28 U.S.C. § 1367

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.

Grise v. Stewart County School System · filed 2021-10-19(c)(3)

Because the Court has determined that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted as to Plaintiff’s only federal claim (the § 1983 claim), the Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims; seeing no reason not to exercise such discretion consistent with federal courts’ usual practice, the Court will dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Morrow v. Fleegle · filed 2021-11-12(c)(3)

Under these circumstances, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims and that it DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE any such claims.

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

Dudgeon v. Sonoma · filed 2021-11-18(c)(3)

As to the remaining state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and therefore dismisses Claims Four through Seven without prejudice to refiling them in state court.

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.

Pace v. Marion · filed 2021-11-22(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the district court has discretion to either retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claim or dismiss it. ... The Court will follow the general rule here. Count 2 shall be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff re-pleading this claim in this or another action in federal or state court.

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.

Arnold v. Marion · filed 2021-11-22(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the district court has discretion to either retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claim or dismiss it. ... The Court will follow the general rule here. Count 2 shall be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff re-pleading this claim in this or another action in federal or state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of the resources expended in the case.

Nocella v. Gardner · filed 2021-11-29(c)(3)

Although the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over this claim while it considered the federal causes of action, the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This case was removed less than four months ago, so neither the parties nor the court have expended many resources yet. Consequently, the court declines to further exercise supplemental jurisdiction and DISMISSES this claim without prejudice so that Dr. Nocella can refile his complaint in state court.

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

MCCRACKEN v. COUNTY OF UNION NEW JERSEY · filed 2021-12-08(c)

As this Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction as time barred, and as Plaintiff has failed to plead complete diversity which would otherwise provide jurisdiction for his claims, this Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's pendent state law claims, and his complaint shall be dismissed in its entirety 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.

May v. University Health Systems of Eastern North Carolina, Inc. · filed 2021-12-09(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses without prejudice May’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.

Rowe v. FSB · filed 2021-12-22(c)(3)

Having determined that plaintiff’s federal claims in this action do not survive defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court concludes that retaining jurisdiction over any state law claims is unwarranted. See § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the Court dismisses plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.

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.

Voglino v. Shapiro · filed 2021-12-23(c)(3)

But a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3). ... Thus, this court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case and will dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Smith v. City of Wellsville, Kansas · filed 2021-12-28(c)(3)

“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if [. . .] the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of her 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, particularly when the federal claims are dismissed early.

Singh v. American Racing-Tioga Downs Inc. · filed 2021-12-28(c)

Subsection (c) of that section provides that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim . . . [if] the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court elects to do so here. The Court dismisses the state law claims 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 federal claims.

Stockton v. Milwaukee County · filed 2021-12-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it has dismissed all federal law claims. In such circumstances, “the presumption is that the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over any supplemental state-law claims.” Al’s Serv. Ctr. V. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 720, 727 (7th Cir. 2010). I see no reason to disregard the presumption and will, therefore, dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after the federal claims are dismissed, including when the parties have spent substantial resources preparing for trial.

Tuck v. Shroyer · filed 2024-07-24(c)

Rather than dismiss the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), after the parties had expended substantial resources in preparing for trial, the court elected to retain jurisdiction over Tuck’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims.

Warner v. Henschen · filed 2024-12-20(c)(3)

Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 9) is ADOPTED; (2) Plaintiff’s1 federal claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and (3) Plaintiff’s state-law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may retain supplemental jurisdiction to dispose of clearly meritless state-law claims and decline jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Steed, Robert v. Hoffmann, Karl · filed 2021-01-06(c)(3)

Although I am dismissing Steed’s federal claims, I will retain jurisdiction to decide the portions of Steed’s state-law claims that are clearly meritless because it would be inefficient to leave those claims open for a later state court action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, taking the age of the case into account.

Leak v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2021-01-29(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the Leaks’ claim under RESPA, which is the only federal claim in this case, the Court must determine whether to maintain jurisdiction over the Leaks’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Given the age of the case, the Court exercises its discretion to maintain jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when a plaintiff removes the federal claim from a properly removed case.

Creando Little Language Explorers, LLC v. Monroe Street Arts Center, Inc. · filed 2021-03-29

However, when a plaintiff in a case that has been properly removed amends its complaint so that the operative complaint no longer includes a federal claim, the district court has discretion whether to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under its statutory authority of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when substantial judicial resources have been committed and the remaining claims can be resolved clearly.

Khorloo v. John C. Heath Attorney at Law · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

Nonetheless, it is appropriate for the Court to retain pendent jurisdiction where “the statute of limitations has run,” “substantial judicial resources have already been committed,” or “it is absolutely clear how the pendent claims can be decided.” Id. Here, substantial resources have been expended and the proper resolution of the remaining claims is absolutely clear. Thus, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to retain a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims when substantial judicial resources have been committed and the state claim can clearly be decided.

