28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2022-05-16(c)(3)

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

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

Tyson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2022-05-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of 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.

Burchfield v. Alibaba Group · filed 2022-05-17(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

C.F., a minor v. Gardner Consolidated School District 72C · filed 2022-05-17(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, and thus declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim.

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

Johnson, Maurice v. Warner, C. · filed 2022-05-18(c)

Moreover, the court will relinquish jurisdiction over plaintiff’s parallel supplemental state law claims against these defendants, and dismiss defendants Buechner, Warner and Ender from this lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Burritt v. Ditfelson, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015) (absent good grounds, district courts should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once federal claims are dismissed).

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

Burns v. Humboldt Recovery Center, Inc. · filed 2022-05-18(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s potential state law claim because 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 a state law claim after dismissing the claim within its original jurisdiction, especially when its decision on the federal claim resolves no dispositive issue in the state law claim.

Weiss v. Logan County Cemeteries District · filed 2022-05-18(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court, pursuant to § 1367 and the Seventh Circuit’s general rule to avoid intrusion into matters of state law, declines to continue the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

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

L.O.I. Property, LLC v. Butler County, Ohio · filed 2022-05-18(c)(3)

The Court is dismissing the due process and equal protection claims with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, including when the case is still at the motion to dismiss stage and the court has not considered the state law claims on their merits.

Sassamansville Fire Company No. 1 v. Livelsberger · filed 2022-05-18(c)(3)

In the present matter, as this case has not progressed past the motion to dismiss stage, and accordingly, the Court has not yet fully considered the merits of the newly added state law claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.

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

(PS) Lewis v. State of CA · filed 2022-05-19(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court lacks original jurisdiction over the state law claims, and there is no basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Greenspan v. Qazi · filed 2022-05-19(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001).

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.

Marin v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca College Board of Trustees · filed 2022-05-19(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. ... The Court exercises that discretion here and dismisses Marin’s third and sixth causes of action to the extent they seek to assert violations of state law.

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

Hendrix v. Peed · filed 2022-05-19(c)(3)

Any attempt to amend Plaintiff's state-law tort claims would be futile because, in the absence of a viable federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Wolfe v. Ohio Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2022-05-19(c)(3)

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

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

Coaltrain v. American Castings, LLC · filed 2022-05-19(c)(3)

While the amendment does not deprive this court of jurisdiction, this court has discretion when deciding whether to retain jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed.

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

OZTURK v. AMSHER COLLECTION SERVICES, INC. · filed 2022-05-20(c)(3)

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

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

Acevedo v. Nichols · filed 2022-05-23(c)(3)

The court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claim of negligence against Nichols. 28 U.S.C. §1367. Because the court is dismissing the remainder of the plaintiff’s federal claims, it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law negligence claim against Mohler or his claims of medical malpractice against the doctors. Id. §1367(c)(3).

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

Taylor v. Tornichio · filed 2022-05-23(c)(3)

Finally, insofar as plaintiff is alleging claims under Ohio law, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. Harper v. AutoAlliance Int'l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 210 (6th Cir. 2004) (although the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is a matter of discretion, when a court dismisses all federal claims before trial, it generally should dismiss the state law claims as well).

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

Catala-Torres v. Lifelink Foundation, Inc. · filed 2022-05-23(c)

Since the federal claims are being dismissed at the pleading stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Marshall v. Goguen · filed 2022-05-24(c)(3)

In the absence of any surviving federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.

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

Doe A v. Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202 · filed 2022-05-24(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, and thus declines to exercise its 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.

Martin v. Martin · filed 2022-05-24(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if ... (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law fraud claim.

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

Osuagwu. v. Home Point Financial Corporation · filed 2022-05-24(c)(3)

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the time allowed, the Court will enter judgment that will: (1) dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under federal law for the reasons set forth in this order; (2) dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under state law, brought under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); and (3) decline to consider, under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

MCLEOD v. DUKES · filed 2022-05-25(c)(3)

Having previously disposed of all Plaintiff’s federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim. Plaintiff’s conversion claim against Defendant accordingly is DISMISSED 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.

PASQUERELLO v. MURPHY · filed 2022-05-25(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and will remand those claims 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.

