28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Karunakaran v. BMCC/Cuny City University of New York · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Karunakaran’s federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6), ... the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over, and dismisses, her state and city 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, particularly when dismissal occurs early in the litigation.

Batista v. Orange County Deparmtent of Mental Health · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

“[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims, if any, against Defendants.

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

Z.Q. v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses the state law claim without prejudice. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims after dismissing “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide no affirmative justification to retain it.

Soldridge, Jr. v. Ransom · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

Here, the Court has considered and weighed the values of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, and the Court finds that they do not provide an affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim for negligence.

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

Rothrock v. Georgetown, City of · filed 2022-03-28(c)

Once a district court has dismissed the federal claims in an action, it maintains discretion to dismiss the supplemental state law claims over which it properly has supplemental jurisdiction, or remand in cases removed from State court.

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, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Percival v. Poon · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed the ECPA claim, the Court concludes the values of economy, convenience, and fairness may well be served by this Court’s declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, and these claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

When federal claims are reinstated on appeal, a decision declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims because all federal claims were dismissed must be vacated and reconsidered.

Hall v. Nisbit · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)

We interpret the District Court to have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hall’s claims under state law upon granting judgment to the defendants on all of the federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because our decision to remand this matter as to Hall’s Fourth Amendment claims means that not all claims over which the District Court has original jurisdiction have been denied, we will also vacate and remand the District Court’s order as to supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Dr. Richard L. Thalman v. First Hospital Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2022-03-29(c)

Furthermore, because the Court is dismissing the TCPA claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Doe v. City of New York · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s Title VII claim and Monell claim and there being no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court elects to not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

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

Integrated Media Resources, LLC v. Morley · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)

A district court 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)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Yifru v. Tietz · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of all claims within its original jurisdiction and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Chamberlain v. Mathena · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

In light of the court’s disposition of the federal claims asserted in Counts I and II of the amended complaint, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in Counts III through VII and will dismiss those 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.

Scally v. Flores · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

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

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

Tackett v. United States Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id.; §1367(c)(3). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

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, convenience, and fairness informing the decision.

VANDERVOORT v. PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

Since the Court has dismissed all of the federal law claims against School Defendants and the remaining claims contained in Count III involve state law, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties weigh against the Court retaining supplemental jurisdiction. There are no “extraordinary circumstances” which warrant the exercise of jurisdiction over the state claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Martin v. Stowe · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

The court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims and will dismiss such claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Villarreal v. DeWitt · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court exercises its discretion here to dismiss without prejudice all of Ms. Villarreal’s remaining state law claims against the ADC defendants.

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.

SWINFORD v. SANTOS · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

With all federal claims dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law wrongful death claim. “A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’”

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

WOOD v. CITY OF WARNER ROBINS GEORGIA · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

The Court has now dismissed all federal claims in this action so that the remaining claims involve only state law causes of action. Therefore, pursuant to the discretion afforded the Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims—his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; his claim for privacy violations and breaches of confidentiality related to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-415; and his claims for defamation, libel, and slander.

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

Krupa v. Quinn · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

Finally, in light of the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court has dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). So, the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining claims. Id. The Court elects not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The state court is in a better position to adjudicate questions of state law, especially state law about local elections. Counts X and XI are therefore 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.

Showers v. City of Bay St. Louis · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Showers’ federal causes of action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Showers’ state law claims.

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

CALLAWAY v. SMALL · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims alleged at Counts I–VII above, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Dabah v. Franklin · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

James v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

Livingston v. Doe · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

But because the Court has dismissed the federal law claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Livingston’s state law claims.

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

Kohlberg v. Birdsey · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ securities fraud claims and there being no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court elects to not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Boustany v. Xylem Inc., 235 F. Supp. 3d 486, 496–97 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).