Fountain v. Zimmer Inc. · filed 2021-05-25(c)(3)

The Court finds the latter two exceptions are applicable in this case. Here, the parties have fully briefed Mr. Fountain’s state law claims, and this Court is intimately familiar with the details of the case, which commenced in April 2017. Requiring the state court to address these claims would cause a substantial duplication of effort. Additionally, as Zimmer Biomet notes in its motion, remanding the claim would have a boomerang effect, because at the time Mr. Fountain filed his lawsuit, the Court had diversity jurisdiction over the state law claim independent of any federal question. Lastly, the Court finds it is clear how the pendent claim can be decided. For these reasons, the Court elects to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Fountain’s state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the circumstances favor resolving them, including when the state claims clearly lack merit.

Del Rio, Cesar Jesus Gonzalo v. Marshall Police Department · filed 2021-06-03(c)(3)

Nevertheless, the court may depart from its “usual practice” and continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to dispose of other state law claims if the circumstances weigh in favor of doing so.

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

TITTERTON v. JENKINTOWN BOROUGH · filed 2021-07-07(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims, we could decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims but will assert jurisdiction to address the plausibility of the pleading before us.

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

GOK v. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH · filed 2021-07-20(c)

But § 1367(c) gives discretion — the Court “may decline” supplemental jurisdiction and, by the statute’s plain language, may instead retain jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim when judicial efficiency favors retention.

Rockman v. USI Insurance Services LLC · filed 2021-08-16(c)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s sole federal law claim, the Court need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Nevertheless, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction because doing so promotes judicial efficiency, given the current posture of the case.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain a state-law claim after resolving the federal claims when judicial efficiency favors doing so.

Kelly v. Town of Abingdon, Virginia · filed 2021-09-07(c)(3)

Because I have granted summary judgment as to Kelly’s ADA claims, which provide the basis for federal question jurisdiction, I could decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law breach of contract claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In the interest of judicial efficiency, however, I will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Count V.

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

Battle v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2021-09-14(c)(3)

Section 1367 affords a federal court the discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims even where the court has disposed of all claims with original federal jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims against one defendant after dismissing the federal claim against that defendant when federal claims against another defendant remain.

Ndiaye v. United States of America · filed 2021-09-28(c)(3)

After reviewing the record in this matter, the Court will not exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State law claims against Defendant CoreCivic. In this matter, federal claims remain against the United States, and Plaintiff’s claims against both Defendants involve the same set of facts and circumstances such that there is one case or controversy between the parties.

Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily calls for relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims are dismissed, but a court may retain it when the state-law claims are plainly untimely.

Cox v. City of Chicago · filed 2021-10-04(c)(3)

Ordinarily, when the only claim under federal law is dismissed, the court should relinquish jurisdiction over supplemental state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); RWJ Mgmt. Co. v. BP Prod. N. Am., Inc., 672 F.3d 476, 479 (7th Cir. 2012). But here, the untimeliness of plaintiffs’ state law claims is readily apparent, defendants asserted the untimeliness in their motion, and plaintiffs failed to respond.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court discretion to retain or decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Hernandez v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2021-10-08(c)(3)

The issue of whether to retain jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing federal claims is within the Court's discretion.

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

Toddella Brown v. Homestreet Bank · filed 2021-11-12(c)(3)

The district court retained subject matter jurisdiction after it dismissed Brown’s federal claims. It did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental ... jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when their resolution is straightforward and the circumstances favor deciding them.

Franklin v. Askew · filed 2022-11-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Martinez’s claims to the extent that they arise from federal law, the Court has the discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). That said, however, the Court finds it appropriate to adjudicate those claims as well. Given that the events at issue in this case occurred some six years ago, that the plaintiff has requested this Court to retain jurisdiction and to adjudicate this motion as to the state law claims, and because resolution of those claims is straightforward and does not raise any novel or complex issue of state law, the Court will address the state law claims on the merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain related state claims after dismissing federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retaining them.

TALLEY v. SAVAGE · filed 2022-12-08(c)(3)

The Court has jurisdiction over Talley’s federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his related state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) as a matter of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

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

Rector v. Clifford · filed 2023-02-06(c)

If the district court dismisses every claim over which it had original jurisdiction, the court maintains its broad discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when the record is fully developed and the state law is settled.

Willman v. Farmington Area Public School District · filed 2023-02-09(c)(3)

In this case, the Court exercises its discretion to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation claim because the record has been fully developed and the principles of state law are not in dispute.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain a related state-law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy and convenience favor retaining it.

