Law section 349(a) and common law fraud, and therefore dismiss those claims.

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

Alexis v. Town of Cheektowaga · filed 2021-11-10(c)(3)

Since this case was removed to federal court and the only original jurisdiction cause of action was dismissed, this case is remanded to New York State Supreme Court for further proceedings, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3), 1447(c); see also Blair v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 14-CV-5091, 2016 WL 6405900, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2016).

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

Biragov v. Dreamdealers USA LLC · filed 2021-11-15(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Shutsha v. Gonzalez · filed 2021-11-16(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 of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Derello 037292 v. Harris · filed 2021-11-17(c)(3)

Moreover, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiff’s state-law claim because Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed.

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

WISE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2021-11-17(c)(3)

Finally, as no federal claims remain in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, including any claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

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

SESCEY v. YOUTUBE · filed 2021-11-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed Sescey’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Acedo v. County of San Diego · filed 2021-11-19

The district court properly dismissed Acedo’s remaining state law claims because the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate them once it had dismissed Acedo’s federal claim for lack of subject matter 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.

MCCROSKY v. PREFERRED FURNITURE COMPONENTS, INC. · filed 2021-11-19(c)(3)

That statute also permits a district court to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” such a claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Because the claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

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

SESCEY v. WALMART, ONN UNIT · filed 2021-11-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed Sescey’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Settle v. CoreCivic, Inc. · filed 2021-11-22(c)(3)

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

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

Munzel v. Hillsborough County · filed 2021-11-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all other claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Such is the case here, as only a non-diverse state-law claim remains. See Mills v. Sodexo, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-1319-T-33AEP, 2013 WL 3992415, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2013). The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Count VI.

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.

Donzo v. City of New York · filed 2021-11-23(c)(3)

In any event, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. ... 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Holder v. Frerace · filed 2021-11-24(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the allegations that the defendants violated the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law defamation claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (if federal court dismisses all federal claims it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims).

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

Shimizu v. Ochiai · filed 2021-11-24(c)(3)

Following the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

WILLIAMS v. PATRICK · filed 2021-11-24(c)(3)

When a court has dismissed all claims over which it had original federal-question jurisdiction, however, it has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As Plaintiff's federal claims have been dismissed against Defendant 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 claim.

After dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

Thomas v. Carter · filed 2021-11-29(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Perez v. Annucci · filed 2021-11-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims in plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Weiser v. Castille · filed 2021-11-30(c)(3)

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

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

HAKIM INTERNATIONAL TRADING v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2021-11-30(c)(3)

However, as the Court has dismissed Standard Fire from this case, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against the Oshinsky Defendants’ and dismisses this action due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Costlow v. ODRC (Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections) · filed 2021-12-01(c)(3)

Given that the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to dismiss state law claims when all federal claims lack merit.

Kelley v. San Diego County Health · filed 2021-12-02(c)

Appellants’ remaining federal claims lack merit. Accordingly, it was within the district court’s discretion to dismiss Appellants’ state law claims.

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

Martinez v. Neal · filed 2021-12-03(c)(3)

In the absence of a federal claim, this court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Cruz-Arce v. Mgmt. Admin. Services Corp. · filed 2021-12-06(c)(3)

Once the district court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to plead a plausible claim under section 1983, it appropriately declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state-law claims (count 3).

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.

Hamilton v. Madera County · filed 2021-12-06(c)(3)

The Court has analyzed Plaintiffs’ federal claims to the extent it was able to ascertain the bases for those claims and, for the foregoing reasons, finds that the TAC fails to state any discernable federal claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on any potential remaining 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 it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Alfonso v. Mougis Logistics Corp. · filed 2021-12-06(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Vasquez v. Sookram · filed 2021-12-06(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal law claims.

Adkins v. Commonwealth Of Virginia · filed 2021-12-07(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all federal law claims, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ 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.

Paris v. MACALLISTER MACHINERY COMPANY, INC. d/b/a MICHIGAN CAT · filed 2021-12-07(c)(3)

And, because this court has dismissed the federal claims against both Defendants, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Paris’s state-law ELCRA 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.