FL v. Hilton Central School District · filed 2022-05-25(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); Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006). Because Plaintiff's federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state 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.

Bolden v. Marymount Hospital Cleveland Clinic · filed 2022-05-25(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff’s complaint may be read to say that Defendants committed medical malpractice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim. A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if that 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 state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Whyte v. City of San Diego · filed 2022-05-26(c)(3)

The Court exercises that discretion here and DISMISSES 2 ||Plaintiffs’ IIED and § 52.1 claims 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.

MARSH v. CAMPOS · filed 2022-05-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claims against Defendant Nwachukwu, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the NJTCA claims against State Defendants. 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.

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

Williamson v. Las Vegas Police Department · filed 2022-05-27(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential 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.

Stalling v. T3 Trading Group LLC · filed 2022-05-31(c)(3)

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

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

Reveles, Michael v. Carr, K. · filed 2022-06-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of plaintiff’s federal law claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 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 the federal claims.

Yifru v. Tietz · filed 2022-06-01(c)(3)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims.

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

Richards v. Thom · filed 2022-06-01(c)(3)

Thus, because all of Richards’ federal-law claims have been dismissed, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claim.

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

ARCHIE v. FOX · filed 2022-06-02(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff did wish to raise malpractice claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims at this time in light of the dismissal of all of his federal claims.

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

Harlan v. Franco · filed 2022-06-02(c)(3)

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 and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Harlan’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Kumaran v. National Futures Association · filed 2022-06-02(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims and there is no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Tom Kadlec.

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

Ledet v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated · filed 2022-05-26(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims in the early stages of this litigation, hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Williams v. Rattray · filed 2022-06-03(c)

And without any valid federal claim, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims Plaintiff may have been intending to assert.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed, especially early in the case.

(PC) Smith v. Allison · filed 2022-06-06(c)(3)

Because the federal claims have been dismissed and this case is in its early stages, the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims and remand the case back 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.

Bolden v. University Hospitals, etc. · filed 2022-06-06(c)(3)

But to the extent Plaintiff asserts such claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if that 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 state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hernandez v. City Of New York · filed 2022-06-07(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Amaechi v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2022-06-07(c)(3)

Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion in this district, we should decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over potential ancillary state law claims in this case where all potential federal claims brought before us failed as a matter of law.

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

BUCHANAN v. INGRAM CONTENT GROUP · filed 2022-06-08(c)(3)

Further, while the Court conceivably could have supplemental jurisdiction over a common law fraud claim by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because the CFAA claim is dismissed, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a fraud claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Matwyuk v. Arizona, State of · filed 2022-06-09(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s non-federal claims.

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

Barrow v. Kansas State University · filed 2022-06-09(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). ... Although the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, the court declines to do so.

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

Vega v. Gusman · filed 2022-06-09(c)

Accordingly, the 28 U.S.C. § 1367 factors weigh in favor of the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state negligence claims.

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

Mendes v. Cunningham · filed 2022-06-10(c)(3)

Because Mendes has not alleged any plausible grounds for relief under federal law, only his state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress remains. “[W]hen 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). Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Mendes’s state law claim.

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

Bui v. Dinh · filed 2022-06-10(c)(3)

However, district courts should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all claims arising under federal law have been dismissed prior to trial. See Hervey v. County of Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711, 726–27 (8th Cir. 2008). The Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state- law claims implied by Bui’s complaint and dismisses without prejudice any such claims.

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

GOTHAM CITY ORTHOPEDICS, LLC v. CIGNA · filed 2022-06-13(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 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.

O'Flaherty v. Nusenda Federal Credit Union · filed 2022-06-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims and dismisses this case without prejudice.

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

Debbs v. AM PM Gas Station · filed 2022-06-14(c)(3)

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

San Diego Branch of National Association For The Advancement of Colored People · filed 2022-06-14(c)(3)

Because Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court, in its discretion, declines to address Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the case has not progressed substantially and no prejudice will result.

NORIEGA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2022-06-15(c)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.’ See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Such a dismissal is appropriate where, as here, the only federal claims have been dismissed, the case has not progressed substantially, and no particular prejudice will result.

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

Daigle v. Mathew · filed 2022-06-15(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs claims pursuant to federal law, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims and dismisses this case without prejudice.