McAnally v. Alabama Plumbing Contractor LLC · filed 2023-02-17(c)(3)

The court employs its discretion to exercise jurisdiction over this claim due to the length of time this case has been pending in this court and the court’s familiarity with the facts and claims in this case. It simply would not serve judicial economy or convenience to require another court to familiarize itself with the facts of this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing a federal claim when it allows the plaintiff to seek leave to amend that claim.

Jordan Properties, Ltd. v. City of Cleveland, Mississippi · filed 2023-03-16(c)(3)

Based on its conclusion that Jordan Properties failed to state a federal claim against the City, the Court ordinarily would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.8 But since Jordan Properties will be allowed to seek leave to amend its federal claim, the Court will proceed to address the state law claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may retain a remaining state-law claim under § 1367(c)(3) when the statutory factors and judicial economy favor doing so.

McCraney v. Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company · filed 2023-03-15(c)(3)

Here, no party contends that the Court should exercise its discretion to remand the state-law claim against Progressive, and although the Court has dismissed the federal claim in this matter, the state-law claim against Progressive does not raise novel or complex issues of state law, nor has any party identified “compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” Enochs, 641 F.3d at 158. Further, the Court finds that exercising supplemental jurisdiction in this case by resolving plaintiff’s claim against Progressive would best serve judicial economy. The Court will thus proceed to the merits of plaintiff’s claim against Progressive.

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

Maroney v. Fiorentini · filed 2023-05-18(c)(3)

The balance of factors therefore weighs in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the three state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the federal claim is dismissed when convenience, fairness, and judicial economy favor doing so.

COWAN v. SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, INC. · filed 2023-06-05(c)(3)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff and finds that the factors of convenience and fairness to the parties, along with the interests of judicial economy, all weigh in favor of the Court retaining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

NARDELLI v. LAMPARSKI · filed 2023-06-08(c)(3)

Thus, weighing consideration of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties, the Court finds the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is appropriate and justified.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the relevant factors favor doing so.

WHITE v. CLARK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE · filed 2023-09-15(c)

The Court finds that the balance of factors weighs in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction when convenience, fairness, judicial economy, federal policy, and comity favor retention.

Altes v. The Pride Center of Maryland, Inc. · filed 2023-09-20(c)

Having considered these factors, the Court determines that: (1) convenience, fairness to the parties, and judicial economy will be best served by adjudicating all of Plaintiff's wage claims in a single action; and (2) issues of federal’ policy and comity are not implicated in this case. Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs MWPCL claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims when economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Johnson v. Washoe County School District · filed 2024-01-18(c)(3)

At this point, the Court has devoted considerable time and judicial resources to this action and is thoroughly familiar with the alleged history of the parties. It would best serve the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, or comity to retain supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering factors such as efficiency and whether the state law issues are novel.

Solange v. M&T Bank · filed 2024-01-29(c)(3)

However, the Court has wide discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. ... In making this determination, courts may consider factors such as efficiency, whether the federal claim was made in good faith, and whether there are significant or novel state law issues. ... Because this Court is now familiar with the facts of this case and there are no novel state law issues, the Court will exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the case’s progress and the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor deciding them.

Cunningham v. Lupis · filed 2024-02-26(c)(3)

This is such a case. Plaintiff’s case has been pending for three years, discovery is completed, and motions for summary judgment are now before the Court. Were the Court to allow Plaintiff’s state law claims to proceed, the case would soon be ready for trial. It would not serve judicial economy or convenience to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice to refiling them in state court, particularly when multiple years have passed and there is a risk that the claims could be time-barred. Further, the claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress do not present novel issues of state law. The comity between state and federal courts is therefore not meaningfully advanced by abstaining from this issue. Rather, it is fair to avoid saddling Plaintiff with the unnecessary burden of relitigating the case in state court (and while incarcerated), and provide Defendants the opportunity to dispose of this long-standing action now.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy and the parties’ convenience favor retention.

Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York · filed 2024-04-10(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a federal court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [supplemental state-law claim] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... In this case, the balance of the factors weighs in favor of the Court retaining jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim brought by Plaintiff against the Toasties Defendants.

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

Connaughton v. Mount Vernon City School District · filed 2024-04-18(c)(3)

Here, though the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, it finds that the “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350, 108 S.Ct. 614, support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when retention serves judicial economy.

Adan v. City of Portland · filed 2024-05-08(c)(3)

Rather, where a district court dismisses “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it may, in its discretion, “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over pendent state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). ... Therefore, the Court retains jurisdiction of plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims in order to resolve this lawsuit in its entirety.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favors retention.

Maclin v. City of St. Louis · filed 2024-05-10(c)(3)

Generally, when all federal claims are dismissed on a motion for summary judgment, “the balance of factors to be considered under the supplemental jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” ... However, Defendants have persuasively argued that the balance of factors weighs in favor retaining jurisdiction here. ... It will therefore decline to dismiss Maclin’s false imprisonment claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering the case’s progress and whether the state claims raise novel issues.