Vives v. Bennett · filed 2021-12-07(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 surviving state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Joelson v. United States · filed 2021-12-09(c)(3)

Because the Court determined that Plaintiffs’ federal cases of action were subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any surviving state law causes of action.

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

Ramirez v. Oxford · filed 2021-12-13(c)(3)

At this time, therefore, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ramirez’s remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Smith v. Wright · filed 2021-12-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s “Title VII” claims, the Court shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims for negligence (Count III) and breach of contract (Count IV). The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is within a court’s discretion, see Shekoyan v. Sibley Int’l, 409 F.3d 414, 423 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and a district court may decline to maintain such jurisdiction where 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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Rodriguez v. Hudson Valley Chrysler · filed 2021-12-14(c)(3)

The Court declines to consider under its supplemental jurisdiction any remaining claims that Plaintiff asserts under state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

COUSAR v. MORGAN · filed 2021-12-15(c)(3)

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

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

Nandawula v. Child Protective Services (CPS) · filed 2021-12-16(c)(3)

In turn, upon the dismissal of any federal claim, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim, particularly when resolving it depends solely on state law.

White v. City of Minneapolis · filed 2021-12-16(c)(3)

For this reason, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim in Plaintiffs’ complaint and remands the case to state court.

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

HAMMOND v. LANCASTER CITY BUREAU OF POLICE · filed 2021-12-16(c)(3)

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

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

Hargrove v. City of San Diego · filed 2021-12-17(c)(3)

Here, because the Court is dismissing the only federal claim 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 federal claims.

(PS) Allen v. City of Citrus Heights Police Dept. · filed 2021-12-20(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s claims against Citrus Heights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Cal. Penal Code are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; ... The court DECLINES supplemental jurisdiction, per 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3), for the claim brought under Cal. Gov. Code Section 6250 alleging a failure to disclose the mid-September 2019 police reports; ... The Clerk of the court is directed to CLOSE this case.

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

IN RE HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION · filed 2021-12-21(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any remaining state-law claims arising in the Amended Complaint.

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

MCKINNEY v. LANIGAN · filed 2021-12-21(c)(3)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it 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.

Jallow v. City of New York · filed 2021-12-21(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are related to federal law claims and arise from the same common nucleus of operative facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

WILLIAMS TRUST v. WELLS FARGO EASTWICK BRANCH · filed 2021-12-21(c)

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 remaining state law claims against a defendant after disposing of all claims against that defendant within its original jurisdiction.

Doe v. County of San Diego · filed 2021-12-22(c)(3)

As the court has effectively disposed of all claims over the County over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Aery v. North Star Mutual Insurance · filed 2021-12-22(c)(3)

Since the federal § 1983 claim has been dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim.

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

Burley v. Arnold · filed 2021-12-22(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff's federal claims will be dismissed, 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.

Alweiss v. City of Sacramento · filed 2021-12-27(c)(3)

A district court may sua sponte decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court had original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against the City of Sacramento. Having dismissed them, the Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Martinez v. Kaweah Delta Medical Center · filed 2021-12-27(c)(3)

Lastly, because dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant United States “extinguishes the only viable basis for federal jurisdiction, there is no reasonable basis for exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims against the other named defendants.” ... Therefore, the Court will remand the remainder of this action to state court.

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

Ruiz v. Sisolak · filed 2021-12-28(c)(3)

While a court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, it may decline to do so where “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state tort claims and remands the case to state court.

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

Massey v. Bolanos · filed 2021-12-28(c)(3)

Because the Complaint does not state a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims that Plaintiff may be asserting. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state 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 within its original jurisdiction.

Nimham-El-Dey v. City College · filed 2021-12-28(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 the federal claims are dismissed.

Smith v. Rolling Plains Detention Center · filed 2021-12-29(c)(3)

In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff raises any state-law claims in this lawsuit, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claims are eliminated early in litigation.