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

Cota v. Santa Ana Police Department · filed 2022-06-17(c)(3)

As a matter of comity, because the federal claims are subject to dismissal, the Court should decline to hear the remaining exclusively state law claims in the SAC and dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially when the case is at an early stage and no considerations of efficiency or fairness favor retaining them.

CHEY v. LaBRUNO · filed 2022-06-17(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court has discretion to decline jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after all federal-law claims have been dismissed from the action. ... No such extraordinary circumstances or considerations of efficiency and fairness are present here. This action is in its infancy, at the motion to dismiss stage. There is no particular procedural disadvantage to having a state court hear these state-law claims. The federal claims having been dismissed, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Chey’s 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 that dismissal occurs early in the litigation.

Gao v. Yang · filed 2022-06-17(c)(3)

Because the “federal claims are eliminated in the early stages of litigation,” this Court “decline[s] to exercise pendent jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.” Klein & Co. Futures v. Bd. of Trade of City of N.Y., 464 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir. 2006); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Stuart v. County of Nassau · filed 2022-06-21(c)(3)

A district court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The district court thus acted well within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stuart’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Christian v. Rancho Grande Manufactured Home Community · filed 2022-06-21(c)(3)

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

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

O. v. Connor · filed 2022-06-21(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims against Defendants.

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

Fenner v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore · filed 2022-06-21(c)(3)

A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); ESAB Grp., Inc. v. Zurich Ins. PLC, 685 F.3d 376, 394 (4th Cir. 2012). Having dismissed plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Lopez v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo · filed 2022-06-21(c)(3)

Nonetheless, the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law DJA claim and remands it 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.

Chan v. Ramdhaney · filed 2022-06-21(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 of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Engel v. Engel · filed 2022-06-21(c)(3)

Because Seneca has not stated a viable claim within original jurisdiction in federal court, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Seneca’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.

Miller v. Punturi · filed 2022-06-22(c)(3)

To the extent the complaint can be construed as asserting a negligence claim under state law, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claim and dismisses it without prejudice.

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

MOORE v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-06-22(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 state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hamilton v. Franklin, Tennessee, City of · filed 2022-06-23(c)(3)

The basis for jurisdiction in this case is federal-question jurisdiction, and because the Court is granting summary judgment to the three Defendants on Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will no longer have original jurisdiction over any claims upon which the Court’s (supplemental) jurisdiction over the state-law claims was based. For that reason, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction henceforward over Plaintiff’s state-law claims, and they will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Butler v. St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Academy · filed 2022-06-27(c)(3)

Because I dismiss Butler’s Title VII claim — the sole basis for federal jurisdiction in this case — I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 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.

Jean-Louis v. Long Island Business Institute · filed 2022-06-27(c)(3)

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

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

Dounce Al Dey v. Eye Express Optical · filed 2022-06-28(c)(3)

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

Speed v. City of Moreno Valley · filed 2022-06-29(c)(3)

Ordinarily, courts in the Ninth Circuit decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss or remand state law claims after dismissing all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to adjudicate or dismiss related state law claims after it dismisses all federal claims on the merits.

Davis v. Posson · filed 2022-06-29(c)(3)

Where the court has dismissed all federal claims on the merits, rather than for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it has discretion under § 1367(c) to adjudicate or to dismiss the remaining state law claims.

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

Bacon v. Woodward · filed 2022-06-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal law claims asserted against Defendants, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

(PC) Price v. Iqbal · filed 2022-06-30(c)(3)

Based on the above recommendations, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims and orders that his state law claims be dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Whitaker v. Sherwood Management Co., Inc. · filed 2022-06-30(c)(3)

Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim is DISMISSED without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after it disposes of all federal claims before trial.

Reiskin v. Greyhound Lines, Inc · filed 2022-06-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ CADA claim.

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

CALIO v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS · filed 2022-06-30(c)

The Court struggles with whether it should retain subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under the NJFLA, a decision that is within the Court’s discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 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 . . . .”) Ultimately, the Court will reluctantly decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the following reasons: First, there are no equitable claims before the 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; early dismissal before discovery and parallel state proceedings favor that choice.