Penneys Construction Company LLC v. Ducci Electrical Contractors, Inc. · filed 2024-07-18(c)(3)

Here, the case has been pending for more than two years; no party has suggested that the state claims involve novel issues of state law; discovery is complete; and dispositive motions have been filed. Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, despite dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims.

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

Zak v. Five Tier, Inc. · filed 2024-08-06(c)(3)

Nevertheless, this Court opts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NYLL claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 despite dismissing Plaintiff's FLSA claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole claim within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and avoiding multiple suits favor retention.

Edison v. Northville, Township of · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

In the instant case, I find that the interest of judicial economy, convenience, and avoiding multiplicity of litigation outweigh any concern over needlessly deciding state law issues and weight in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. The Court will, therefore, continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and decide them here.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses a federal claim with leave to amend at the pleading stage.

Evans v. Civitas Education Partners, LLC · filed 2024-10-09(c)(3)

The § 1981 claim has not been resolved on the merits, however; leave to amend is being granted. Because this case remains at the pleading stage, it is appropriate to address the sufficiency of the complaint with respect to those claims as well. To do otherwise would result in a piecemeal approach to assessing whether the complaint presents colorable claims that would cause needless delays and duplicative motion practice. Accordingly, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and will assess whether those claims are plausible.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, including to avoid requiring the parties to relitigate in state court.

Hudacko v. Lee · filed 2024-11-25(c)

If the Court dismisses the remaining federal claim, the Court may dismiss the state claims (but it is not required to do so). See id. Here, the Court will consider the state law claims on their merits, to avoid forcing the parties to relitigate these issues in state court.

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

HERITAGE FENCE COMPANY v. MALIN · filed 2024-12-09(c)(3)

While we dismiss the federal question claim, we exercise our discretion to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) for now.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy favors resolving them.

Sobolewski v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2024-12-26(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim [if it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Because Ms. Sobolewski’s request for judicial review of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission is clearly untimely, the Court exercises its discretion to resolve this claim in the interest of judicial economy.

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

Baldwin v. Kalispell School District 5 · filed 2025-01-07(c)(3)

Here, the advanced stage of the case and “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” weigh in favor of the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim when its resolution is straightforward and leaves little room for doubt.

Shank v. Martinez · filed 2025-01-16(c)(3)

Now that all federal claims have been dismissed, I recognize that I have the authority to relinquish jurisdiction over this remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3). ... Because the issue presented on the state law claim is straight-forward and there is little room for doubt, I will exercise my discretion and proceed to resolve the state law claim.

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

Curtis v. Lauderdale County, Tennessee · filed 2025-01-27(c)

Judicial economy, convenience, and fairness all favor exercising jurisdiction here.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when it has invested extensive judicial resources.

Rushing v. Yeargain · filed 2025-02-07(c)(3)

The Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court declines to remand to state court after investing such extensive judicial resources.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain a state claim after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors deciding it under the same standards.

Hansen v. City of New York · filed 2025-02-24(c)(3)

Despite the general presumption, the Court concludes that judicial economy calls for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Hansen’s NYML discrimination claim because the standards for evaluating it are the same as the standards for evaluating his USERRA discrimination claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when it is clear how the remaining state-law claims should be decided.

GRIFFIN v. CARTER · filed 2025-02-25(c)(3)

Here, it is absolutely clear how Mr. Griffin's negligence claims should be decided so the Court, in its discretion, exercises supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Thomas v. Hines · filed 2025-03-24(c)(3)

As a preliminary matter, the Court in its discretion exercises ... supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, notwithstanding the dismissal of all the federal claims on which this Court’s jurisdiction was originally premised,55 because doing so promotes judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties, and because Thomas’s state and federal claims would be expected to be tried together.

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

Mejia v. Ke Lai Xiang Number One Restaurant Inc. · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

The defendants cite subsection 1367(c)(3), which permits — but does not require — the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where, as here, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” The Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s NYLL claims because declining to do so “would not promote the values articulated in [United Mine Workers of America v.] Gibbs[, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)]: economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Catzin, 899 F.3d at 85 (quoting Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 358 F.3d 205, 214 (2d Cir. 2004)).

After dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when judicial economy and fairness favor doing so.

DOTAN v. CITY OF ALTOONA · filed 2025-04-10(c)(3)

In the interests of judicial economy and fairness, the Court will retain jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify retaining the remaining claims.

SHOUKAT v. GOODLEAP, LLC · filed 2025-04-23(c)(3)

Here, the Court finds that these considerations weigh in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction, as doing so allows the Court to adjudicate this dispute here and now rather than forcing Plaintiff to start the lawsuit anew in a backlogged New Jersey state court to pursue his claim against a defendant that has already defaulted, as Plaintiff indicated he would.