Mayo v. New Britain · filed 2021-02-22(c)(3)

Mayo’s only remaining claims are state law claims. “It is well settled that where, as here, the federal claims are eliminated in the early stages of litigation, courts should generally decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.” Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Bd of Trade of N.Y.C., 464 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir. 2006). I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mayo’s remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) gives a federal court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissal of the federal claims; dismissal early in the case generally favors declining jurisdiction.

Carter v. GardaWorld Securities Services - US · filed 2021-05-20(c)

While a federal court has discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are related to dismissed federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), it generally should not continue to exercise this jurisdiction “when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 357 (1988).

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

STOKES v. ELDRED · filed 2021-05-25(c)(3)

When a court has dismissed all claims over which it had original federal question jurisdiction, it has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the federal claims have not survived the initial screening process, 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gooden v. Batz · filed 2021-06-10(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, Counts One through Eleven and Counts Fourteen through Eighteen. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) (holding that if federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that 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-law claims after dismissing the federal claim when no countervailing factors warrant retaining them.

OPEN MRI AND IMAGING OF RP VESTIBULAR DIAGNOSTICS, P.A. v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2021-06-30(c)(3)

Counts 2 and 3, which sound in state law, are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). At this early stage, there are no countervailing factors requiring the court to retain jurisdiction.

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

MEDLEY v. ATLANTIC EXPOSITION SERVICES, INC. · filed 2021-07-26(c)(3)

Here, the Court is dismissing the only federal claims asserted in the Complaint and doing so at a comparatively early stage in this litigation. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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 state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hendy v. Boggs · filed 2021-07-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims at this early stage of litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim Plaintiff may have asserted.

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.

Futrell v. Cooper · filed 2021-07-28(c)(3)

Further, no federal claim has passed initial review so the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at this time even if the Plaintiff had stated a facially sufficient claim under North Carolina law.

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.

Leonard v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission · filed 2021-09-17(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiff’s federal claim on initial review, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim he may also be asserting, which is better resolved by the Ohio courts.

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

Martinez v. MyLife.com, Inc. · filed 2021-11-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state and city law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Kolari v. New York- Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial,” courts should decline jurisdiction over the non- federal claims) (quotations omitted).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of case progress and prejudice from litigation in state court.

Hazen v. Great Plains Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church · filed 2021-12-10(c)(3)

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1367 authorizes the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in such cases, it also provides that the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... This case is in the early stages of discovery, no trial date has been set, and no substantial prejudice will be caused by litigating the remaining state law claims in state court.

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

Kelly v. Leonbruno · filed 2021-12-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed Kelly’s federal claims at this early stage of litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim he may have asserted.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, considering the stage of the case and judicial resources.

Pullins v. Hancock Whitney Bank · filed 2021-01-11(c)(3)

Further, considering the docket backlog created in this Court by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court finds that the best use of judicial resources for this Court and the state court is to have the state court preside over a purely state law claim. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s IIED claim, and it shall be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Redford v. Unirush Financial Service, LLC · filed 2021-01-22(c)(3)

2. The Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over plaintiff’ s state-law claims and DISMISS such claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, leaving those claims to be brought in state court.

Boyd v. Bellin · filed 2021-02-10(c)(3)

Though the district court did not address the common-law negligence claims in the complaint, we infer that it intended to follow the norm of relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction when it concluded that Boyd had no federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Lavite v. Dunstan, 932 F.3d 1020, 1034 (7th Cir. 2019). Without commenting on their merit, we therefore clarify that the dismissal of the negligence claims is without prejudice to bringing them in state court.

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

Denofre v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2021-02-10(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED; specifically, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii), Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed with prejudice, and, to the extent Plaintiff has alleged state-law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismisses them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Mobley v. Henderson County Sheriff's Department · filed 2021-02-10(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s assault claim and it will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after dismissing the federal claim, especially when the case is new.

Grinblat v. Michell Wolf LLC · filed 2021-03-09(c)(3)

Since this case is brand new, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state and city law claims, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice to reassert them in state court.

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

WAHOLEK v. PENNSYLVANIA PAROLE BOARD · filed 2021-03-19(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to raise claims under state tort law, the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims, and such claims are dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s refiling those claims in state court, if appropriate.