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

United States of America and Eric Romero v. New York Institute of Technology · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

Gueller v. Shawano County · filed 2022-04-01(c)(3)

The Court follows this presumption and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gueller’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, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Johnson v. Suit Supply (U.S.A.), Inc. · filed 2022-04-01(c)(3)

The Court similarly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in this case, where the Court is dismissing the ADA claim, because it would not further the interest of “economy, convenience, fairness and comity.” Garcia, 2022 WL 395316, at *5; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Guerrero v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc. · filed 2022-04-01(c)(3)

As Plaintiff’s sole federal claim, over which this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is subject to dismissal, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for negligent supervision and negligent retention. 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(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Wilkins v. Willner · filed 2022-04-04(c)(3)

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

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

Techu-El v. Conetta · filed 2022-04-04(c)

If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and will decline, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the state law claims cannot be resolved with absolute clarity.

Haynes v. City of Chicago · filed 2022-04-05(c)(3)

Thus, it is not “absolutely clear” how the claims must be decided and the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise jurisdiction over Haynes’ state law claims.

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

Cooke v. Lancelotta · filed 2022-04-05(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state claims if, inter alia, the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” or, “in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” ... After considering the Carnegie-Mellon factors, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims.

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

Herron v. New York City Transit · filed 2022-04-05(c)(3)

Because I dismiss the FMLA 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) gives a court discretion to retain state law claims after dismissing the claims that supplied original jurisdiction when the subsection (c) factors favor retention.

Gwinnett v. Gwinnett County, Georgia · filed 2022-04-06(c)(3)

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) grants the Court discretion to dismiss state law claims after the dismissal of the claims granting this Court original jurisdiction, a review of all of the factors listed § 1367(c) weigh against dismissal in this case.

Section 1367 allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, unless judicial economy, convenience and fairness require retaining them.

SESAY v. MERCY FITZGERALD HOSPITAL · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

... the Court must decide whether to exercise its discretion to extend supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... The Court must decline to do so unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise. ... They do not.

After all federal claims are dismissed, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retaining them.

MOET v. UNITED STATES MILITARY · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

the Court must decide whether to exercise its discretion to extend supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. See Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009). The Court must decline to do so unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise. Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995). They do not.

After all federal claims are dismissed, a court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness calls for retaining them.

SESAY. v. UNITED STATES MILITARY/ARMY · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

the Court must decide whether to exercise its discretion to extend supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... The Court must decline to do so unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness warrants retaining them.

SESAY v. XFINITY/COMCAST · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

The Court must decline to do so unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise. Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995). They do not.

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.

Robl v. Pennsylvania State Police · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

Here, we will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims, given that his federal agency claims previously failed as a matter of law.

After federal claims are dismissed, a court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness warrants retaining them.

SESAY v. KAMARA · filed 2022-04-12(c)(3)

The Court must decline to do so unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness require otherwise.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims after the federal claims are dismissed, exercising discretion in light of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Lozier v. Quincy University Corporation · filed 2022-04-13(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, finds that each of Defendant Holzgrafe’s state law counterclaims can remain pending under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

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

OKPOR v. BENEDETTO · filed 2022-04-13(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 of Okpor’s state law claims against his former attorney.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to dismiss state-law claims after it dismisses the federal claims.

Mengesha v. Benidia Rice · filed 2022-04-14(c)(3)

... and appellant has not shown any error or abuse of discretion in the dismissal of these claims after the district court dismissed his § 1983 claim, see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3), (d).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial comity may favor dismissal when state courts are better situated to apply state law.

Vuyyuru v. Bank of North America, Inc. · filed 2022-04-14(c)(3)

Here, the federal claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction will be dismissed. Judicial comity thus supports dismissing Vuyyuru’s state-law breach of contract and conversion claims—after all, Virginia’s courts are better situated to apply Virginia tolling provisions and substantive law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint fails to state a valid federal claim for relief.

(PS) Serris v. Chastaine · filed 2022-04-14(c)(3)

The court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims where the complaint does not state a valid federal claim for relief.

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

Whitaker v. Chanel, Inc. · filed 2022-04-14(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's related Unruh Act claim, which is DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

DAKER v. LAIDLER · filed 2022-04-14(c)(3)

In other words, “[a] district court’s decision whether to exercise [supplemental] jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., 556 U.S. at 639 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Here, as the magistrate judge recommended, the Court will DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claim for the tort of violation of a public duty under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-1.