After the claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain related state claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify doing so.

Marfia v. Gettysburg Area School District · filed 2025-06-16(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction since it has “dismissed all claims over which is has original jurisdiction.” ... The court agrees that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, as detailed by Plaintiff, weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction over the state law claims against Marfia.

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

Coote v. Doe(s) 1 and 2 · filed 2025-06-17(c)(3)

In this case, the Court finds that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties, warrants the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Coote’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim when the circumstances favor resolving those claims.

Harvey v. Hubble · filed 2025-07-21(c)

The Court concludes that exercising jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissing them with prejudice is proper.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims when the state law claims clearly lack merit.

H-Cannon: Bey v. City of Chicago · filed 2025-08-11(c)(3)

Though Cannon-Bey’s federal claims are dismissed, the Court exercises jurisdiction over the state law claims and resolves them because they clearly lack merit.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims when the claim's disposition is clear and substantial judicial resources have already been committed.

HOLMES v. IMPD · filed 2025-09-29(c)

Here, the case has been pending for a lengthy time, discovery is closed, dispositive motions have been adjudicated, and it is clear how the pendent claim should be decided. Accordingly, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain a state-law claim after all federal claims have been dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Lontoc v. School Board of Palm Beach County · filed 2025-10-27(c)

Here, the district court’s decision to proceed with Lontoc’s FCRA claim fell within the proper bounds of its discretion.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial when substantial judicial resources have been committed or the claims’ disposition is absolutely clear.

Anderson · filed 2025-11-03(c)(3)

Generally, when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the presumption is that the court will relinquish jurisdiction over any supplemental state-law claims. RWJ Mgmt. Co. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 672 F.3d 476, 479–80 (7th Cir. 2012). That presumption may be overcome when substantial judicial resources already have been committed to the claim or when the disposition of the claim is “absolutely clear.” See id. at 480. Both circumstances apply here, so the Court will not relinquish jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim after dismissal of the federal claims.

Foust · filed 2025-11-12(c)(3)

This Court properly exercised federal question jurisdiction over the amended complaint in the 2024 Case. It may therefore properly continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Strauss’ counterclaim.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to retain a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

CRFM · filed 2025-12-12(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and has discretion to dismiss state claims where, as here, it has dismissed all claims over which it has federal question jurisdiction.! ... For these reasons, I determine that based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of the remaining federal claim, taking account of the litigation’s length and potential prejudice from declining jurisdiction.

Brainard · filed 2026-01-16(c)(3)

However, given the length of the litigation in this case and the potential prejudice to the Brainards if it were to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, the Court will exercise its discretion to retain the remaining state claims on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Hurley · filed 2026-03-30(c)(3)

Because “the same analysis applies to the Plaintiff’[s] corresponding state constitutional claims and in the interests of judicial economy, fairness, and convenience,” this Court will address the pendant state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after the federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify doing so.

Gibson · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

Here, the Court finds that consideration of “judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties . . . provide[s] an affirmative justification” for retaining jurisdiction over Gibson’s claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Specifically, the Court concludes that the age of this case, as well as the overlapping nature of Gibson’s Eighth Amendment claims with his claims under Article I, Section 13, provide sufficient justification for retaining jurisdiction over his claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the sole federal claim is dismissed when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Marruso · filed 2025-10-31(c)(3)

Even though the Court finds the sole federal claim insufficiently pleaded, the Court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and retains supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims because “factors of judicial ... economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties strongly point toward retaining jurisdiction and no novel or complicated issue of state law is involved.”

Section 1367 allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when no federal claim survives initial review.

Futrell v. Cooper · filed 2021-04-02(c)(3)

Even if the Plaintiff had stated a facially sufficient claim under North Carolina law, the Plaintiff has not asserted a federal claim that has passed initial review. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claim at this time. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a), (c)(1)-(4).

After dismissing all federal claims at the pleading stage, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state and local law claims when the relevant factors favor doing so.

Pease v. New York City Police Department · filed 2021-06-28(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses these claims at the pleading stage, the Court concludes that the relevant factors counsel in favor of declining jurisdiction over the remaining NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Hunter v. DPS · filed 2021-12-03(c)(3)

To the extent that the Plaintiff is asking the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a North Carolina negligence claim, the Court declines to do so because no federal claim has passed initial review.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves a court discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim for failure to state a claim.

Barden v. Goodsell · filed 2021-12-15(c)(3)

Even if the Court dismisses Barden’s RICO claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), it still has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Barden’s state law claims.

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

Chaturvedi v. Siddharth · filed 2021-02-19(c)(3)

Accordingly, because the only federal claims in the third amended complaint—counts 7 and 8—will be dismissed, and because this case is in the very early stages, the Court will decline to exercise its 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 all federal claims have been dismissed, especially early in the litigation.