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

Larez v. Hortus NYC Corp. · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

Consequently, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over and dismisses the state law claims without prejudice.

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

Vincent v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

Vincent’s remaining causes of action are brought under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. “When district courts dismiss all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, they ordinarily dismiss as well all related state claims.” Artis v. Dist. of Columbia, 138 S. Ct. 594, 597-98 (2018) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over and dismisses the state law claims in Counts Four through Nine without prejudice.

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

Roe v. St. Johns University · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed all Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claim for breach of contract against SJU, and dismisses them without prejudice to bring in state court.

After all federal claims are dismissed, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims and ordinarily should do so absent extraordinary circumstances.

Davenport v. Capio Partners LLC · filed 2021-04-28(c)(3)

Because the Court finds no extraordinary circumstances in this case to warrant the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, it will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law negligence claims for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to file such claims in state court.

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

Hendley 196496 v. Rogers · filed 2021-05-10(c)

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

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

Martin v. Town of Summerville · filed 2021-05-20(c)(3)

Having here dismissed the federal claims in the first and second causes of action, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this remaining state law claim and accordingly dismisses it without prejudice.

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

Sentementes v. Lamont · filed 2021-05-25(c)(3)

The court will not consider the plausibility of Sentementes’ state law claims because the court has determined that the federal Fourteenth Amendment claims raised by the instant complaint should be dismissed. Thus, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (if federal court dismisses all federal claims, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over supplemental 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.

STIEF v. ROBESON TOWNSHIP · filed 2021-05-26(c)(3)

“A court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction [over state law claims] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Hall-Wadley v. Maint. Dep’t, 386 F. Supp. 3d 512, 519 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). ... Accordingly, we will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stief’s remaining state law claims, and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Dempsey v. Dodge Correctional Institution · filed 2021-05-28(c)(3)

Because the court is dismissing the plaintiff’s federal claims, it would not have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law. To the extent that the plaintiff was trying to assert any state-law claims, the court will dismiss those claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Smith v. City of Moorhead · filed 2021-06-02(c)

If a federal district court has dismissed all the federal claims over which the court has original jurisdiction, as is the case here, then the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court will follow normal practice in regard to Smith’s state law claims of malicious prosecution and attorney malpractice and, accordingly, the Court will dismiss Counts II and IV without prejudice.

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

Sharkany v. Collette · filed 2021-06-14(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed, the court declines at this time to exercise supplemental subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over any state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the balance of relevant considerations favors dismissal.

Nelson 630619 v. Yuhas · filed 2021-06-14(c)(3)

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

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

Citizens National Bank v. Volunteer Bancorp Inc. (TV2) · filed 2021-06-14(c)(3)

While a district court has supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims forming “part of the same case or controversy” as claims over which the court exercises original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701, 709 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Because the Court in this opinion will dismiss plaintiffs’ claim arising under federal law, it will also DISMISS without prejudice plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Thomas v. City Of Concord · filed 2021-06-16(c)(3)

Having disposed of all of plaintiff's federal claims in this case, the Court consequently declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the case has not progressed beyond a motion to dismiss.

Stovall v. H&S Bakery · filed 2021-06-23(c)(3)

However, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Where this case has yet to proceed beyond a motion to dismiss, it has not reached the point that judicial economy and fairness to the litigants would warrant retention of federal jurisdiction over the case. Thus, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, which will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Hardrick 606507 v. Wonnacott · filed 2021-06-23(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Defendants Anderson, McCollum, and Theut. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims against them will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Henderson v. DeKalb Community Unit School District 428 · filed 2021-06-30(c)(3)

But supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims is discretionary when a federal court no longer retains its original jurisdiction, as is the case here. Thus, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3) and dismisses without prejudice Counts I through V for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

Salami v. Jubilee Association of Maryland · filed 2021-07-02(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed the claims over which it had federal question jurisdiction. Thus, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law breach of contract counterclaim, which will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Gonzalez v. Lakshmi Narayan Hospitality Group Louisville · filed 2021-07-12(c)(3)