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

Williams v. City Derm · filed 2022-04-15(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) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the dismissal of the federal claims is reversed.

Martinez-Rodriguez v. Giles · filed 2022-04-18(c)(3)

Because the district court erred in dismissing those federal claims, we likewise reverse its decision declining, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law 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.

(PC) Sundermeyer v. Linde · filed 2022-04-18(c)(3)

Additionally, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims because it has recommended that all federal claims over which this court has original jurisdiction be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to remand remaining state-law claims after the federal claims supplying original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Francis v. Louisiana State · filed 2022-04-18(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), when federal-law claims that serve as the basis of subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed, and only state-law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction remain, a district court has broad discretion to remand the state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing every claim within its original jurisdiction, leaving the state-law claim dismissed without prejudice.

BRUEHL v. DUKE UNIVERSITY · filed 2022-04-18(c)(3)

As is relevant here, a court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The only claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the alleged violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7434, is being dismissed. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dr. Bruehl’s North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claim. Accordingly, it is dismissed without prejudice.

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

DOE-GC v. City of Waller Case remanded to 189th Judicial District . · filed 2022-04-19(c)(3)

But because the defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings on Cates’s only federal claims, no federal question remains before this court. This court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cates’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Aponte v. Clinton Street Pizza Inc. · filed 2022-04-19(c)(3)

With Plaintiffs’ Title VII claim dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ NYCHRL claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially when litigation is still in its early stages.

Sepaniak King v. Facebook, Inc. · filed 2022-04-20(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction (the federal claim) and litigation is still in the early stages, the Court finds it proper to decline supplemental jurisdiction in the case at bar.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed before trial, including on its own initiative.

Clark v. Cascio · filed 2022-04-20(c)(3)

Yet when (as here) all federal claims are dismissed pretrial, the Court may sua sponte decline supplemental jurisdiction. ... After review, the Court employs its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McCoig v. City of Rockledge, Florida · filed 2022-01-03(c)(3)

Further, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law malicious prosecution claim, so it is due to be dismissed without prejudice to allow refiling in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Baker v. Clearwater County · filed 2022-01-03(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3), the Court has discretion to decide whether to decline, or exercise, supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss Baker’s state law claim without prejudice to allow Baker to refile in state court should he choose 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.

Kifor v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · filed 2022-01-03(c)

Finally, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kifor’s state-law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a “district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if “the district court has dismissed all claims under which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); ... The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted by Kifor.

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

Lotharp-Crawford v. Mountain View Correctional Institute · filed 2022-01-03(c)(3)

No federal claim has passed initial review, and the Plaintiff has failed to identify a Defendant against whom such a claim could proceed. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s North Carolina medical malpractice claim at this time.

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.

Celli v. New York Department of Education · filed 2022-01-03(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.

Martinez v. Sequoyah County Criminal Justice Authority · filed 2022-01-03(c)(3)

Since all federal claims must be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Eustice v. Wholesale Coins Direct, LLC · filed 2022-01-04(c)(3)

The court finds that these factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Though Eustice’s remaining state law claims are neither novel nor complex, the court has dismissed Eustice’s FDCPA claim, which granted it original jurisdiction to hear this case.

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

Moran v. Samaan · filed 2022-01-04(c)(3)

Considering all those factors, the Court is compelled to decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here. All federal-law claims have been dismissed leaving only state law claims.

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

Jackson v. Ken Scott · filed 2022-01-04(c)(3)

Furthermore, because the dis- trict court dismissed all of Jackson’s Section 1983 claims over which it had jurisdiction, it did not err by declining to exercise supple- mental jurisdiction over any remaining state constitutional claims.

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

Arcadia Solutions, LLC v. Bethune Cookman University · filed 2022-01-04(c)(3)

Because the NDAA does not protect Plaintiffs, Count II is due to be dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claim for common law breach of contract.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

MAYFIELD v. WIRE · filed 2022-01-04(c)(3)

The relevant factors weigh in favor of the Court following the "usual practice" in the Seventh Circuit and relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction.