THOMAS v. BULLOCK, JR. · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

Because this case is at the early stages of litigation and all federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the case is still at an early stage.

PLOURDE v. REDINGTON-FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL · filed 2021-06-25(c)(3)

Mr. Plourde may file his claims in state court, but this Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his three state claims when no federal claim exists.

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

Carr v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government · filed 2021-07-22(c)(3)

Considering that Carr’s federal law claims have been dismissed at this early stage of the litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction at an early stage.

HOOD v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC · filed 2021-08-16(c)(3)

In this case, as the Court is dismissing every claim over which it may have had original subject matter jurisdiction at an early stage in the litigation, the Court declines 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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially when the case is at an early stage and discovery has not begun.

CHVALA v. HARMONY FIRE DISTRICT · filed 2021-08-18(c)(3)

This case is in the earliest stages and no discovery has been initiated. Given this, and because and no federal claims remain, the Court will exercise its discretion and will decline supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims alleged in the Complaint. See id. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the case is at an early stage and discovery has not begun.

Gates v. City of New York · filed 2021-08-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gates’s remaining state and city law claims. ... This case is at an early stage, and discovery has not even begun. The Court therefore dismisses Gates’s state and city law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); TRB Acquisitions LLC v. Yedid, No. 20 Civ. 552 (JMF), 2021 WL 293122, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2021).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the litigation is still at an early stage.

Carr v. Town of Mashpee by its Board of Selectmen · filed 2021-12-07(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The Court will therefore decline to adjudicate plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with the early stage of the case supporting that choice.

Touray v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation · filed 2021-12-21(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in a case if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” § 1367(c)(3). Given that dismissal of the only federal claim in this lawsuit is warranted and given that this case is still in the nascent stages (e.g., the discovery deadline is still months away), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Thompkins 575337 v. Horrocks · filed 2021-01-29(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

REPUBLIC GROUP, LLC v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA · filed 2021-02-01(c)(3)

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1367 permits federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims, “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); see also Stehney v. Perry, 907 F. Supp. 806, 825 (D.N.J. 1995) (“[A] federal district court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are dismissed.”); Washington v. Specialty Risk Servs., Civ. No. 12- 1393, 2012 WL 3528051, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2012) (noting that “where the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims”) (alterations in original) (citing Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000)) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ NJLAD and breach of contract claims.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a court ordinarily relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Lemon v. Aurora Health Care North Inc · filed 2021-02-23(c)(3)

Without the federal claims, all that remain are Lemon’s state law claims. I will follow the general rule by relinquishing jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims before trial; retention may be warranted if the state claim is time-barred, substantial judicial work would be duplicated, or the state claim’s resolution is clear.

Snowden v. Henning · filed 2021-03-03(c)(3)

None of these exceptions warrants retention of jurisdiction over the supplemental claim, as the battery claim is not time-barred under the applicable two-year statute of limitations, the case remains in its infancy, and it is not clear how the claim should be decided. Accordingly, the Court shall relinquish jurisdiction over the battery claim in Count 4, and this claim shall be dismissed without prejudice.

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

BLAIS v. WILLISTON CROSSING EAST LLC · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

That leaves Blais to rely on supplemental jurisdiction. But I again decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, so the state law claims will be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial, and the usual course is to do so.

The James Streibich Revocable Trust of 2002 v. Flagstad · filed 2021-04-20(c)(3)

The presumption is that when “the federal claims drop out before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over the state-law claims.” Williams Electronics Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 2007); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). There is no federal interest in the remaining state-law dispute, so the remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal claim has been dismissed before trial.

Monts v. Adeka · filed 2021-04-27(c)(3)

Because Defendant’s assault and battery claim concerns interpretations of Pennsylvania law, and Plaintiff’s federal claim has been dismissed before trial, the prudent course is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily favors dismissing supplemental claims when all federal claims end before trial, but permits retaining them after weighing the circumstances.

Oquendo v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2021-04-29(c)(3)

A court that dismisses federal claims before trial normally should dismiss the supplemental claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). But "[i]n an appropriate situation," the court can "retain jurisdiction" over the supplemental claims despite "the early demise of all foundational federal claims." Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1177 (1st Cir. 1995) (emphasizing that "the exercise of - 10 - Final Words For the reasons recorded above, we uphold the district court's rulings and judgment. Affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. supplemental jurisdiction in such circumstances is wholly discretionary" and that "the district court, in reaching its discretionary determination on the jurisdictional question, will have to assess the totality of the attendant circumstances"); see also Redondo Const. Corp. v. Izquierdo, 662 F.3d 42, 49 (1st Cir. 2011) (stressing that "[n]o categorical rule governs the analysis; a court must weigh concerns of comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness"). And she does not persuasively explain how the court erred here.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims; absent exceptional circumstances, it should generally do so before trial.