Further, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Thus, Plaintiff's state-law claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Ajeo v. Department of Juvenile Services · filed 2021-07-13(c)(3)

To the extent Ajeo intends to state a negligence claim based on state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and will dismiss the state claim without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”); 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Seay v. Institution of Higher Learning · filed 2021-07-15(c)(3)

Because the Court has determined that Seay’s federal question claims will be dismissed, leaving only state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and they will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Armenta v. Ortega · filed 2021-07-16(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. ... The Court is again dismissing all federal claims in this case. Consistent with its prior decision, to the extent the Complaint alleges any claims under New Mexico law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Armenta’s remaining state-law claims and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Ward v. Barton · filed 2021-08-03(c)(3)

To the extent Ward intended to assert claims under state law, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over such claims and will dismiss them without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McKinnon v. Sandler · filed 2021-08-03(c)(3)

To the extent McKinnon alleges the defendant has violated state law, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and will dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

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

Spears v. New Haven Police Department · filed 2021-08-10(c)(3)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted in the second amended complaints and dismiss those claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[A] district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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

Loesby v. Fischer · filed 2021-08-11(c)

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court: ... (4) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses the state law claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ... (6) DIRECTS the Clerk to close 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.

Hoogland v. City of Maryville, Tennessee (TV2) · filed 2021-08-13(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss all of plaintiff’s claims arising under federal law, it will also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and DISMISS without prejudice plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Doe v. Samford University · filed 2021-08-15(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed the only federal claims in this action, the court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and WILL DISMISS Counts Three, Four, and Five WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Marin v. Catano · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has failed to allege adequately any violation of federal law, however, the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss his pendent state law claims without prejudice.

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

Crowe v. Grayson County Detention Center · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any state-law claims against Defendants Twin Lakes Hospital and Dr. Talbot are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Raymond v. Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC · filed 2021-08-25(c)(3)

As the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s only federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Pethtel v. State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services (TV2) · filed 2021-08-31(c)(3)

While a district court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims forming “part of the same case or controversy” as claims over which the court exercises original jurisdiction, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)(3); see also Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701, 709 (6th Cir. 2009) (“If the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims generally should be dismissed as well” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)). Because the Court in this opinion will dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims arising under federal law, it will also DISMISS without prejudice plaintiffs’ 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, including when dismissal occurs early in the case.

Robinson v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2021-09-22(c)(3)

Here, I have dismissed the only claims over which I had original jurisdiction—Plaintiff’s constitutional claims—at this early stage well before trial. Consequently, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, without prejudice to her re-filing those claims in state court.

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

Baqi v. Campbell · filed 2021-09-23(c)

The Court therefore finds it appropriate to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims and recommends that they be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Arroyo v. Pollock 1400 ECR Owner, LLC · filed 2021-09-24(c)(3)

As the federal ADA claim has been dismissed for lack of standing, and there is no basis for jurisdiction over the state law Unruh Act claim other than supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise that discretionary jurisdiction and instead dismisses the Unruh Act claim without prejudice.

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.

Nurse Anonymous v. Good Samaritan Hospital of Suffern NY · filed 2021-09-28(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion as to the federal claims, the Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under the NYSHRL and New York Labor Law and for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud or other intentional tort, and dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

Miller v. Nye County · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed both § 1983 claims on which federal jurisdiction is based here, I decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Miller’s remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice to Miller’s ability to refile them in state court.

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

Sapir v. Rosen · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

As the Court is dismissing the only one of Plaintiffs’ eleven claims that arises under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses them, albeit without prejudice.

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

Cooper-Keel v. Allegan County · filed 2021-10-05(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), that this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims, which are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Williams v. Dallas Police Officer · filed 2021-10-05(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims raised by Plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Such claims, if any, are dismissed without prejudice for lack of 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.

Scott v. Yoo · filed 2021-10-07(c)(3)

Therefore, in the absence of any viable federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court exercises its discretion and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims against Dr. Yoo and TCMC without prejudice 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.

Morales v. Nassau County Corrections · filed 2021-10-13(c)(3)

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