Black v. Ganieva · filed 2022-06-30(c)(3)

However, such jurisdiction is discretionary, see City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997), and a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if, as relevant here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court accordingly finds that no circumstances favor the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Black’s remaining, state-law, claims, and declines to exercise such jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the claim that supplied original jurisdiction and to dismiss the remaining state-law claims without prejudice.

CRESPO v. WELLS FARGO BANK AND COMPANY · filed 2022-06-30(c)(3)

We identify no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after having dismissed the only claim giving us original jurisdiction under the Notice of Removal. We dismiss the case without prejudice to Aida refiling it in state court.

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

Flemons v. Griswold · filed 2022-03-01(c)(3)

The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Flemons’s supplemental state law claims against the Medical Defendants and Mr. Griffin under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bai v. Tegs Management, LLC · filed 2022-03-01(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Upon dismissal of all federal claims, a court must decide whether the traditional values of “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” counsel against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Here, because judicial economy and convenience counsel strongly toward resolving Bai’s fraud claim, supplemental jurisdiction is retained.

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

GUILDAY v. CRISIS CENTER AT CROZER-CHESTER MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2022-03-01(c)(3)

Under Section 1367, a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; fairness, comity, and judicial economy inform that discretion.

Singleton v. Limestone University · filed 2022-03-01(c)(3)

Federal courts are permitted to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), however, if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... While this Court has the discretion to retain the state law claim, here it declines to do so. ... Here, remand of the state law claim is appropriate in light of the Shanaghan factors.3 This claim presents state-law questions and this case is at the beginning stages of litigation. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim in this case.

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

McNeal v. Watson · filed 2022-03-02(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any freestanding state law claims because all federal claims have been dismissed.

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.

Nieves v. Turchi · filed 2022-03-02(c)(3)

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

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

Staten, Deshaun v. Waterman, Jolinda · filed 2022-03-03(c)

The court further will relinquish jurisdiction over Staten’s supplemental state law claims, which will also be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Berg v. Pruitt · filed 2022-03-03(c)(3)

Given Hi-Desert’s dismissal, there is no longer a federal claim in the case. Under the circumstances, the court is not inclined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and will dismiss this action without prejudice.

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

(PC) Sams v. Diaz · filed 2022-03-03(c)(3)

When a federal court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may, at its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639-40 (2009). As a matter of comity, in light of the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court should decline to hear the remaining exclusively state law claims in the first amended complaint and dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Behounek v. Grisham · filed 2022-03-03(c)(3)

I therefore recommend that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Behounek’s state law claims and dismiss these 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, and courts usually should do so.

Behounek v. Grisham · filed 2022-03-03(c)(3)

District courts usually should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) applies.

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.

Reiss v. Baron · filed 2022-03-03(c)(3)

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

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

Green v. Noble · filed 2022-03-04(c)(3)

But the amended complaint does not state a basis for relief under federal law. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law and dismisses those claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Pitcher v. Hall · filed 2022-03-04(c)(3)

First, Section 1367 authorizes the Court to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction when the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Krehbiel v. BrightKey, Inc. · filed 2022-03-04(c)(3)

As all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, over which this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, are subject to dismissal, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Bethune v. Woodbury Police Department · filed 2022-03-04(c)(3)

Courts typically should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all claims arising under federal law have been dismissed prior to trial. See Hervey v. County of Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711, 726–27 (8th Cir. 2008). The Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims raised by Bethune and dismisses those 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.

Landon v. Winston Hospitality, Inc · filed 2022-03-10(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiffs state law claims, and they are therefore 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.

STEVENSON v. JACKSON · filed 2022-03-10(c)(3)

Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim under § 1983 in his complaint. Therefore, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.1 ... The Court will dismiss the claim against Officer Jackson without prejudice.

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

Santos v. Bosworth · filed 2022-03-11(c)(3)

That leaves the claims under state and local law. The district judge declined to hear them because they posed no federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We agree with that ruling, which was no abuse of discretion.

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.

Herrera v. Cruz-Ramos · filed 2022-03-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed the two claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the supplemental claim arising under Puerto Rico’s general torts statute is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ononuju v. Virginia Housing Development Authority · filed 2022-03-15(c)(3)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed, the decision to do so “rests within the sole discretion of the Court.” Jones v. Tyson Foods, 378 F. Supp. 2d 705, 710 (E.D. Va. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)); see also Jordahl v. Democratic Party, 122 F.3d 192, 203 (4th Cir. 1997). “[T]he doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of flexibility, designed to allow courts to deal with cases involving pendent claims in the manner that most sensibly accommodates a range of concerns and values.” Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995). In determining whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the Court analyzes “convenience and fairness to the parties, the existence of any underlying issues of federal policy, comity, and considerations of judicial economy.” Id. Based on an analysis of these factors, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law trespass claim.

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

Benavidez v. State of New Mexico · filed 2022-03-15(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 any federal claims in this case. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims and will remand this case to the Court from which it was removed.

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, particularly when dismissal occurs early in the litigation.

Richardson v. Westchester County · filed 2022-03-15(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, if any, against Brown.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; absent extraordinary circumstances, it should ordinarily do so when the federal claims are resolved before trial.

BURFORD v. DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2022-03-15(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s federal-law claims, the Court also dismisses Plaintiff’s state law claim for conversion. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c) (3). In non-diversity cases where the court grants summary judgement or dismisses all federal claims before trial, the general rule is that a district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims absent “extraordinary circumstances.” Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, Inc., 540 F. 2d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 1976). Since this Court no longer has original jurisdiction and no extraordinary circumstances exist to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claim for conversion, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s single 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, with judicial economy and convenience informing that choice.

Berger v. Godwin · filed 2022-03-16(c)(3)

Upon due consideration, the Court finds that judicial economy and convenience would not be served by retaining jurisdiction over Berger’s state law claims. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to retain state-law claims after dismissing all claims within their original jurisdiction.

HUSPON v. FOSTER · filed 2022-03-16(c)(3)

The Court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state-law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Rudd v. Norton Shores, City of · filed 2022-03-16(c)(3)

Here, the balance of factors weighs against exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Resolution of Rudd’s federal claim has little bearing on his state-law claims. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the remaining 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.

McMillan v. Capital One Bank, N.A. · filed 2022-03-16(c)(3)

To the extent that this opinion does not resolve all of plaintiff’s state law claims against the City Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims.

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

Morales v. City of New York for Riker's Island · filed 2022-03-16(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims asserted based on state or local law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims to which they are supplemental.

Washington v. Oklahoma City City of · filed 2022-03-16(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Jordan. Thus, the Court dismisses the 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.

McGlinchey v. Pepper · filed 2022-03-16(c)(3)

Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion in this district, we should decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over potential ancillary state law claim in this case where the potential federal claim brought before us failed as a matter of law.

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

Wilson v. The Town of Mount Jackson · filed 2022-03-17(c)(3)

As the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over Wilson’s remaining claims.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when the relevant factors favor keeping the case.

Savoie v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company · filed 2022-03-17(c)

Second, although courts generally decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims have been dismissed, the balance of factors in the present case favor maintenance of this action in federal court.

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

Starks v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2022-03-17(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; absent compelling reasons, those state law claims should be dismissed.

Williams v. Denmar LLC · filed 2022-03-18(c)(3)

The Court does not believe there are any compelling reasons to retain jurisdiction, and recommends that Mr. Williams’ remaining state law claims be dismissed without prejudice.

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

NYTDA, Inc. v. City of New York · filed 2022-03-18(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

McCrae v. Larned · filed 2022-03-18(c)(3)

Moreover, this Court would not retain jurisdiction of plaintiff’s negligence claims if his § 1983 claims of excessive force are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and those state claims may be dismissed without prejudice.

Gonzalez-Lopez v. Yauco Health Care Corporation · filed 2022-03-18(c)(3)

Because all claims over which ... the Court had original jurisdiction are dismissed, the Court hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims and thus dismisses without prejudice such 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 the federal claims.

WSPR Enterprise LLC v. Town of Spring Prairie · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claims, which are very poorly alleged (they are brought alongside the federal constitutional claims, as if the claims are one and the same) and which raise questions about pleading standards for state constitutional claims that are better resolved by a Wisconsin state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Thus, those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Barkow, Todd v. School District of Athens · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)

The court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim. But in the Seventh Circuit, the usual practice is to dismiss state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial. Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999). The court cannot discern any reason to depart from the circuit’s general rule in this case.