Serenity Alpha, LLC v. Northway Mining, LLC · filed 2021-05-13(c)(3)

“Where, as here, a plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed before trial, a district court should generally decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims absent exceptional circumstances.” ... There are no exceptional circumstances presented in this case.

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

King v. City of Antioch · filed 2021-06-07(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims prior to trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed before trial, especially at an early stage of the case.

Douek v. Citibank, N.A. · filed 2021-08-12(c)(3)

Second, to the extent that Douek’s Complaint can be read to also allege claims under state law (such as defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Although the Court may have discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, it is well established that, “[i]n general, where the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998). Here, there is no basis to depart from that general rule given, among other things, the relatively early stage of the case.

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

ROLE v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS · filed 2021-08-18(c)(3)

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1367 permits federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims, “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” ... This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims brought against Defendant Partyka (Count Four).

Section 1367 generally calls for relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Forman, Todd v. City of Middleton · filed 2021-10-29(c)(3)

The only basis for the court’s jurisdiction over the counterclaim is supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The general rule is that a district court should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial. Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 404 (7th Cir. 2007). The court will dismiss the city’s state-law claim without prejudice to the city’s refiling it in state court.

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.

Hardaway v. Haynes · filed 2022-04-21(c)(3)

That the Court may hear a state-law claim does not mean that the Court should, especially when the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over Mr. Hardaway’s claim against Mr. Haynes and dismisses that claim without prejudice.

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

McRae v. Myers · filed 2022-04-21(c)(3)

It would be an exercise of this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction to maintain these claims because all claims that rely on federal law have been dismissed. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Here, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Marsalisi v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America · filed 2022-04-21(c)(3)

Marsalisi’s Section 215 claim is based on the same facts as his Section 101(a)(2) claim, and since all the federal claims at issue here are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over a purely state law claim between New York parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3); Valencia rel Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 304-06 (2d Cir. 2003).

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

PRICE v. PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2022-04-22(c)(3)

A federal court may relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court 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 state law claims when no cognizable federal claims remain.

Koresko v. Cook · filed 2022-04-25(c)(3)

In the absence of any cognizable federal claims, the Court declines to address any purported state law claims.

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

Kelly v. Kelly · filed 2022-04-25(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the claims over which it has original jurisdiction at this time, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mazzorana’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.

Rucker v. Swanson · filed 2022-04-25(c)(3)

Because Rucker fails to state a viable deliberate indifference claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rucker’s alleged a negligence claim.

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

EDWARDS v. HILLMAN · filed 2022-04-25(c)(3)

But as discussed, Plaintiff fails to state any federal question claims. Consequently, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law tort claims.

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

Edwards v. Mangion · filed 2022-04-25(c)(3)

Nevertheless, to the extent the amended complaint can be construed as asserting state-law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them 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.

Beasley v. Tuscaloosa County School System · filed 2022-04-26(c)(3)

When a court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the court has dismissed the only federal claims in this action, the court WILL DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and WILL DISMISS Counts Two and Three WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Gomez v. Skip Keyser Realty, Inc. · filed 2022-04-26(c)(3)

The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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.

Saxton v. County of Sonoma · filed 2022-04-26(c)(3)

Here, all federal-law claims are dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiffs are ultimately unable to state a federal cause of action, the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Gomez v. Corro · filed 2022-04-26(c)(3)

DISMISSES that cause of action without leave to amend. The Court declines supplemental ... jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

EDWARDS v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-04-26(c)(3)

But as discussed, Plaintiff fails to state any federal question claims. Consequently, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law tort claims.

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

Steinbergin v. City of New York · filed 2022-04-27(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Steinbergin’s parallel state claims because each of his federal claims was properly dismissed. “[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” a pendent claim arising under state law when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

NARIO v. NATIONAL ONDEMAND, INC. · filed 2022-04-27(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim (Count II) is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

DeBauche, David v. Mashak · filed 2022-04-28(c)(3)

Since the court is dismissing all of DeBauche’s federal claims in this lawsuit, it will also relinquish jurisdiction over plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims, which will be dismissed without prejudice as well.

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

Kern v. St. Charles County, Missouri · filed 2022-04-28(c)(3)

Here, after consideration of the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, which involve numerous questions of ... state law that would be better determined by the Missouri state courts.

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

FUZY v. WESTFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2022-04-29(c)

Here, the Court dismisses all of the claims over which it has original federal question jurisdiction without prejudice, and declines to exercise supplemental 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.

Kellier v. Ross · filed 2022-04-29(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 within its original jurisdiction.

BRYANT v. ALLIANCE PROPERTY SOLUTIONS · filed 2022-04-29(c)(3)

Since Plaintiffs’ federal claim does not survive dismissal, original jurisdiction is eliminated. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims including their UTPCPL claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to retain a related state-law claim in its discretion, including to promote finality.