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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the stage of the case.

Ling v. Pharmacy Alternatives, LLC · filed 2022-01-04(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s FCA retaliation claim, only Plaintiff’s state-law retaliation claim remains. Based on the considerations outlined above and the early stage of this lawsuit, the Court declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over that claim and dismisses it without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses every federal claim, ordinarily favoring dismissal without prejudice.

Lozoya v. City of Cloquet · filed 2022-01-04(c)(3)

The Eighth Circuit has regularly observed that, “when a district court has dismissed every federal claim, . . . judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity will usually point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” ... Lozoya’s remaining state-law claims will therefore be dismissed without prejudice to his right to re-file them in state court.

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

John v. All Star Limousine Service, Ltd. · filed 2022-01-04(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment as to that claim, it 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.

DeSimone v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc · filed 2022-01-04(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ only federal claims (all under the FDCPA), it declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Nazir Khan v. Presence Chicago Hospitals Net · filed 2022-01-05(c)(3)

But because his federal claims were all properly dismissed, the district court was well within its ...discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Whitaker v. Public Storage · filed 2022-01-05(c)(3)

Here, the court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s second cause of action because it 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Breeding v. Integrated Behavioral Health Inc · filed 2022-01-05(c)(3)

Because Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court must determine whether to exercise its discretion to entertain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “[a] district court 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.” In that event, a plaintiff may have the option to refile those claims in state court, as appropriate. Although the court recognizes that there may be meritorious arguments weighing in favor of addressing and dismissing Plaintiff's state law claim, the court nevertheless finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

DEJESUS v. LUCEY · filed 2022-01-05(c)(3)

However, having dismissed DeJesus’s federal claims, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the case remains at an early stage.

Malley v. San Jose Midtown Development LLC · filed 2022-01-06(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Having now dismissed the federal claims alleged against Defendants without leave to amend and given the early stage of this litigation, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Gunter v. Doe · filed 2022-01-06(c)(3)

However, because the Plaintiff’s sole federal claim has been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s North Carolina medical malpractice 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.

Eckert v. Suffolk County Sheriff · filed 2022-01-06(c)(3)

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

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

Corsi v. Gestone · filed 2022-01-06(c)(3)

In the absence of a federal claim—i.e., by choosing not the replead his § 1985(3) claim—and without another basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, the “traditional ‘values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity’” favor declining to exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim, and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

JACOB v. RONAYNE · filed 2022-01-07(c)(3)

Because the Court grants Ronayne’s motion to dismiss as to the federal claim, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726–727 (1966) (“[I]f the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.”).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing federal claims, based on a discretionary balance of judicial economy, avoiding multiple lawsuits, and avoiding unnecessary state-law decisions.

Wilkins 759458 v. Corizon of Michigan · filed 2022-01-07(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 claims against Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

MUHAMMAD v. FIGUREROA · filed 2022-01-07(c)

Because the Court has dismissed his federal claim, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any of Muhammad’s state law claims.

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

Busey Bank v. Turney · filed 2022-01-10(c)

But because the Court dismisses the DTSA and CFAA claims over which it has original jurisdiction at this time, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Busey’s state law claims.

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

BELFI v. BANCORP · filed 2022-01-10(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Belfi’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over his state law claims for violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

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

Richmond v. Original Juan and Spicin foods · filed 2022-01-11(a)

To the extent plaintiffs have alleged plausible state law claims for breach of contract or conversion, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Grier v. Cuyahoga County · filed 2022-01-11(c)(3)

The Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and those are all dismissed.

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

ALI v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2022-01-11(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Ali’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over his state law claims for assault and extortion.

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.

Siskiyou Hospital, Inc. v. Gilbert · filed 2022-01-12(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Spell v. Edwards · filed 2022-01-12(c)

Once again the Court has dismissed all federal claims. Accordingly, there is no basis to exercise federal question jurisdiction, and the Court must decide whether to maintain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ pendant state law claims. In making this determination, the Court “look[s] to the statutory factors set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and to the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Enochs v. Lampasas Cty., 641 F.3d 155, 159 (5th Cir. 2011). “When a court dismisses all federal claims before trial, the general rule is to dismiss any pendent claims.” Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 246 (5th Cir. 1999). Here, all factors favor dismissing Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing every federal claim, ordinarily favoring dismissal without prejudice when those claims have no independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Kvalvog v. Park Christian School, Inc. · filed 2022-01-12(c)(3)

The Eighth Circuit has regularly observed that, “when a district court has dismissed every federal claim, . . . judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity will usually point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” McManemy v. Tierney, 970 F.3d 1034, 1041 (8th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Elmore v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., 844 F.3d 764, 767 (8th Cir. 2016); Hervey v. Cnty. of Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711, 726–27 (8th Cir. 2008). The Kvalvogs’ remaining state-law claims lack an independent basis for federal jurisdiction and will therefore be dismissed without prejudice to the Kvalvogs’ right to re- file them in state court.

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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Toussaint v. Interfaith Medical Center · filed 2022-01-12(c)(3)

Where, as here, a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Considering the relevant factors in this case, I find that they do not support my exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favoring that choice when the case is at the pleading stage.

Frank L. Rizzo Monument Committee v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2022-01-12(c)(3)

Here, as this matter is merely at the motion to dismiss stage, and the remaining claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint raise questions of state law only, the Court finds that all relevant factors compel it to decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

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

Rice v. McDonald · filed 2022-01-13(c)(3)

Because the federal claim has been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rice’s state malpractice claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed; ordinarily it should do so before trial, subject to exceptions for limitations, substantial judicial resources, or a clear resolution of the state claims.

Ridgeway v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2022-01-13(c)(3)

Generally, when all federal claims in a case have been dismissed prior to trial, the district court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... For these reasons, the Court dismisses the remaining state law claims for lack of jurisdictions (Counts I, V, X).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local law claims after dismissing the federal claims, particularly when the case is at an early stage and the remaining claims may raise different issues.

Perkins v. City of New York · filed 2022-01-13(c)

Having dismissed the federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state and city law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Although plaintiff points out that I may properly retain supplemental jurisdiction, Cohen v. Postal Holdings, LLC, 873 F.3d 394, 399 (2d Cir. 2017), in this instance, doing so would not be appropriate. See Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial,” courts should decline jurisdiction over the non-federal claims) (quotations omitted). This case is at the early stages and the non-federal claims may well raise different issues and apply different standards.

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

The Estate of Yaeli Mozzelle Galdamez v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2022-01-14(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims and remands the case accordingly.

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.

King v. City of New York · filed 2022-01-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed each of King’s other claims, including all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Article 78 claim. District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where, inter alia, 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 a state law claim after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Mogan v. CITY OF CHICAGO · filed 2022-01-18(c)(3)

And because the Court has dismissed all of Mogan’s claims against the City, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim against the Roscoe HOA.

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

Johnson v. Opa Los Altos, LP · filed 2022-01-18(c)(3)

Johnson has not shown that this is anything but the “usual case” in which the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction where no federal claims remain.

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

REPUBLIC GROUP, LLC v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. · filed 2022-01-18(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.” ... Plaintiffs’ federal claims have been dismissed and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Williams v. Essex · filed 2022-01-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the claims against the Unserved Defendants over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any outstanding state law claims against them.

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

Doe A v. Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202 · filed 2022-01-19(c)(3)

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

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

ROSE v. WALMART CORPORATION · filed 2022-01-19(c)(3)

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

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

Miner v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC · filed 2022-01-20(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all federal claims, I will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hu v. The City of New York · filed 2022-01-20(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” a state-law claim if, as I have done here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ pendent state-law claim and dismiss it without prejudice.

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

Morgan v. The County of Warren · filed 2022-01-21(c)

Where, as here, any federal claims have been dismissed at a relatively early stage of litigation, courts often decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. ... 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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

IRAHETA v. HOUSTON COUNTY · filed 2022-01-24(c)(3)

Consistent with its decision in its previous Order, the Court declines to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims against these Defendants in accordance with the considerable discretion afforded the Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Consequently, all of the state law claims made against these Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Graham v. City of Elkhart · filed 2022-01-24(c)(3)

Next, in the absence of a federal claim, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, leaving the state-law claims to be refiled in state court.

Mitchell v. Pearl Public School District · filed 2022-01-24(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the plaintiffs’ federal claims will be dismissed with prejudice, while their state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to their timely refiling in a court of competent jurisdiction.

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

HILL v. TAYLOR · filed 2022-01-24(c)(3)

However, when a court has dismissed all claims over which it had federal question jurisdiction, it has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See id. § 1367(c)(3). Because the federal claims against the Defendants no longer remain, this Court would exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim.

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.

Callan v. AutoZone Stores LLC · filed 2022-01-24(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. ... Here, the Court exercises its broad discretion in deciding not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Callan’s remaining claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after disposing of all claims within its original jurisdiction, including at summary judgment.

Griesmar v. City of Stow, Ohio · filed 2022-01-24(c)(3)

Having disposed of the only bases for subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining State-law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy, convenience, and fairness guide that decision.

VUYANICH v. SMITHTON BOROUGH · filed 2022-01-24(c)(3)

Since the Court has dismissed all of the federal law claims against Jarvis Salvage and the remaining claims are state law claims, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties weigh against the Court retaining supplemental jurisdiction. There are no “extraordinary circumstances” which warrant the exercise of jurisdiction over the state claims against Jarvis Salvage. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Combs v. Fields · filed 2022-01-25(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed all of the plaintiffs federal claims upon initial review, the Court concludes that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction over any claim under the Kentucky Constitution.

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

Gilani v. Teneo, Inc. · filed 2022-01-25(c)(3)

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

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

Mountaineer Pest Services, LLC v. North Augusta, City of · filed 2022-01-25(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 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.

A.M. v. Jefferson County Board of Education · filed 2022-01-26(c)(3)

Having concluded that all federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction must be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Hefner v. Jones · filed 2022-01-26(c)(3)

However, no federal claim has passed initial review. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his North Carolina claims. See Artis v. Dist. of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594, 595 (2018) (when a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state law claims.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

MCCRACKEN v. BLEI · filed 2022-01-26(c)(3)

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

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

HOLLOWAY v. MUNOZ-ROMANO · filed 2022-01-26(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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Earls, Fairly v. Buske, Kari · filed 2022-01-27(c)(3)

Moreover, because the court will dismiss all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court has also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s proposed state law negligence claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and has not considered those claims for purposes of screening.

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

BRYANT v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD · filed 2022-01-27(c)(3)

The Court exercises its considerable discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and declines to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

RIZAS v. DEJOY · filed 2022-01-27(c)(3)

Moreover, because the Court ... dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her pendent 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Camacho v. Nassau BOCES School District · filed 2022-01-27(c)(3)

Under the circumstances, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Tallent v. Knight (TV2) · filed 2022-01-27(c)(3)

While a district court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims forming “part of the same case or controversy” as claims over which the court exercises original jurisdiction, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction. ... As discussed above, the Court will dismiss all of plaintiff’s federal claims. Therefore, plaintiff’s state law claims will be DISMISSED as well.

After dismissing the federal claims before trial, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Anderson v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead · filed 2022-01-28(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 New York State law claims.

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

Dennison v. South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense Division of Appellate Defense · filed 2022-01-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims as Plaintiff has not asserted a valid federal claim and there is no diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it resolves all federal claims on summary judgment.

Litton v. Millersville, City of · filed 2022-01-28(c)(3)

The Court having found that summary judgment is appropriate on all of the federal claims declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ramos v. Work World America, Inc. · filed 2022-01-31(c)(3)

A district court may sua sponte decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court agrees with Defendant that here there is no good reason to retain jurisdiction over the FEHA claims.

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

Crossdale v. Swain · filed 2022-01-31(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court will exercise its discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count V and any other state law claims, including Counts I through IV to the extent these claims may allege a violation of Florida’s public records laws.

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

AJ Holdings of Metairie, LLC v. Fischbein · filed 2022-01-31(c)(3)

Considering the Court has dismissed the RICO claim, it now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law remaining cases, and those claims are 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.

Betancourt v. United States · filed 2022-01-31(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed all federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, with early dismissal before discovery supporting dismissal without prejudice.

Patterson v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company · filed 2022-01-31(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses each of the Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court may, in its discretion, either retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State-law claims and proceed on the merits, Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639–40 (2009), or decline jurisdiction and dismiss the complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to pursue the remaining claims in State court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because this case is in its infancy—the Court stayed the action at the motion- to-dismiss stage, and the parties have not conducted discovery—dismissal will not prejudice any party, will protect the interests of judicial economy, and will allow the State courts to decide the State-law claims Plaintiff alleges. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s State-law claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation (Count IV), conversion (Count V), civil conspiracy (Count VII), and unjust enrichment (Count VIII).

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

Sesso v. EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL · filed 2022-01-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed with prejudice Sesso’s only federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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, fairness, and comity.

Lynch v. Washington Healthcare Authority · filed 2022-02-01(c)(3)

Considering the factors laid out in Cohill, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lynch’s state law claims. The Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and the parties would not be prejudiced by it declining supplemental jurisdiction. Lynch’s WAPA claim is still pending in state court, and the state court is better situated to determine whether Lynch may maintain his non-WAPA state law claims as a class action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, especially if little has been invested in preparing the state claims.

Yany's Garden LLC v. City of New York · filed 2022-02-01(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. 6 “[A]s a general proposition, . . . if all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39, 56 (2d Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). Plaintiffs provide no indication that “there has been substantial expenditure in time, effort, and money in preparing the dependent claims” that would militate in favor of retaining jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Purgess v. Sharrock, 33 F.3d 134, 138 (2d Cir. 1994)). We thus conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining them.

Herndon 136007 v. Sices · filed 2022-02-02(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 claims will 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.

Hernandez v. City of New York · filed 2022-02-02(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and there is no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that the SAC may be construed to assert. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering judicial economy, multiple litigation, and the need to avoid unnecessary state-law decisions.

Reese 640694 v. West · filed 2022-02-03(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the relevant discretionary considerations weigh against retaining jurisdiction.

McGee 145126 v. Dawdy · filed 2022-02-03(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.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on the balance of relevant considerations.

Logan 980399 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2022-02-03(c)(3)

Here, in light of the Court’s dismissal of the federal claims against Defendants, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction as to them.

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

HEIMBACH v. HILL · filed 2022-02-03(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Colorado Contractors Association v. City & County of Denver · filed 2022-02-04(c)

After dismissing Plaintiffs’ due process, Contracts Clause, and equal protection claims, there are no remaining federal question claims in this case. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and dismisses claims one and two 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.

Sepulveda v. Galindo · filed 2022-02-07(c)(3)

Therefore, in the absence of any viable federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court exercises its discretion and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s supplemental state law claim without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

TOLBERT v. FRIAS · filed 2022-02-07(c)(3)

The Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law assault claim that Plaintiff brings against Rinkiewicz. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Conte v. Kingston NH Operations LLC · filed 2022-02-07(c)(3)

Here, after carefully considering the relevant factors (i.e., economy, convenience, fairness, and comity), the Court finds that they weigh decidedly in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s sole remaining state law claim (i.e., the seventh cause of action of Plaintiff’s Complaint).

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

Small v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2022-02-07(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 Small’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows discretionary dismissal of state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, but that dismissal is ordinarily reversed when federal claims are restored on appeal.

Gambrel v. Knox Cnty., Ky. · filed 2022-02-08(c)(3)

After rejecting Gambrel’s federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because we are partially reversing the court’s grant of summary judgment to the Officers on the federal claims, we will likewise reverse its discretionary dismissal of the state-law claims—our normal practice in this setting.