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

Smart Mortgage Centers, Inc. v. Noe · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)

In the exercise of its discretion, the court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and remands this case to the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois.

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

CRAWFORD v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state tort law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), against any and all defendants named in this case, and remands this matter to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County.

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

Holloway v. Suffolk County Correctional Facility Medical · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)

To the extent the Amended Complaint can be construed to assert any state law claims, i.e., a claim for negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims and DISMISSES them WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Bell v. City of New York · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)

As there are no remaining federal claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Bell’s state law claims.

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

Wood v. SGT Investments · filed 2022-03-22(c)(3)

That is the only claim over which I have original jurisdiction. I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Slafka v. Reece · filed 2022-03-22(c)(3)

If the Court dismisses the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and therefore not address the merits of Plaintiffs’ numerous state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

HARRINGTON v. NORTHFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2022-03-22(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiffs’ ADA and § 504 claims must be dismissed, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state and common law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim…if… the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Scott v. City Of New York · filed 2022-03-22(c)(3)

Because each of Scott’s federal law claims is without merit, the Court does not consider Scott’s state law claims and declines to exercise jurisdiction over them. Accordingly, the state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims and to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Washington v. Oklahoma City City of · filed 2022-03-22(c)(3)

The Court, however, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Thus, the Court dismisses the 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.

Harris v. German Township, Ohio · filed 2022-03-23(c)(3)

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

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

Western Star Hospital Authority Inc. v. McCaffrey · filed 2022-03-23(c)(3)

Accordingly, because the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims asserted in Counts I and II, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Reyes v. Fowlkes · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)

For the same reasons, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Reyes’ state law claim for unnecessary rigor in this case. Where all federal claims have been dismissed, this claim is more appropriately addressed by Utah state courts.

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

Richardson v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2022-03-24(c)

Further, Section 1367(c) expressly allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Abbondanza v. Weiss · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)

Instead, those claims should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, permitting Plaintiffs to refile them in Colorado state court.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing whether to retain them.

Cazares v. Rand · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed the federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. This is not a case where the balance of factors tip the scale towards a federal decision of the state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Anjum v. City Of Chicago · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)

Indeed, this pre- sumption is statutorily expressed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides for the discretionary relinquishment of jurisdiction over state claims when the claims provid- ing original jurisdiction (here, federal-question jurisdiction) have been dismissed. If Anjum is unable to fix the federal law claims in a second amended complaint, then the state law claims would almost surely be remanded to state court.

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

Bavier v. Hofstra University · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court finds the factors of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims.

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

Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)

The Court dismisses all federal causes of action asserted in the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (i). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(¢)(3).

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

Tillman v. The New York City Department of Human Resources Administration · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court’s power to retain supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Swanhart v. State of New York · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)

And on that same basis, the Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims because there remains no independent jurisdictional basis.

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

Martin v. Bennett · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)

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

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

Young v. Mulvaine · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)

Because all federal claims alleged in this case have been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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 when it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

ASSOCIATED BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA v. PLUM BOROUGH · filed 2022-03-25(c)(3)

In this instance, if Plaintiffs do not elect to amend their federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state competitive bidding claims and will dismiss their fourth Claims for Relief without prejudice to their ability to bring those claims in state court.

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

Velez v. Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, Inc. · filed 2022-03-25(c)(3)

Because all federal claims upon which federal jurisdiction was based have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this matter.

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.

Pristavec v. Meno Holdings SPV, LP · filed 2022-03-25(c)(3)

Since all of Plaintiffs’ purported “federal” claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claim for tortious interference with contract.

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

Nieves v. Turchi · filed 2022-03-25(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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Worlds v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2022-03-26(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[D]istrict 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.”).

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

Leach v. Sarasota County · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[D]istrict 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.”).

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

Anderson v. West Memphis City of · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

Finally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims for assault and battery.

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

Person v. Training Services, Inc. · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count II of Aviation Institute’s Third-Party Complaint against Higher Ed because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction; namely, Person’s TCPA claims against Aviation Institute.