Hauman v. City of Youngstown · filed 2022-05-02(c)(3)

After reviewing the record in this matter, and in the interests of promoting finality in the resolving the disputes between the parties, the Court will not exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State-law claim against Mr. McCallum.

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

Martinez v. Nurse Laura · filed 2022-05-03(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. ... This Court is dismissing all federal claims in this case. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Martinez’s remaining state-law claims, if any, and will also dismiss those claims.

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

Adams v. Landry · filed 2022-05-04(c)(3)

As the Court dismisses the claims in which it has original jurisdiction, we may decline to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Hart v. Facebook, Inc. · filed 2022-05-05(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Bascom v. Centoia · filed 2022-05-05(c)(3)

Had the Plaintiff has attempted to assert claims under North Carolina law, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because no federal claim has passed ... initial review.

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

Hall v. Staubus · filed 2022-05-05(c)(3)

Having determined that Mr. Hall’s § 1983 claim—his lone federal claim—requires dismissal, the Court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims under the Tennessee Constitution, Tennessee statutes, and Tennessee common law.

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

Clay v. Greendale School District · filed 2022-05-06(c)(3)

The Court will not extend supplemental jurisdiction over Clay’s tortious interference claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ford v. Kern High School District · filed 2022-05-06

Even if Plaintiff could not meet the defamation-plus standard but was able to demonstrate defamation under California law, the Court would also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such state claim because Plaintiff failed to state a separate cognizable federal claim, as explained 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.

Eakes v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2022-05-06(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs 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.

Polus v. Sharp Healthcare · filed 2022-05-09(c)(3)

Additionally, to the extent the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim against Sharp pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), exercise of such jurisdiction is declined.

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

D&T Partners LLC v. Baymark Partners LP · filed 2022-05-09(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) applies because the Court dismisses the RICO claims, leaving only 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, but leaves it discretion to decide those claims on the merits.

McDonald v. Molina · filed 2022-05-10(c)

The Court observes that, having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, it had the discretion to sua sponte decline to entertain Plaintiff’s state law claims. ... The Court does not see any compelling reason to abstain from deciding these remaining state law claims on the merits.

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

Tyson v. New Haven · filed 2022-05-10(c)(3)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over the state law claims, because “when all federal claims are eliminated in the early stages of litigation, the balance of factors generally favors declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismissing them without prejudice.” Tops Markets, Inc. v. Quality Markets, Inc., 142 F.3d 90, 103 (2d Cir. 1998).

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

Fields v. Kansas Department of Corrections · filed 2022-05-10(c)(3)

Because the court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Any claims remaining in Plaintiff’s Complaint arise under state law. Although the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, the court declines to do so.

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

SINGH v. FREEHOLD POLICE DEPT. · filed 2022-05-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Having dismissed the federal claims at the earliest stage, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over any possible state law claims at this time.

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

Dixon v. Alabama Board of Pardon and Paroles (INMATE 2) · filed 2022-05-11(c)(3)

Because of the resolution of the federal claim presented by Dixon, the undersigned concludes that any pendent state law claim regarding the challenged parole revocation proceeding is due to be dismissed without prejudice.

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.

GREENWALD ASSOCIATES LLC v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NEWARK d/b/a NEWARK HOUSING AUTHORITY · filed 2022-05-12(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Thus, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

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

Wallace v. Crab House, Inc. · filed 2022-05-12(c)(3)

Because the federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims under state and local law.

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

Thompson v. City of Chico · filed 2022-05-13(c)(3)

Indeed, the statute makes it clear that supplemental jurisdiction may properly be declined under certain conditions, including where all claims conferring original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This Court can discern no good reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at this juncture over the remaining ten state law causes of action and, in exercising its discretion, declines to do so.

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

Wells Sweeping, LLC v. Capital One, National Association · filed 2022-05-13(c)(3)

Indeed, the statute makes it clear that supplemental jurisdiction may properly be declined under certain conditions, including where all claims conferring original jurisdiction 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.

YAKE v. MECHOLSKY · filed 2022-05-13(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are resolved before trial when the circumstances favor retention, including when the state-law claims clearly lack merit.

Soderlin, Matthew v. Doehling, Lori · filed 2022-05-16(c)(3)

However, a court may depart from “usual practice,” and continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, if the circumstances weigh in favor of such action. For example, a court need not send back to state court “‘doomed litigation’ that will only be dismissed once it gets there.” ... Accordingly, defendants Bellin and Gimenez are also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s negligence claim, and this case will be dismissed in its entirety.

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

Gomez v. Lesti Real Estate, Inc. · filed 2022-05-16(c)(3)

The Court declines ... supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act 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.

Miles v. New York-Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2022-05-16(c)(3)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims.