28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Wade 600628 v. Stephens · filed 2022-02-08(c)(3)

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

When federal claims are dismissed before trial, a court generally declines supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims absent exceptional circumstances.

Malarczyk v. Lovgren · filed 2022-02-08(c)(3)

Because those federal claims will be dismissed before trial, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s pendent state law claims.

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

Dooley v. Adams County Ambulance and Medical Services · filed 2022-02-09(c)(3)

Because there are no remaining federal claims, therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 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.

Alijaj v. Wells Fargo · filed 2022-02-09(c)(3)

However, without original jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s claims, I decline toexercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. See 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”); Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998) (“In general, where the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well.”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Cesiro v. Rite Aid of New York · filed 2022-02-09(c)(3)

Once a district court’s discretion is triggered under § 1367(c)(3), it balances the traditional “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction. ... Having dismissed Cesiro’s sole federal claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over, and dismisses, her NYSHRL and WCHRL claims.

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

Chinniah v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission · filed 2022-02-09(c)(3)

Even if these state law claims are not preempted, I would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claimsunder 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) because I have dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims.

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

Pfundstein v. Home Depot USA · filed 2022-02-10(c)(3)

Because Mr. Pfundstein’s remaining claims are all based upon state law, the court declines to reach the merits of those claims here because, without any viable federal claims, the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Grandison v. Alabama State University · filed 2022-02-10(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state- law claims when it has dismissed all federal-law claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004) (While the decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, the Eleventh Circuit “ha[s] encouraged district courts to dismiss any remaining state claims when . . . the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.”). Exercising its discretion, the court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim for breach of contract.

When all federal claims have been dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits the district court to retain supplemental state-law claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Casequin v. Cat 5 Contracting, Inc. · filed 2022-02-10(c)(3)

There is no dispute that § 1367(c)(3) is now satisfied because all federal claims have been dismissed. Thus, the Court must consider whether, at this stage in the litigation, “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” support dismissing the supplemental claims. Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726. Weighing these factors, the Court, in its discretion, will continue to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Bermudez v. Rivera Services Group, Inc. · filed 2022-02-10(c)(3)

Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, unless circumstances justify retaining them.

Joe Schroeder Legacy, LLC v. Service247 of Illinois, Inc. · filed 2022-02-10(c)(3)

Finding no justification to depart from the general rule requiring dismissal of supplemental state law claims in these circumstances, the 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Czaja v. Delta Airlines · filed 2022-02-10(c)(3)

Because Czaja’s only federal claim therefore is subject to dismissal, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Czaja’s state law claim.

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

Vigoda v. Rosendahl-Sweeney · filed 2022-02-11(c)(3)

Thus, in light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims and the lack of diversity jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and Defendant Rosendahl- Sweeney’s state law counterclaims.

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

Blake (ID 96323) v. Corizon · filed 2022-02-11(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s federal claim is subject to dismissal, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

Asher v. Clay County Board of Education · filed 2022-02-11(c)(3)

The Court declines to address Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, “a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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 informing that decision.

HUGHES v. Wayne, City of · filed 2022-02-11(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. For one, the Court lacks original jurisdiction over the claims. And two, the interests of judicial economy do not override the presumption against retaining the case because the Court has not yet issued a scheduling order and the parties have not begun discovery.

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.

Torres v. New Mexico Corrections Department · filed 2022-02-11(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 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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Monegro v. Street Insider Dot Com Inc. · filed 2022-02-11(c)(3)

Even if this were not the case, since the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs claims arising under federal law, it would also decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NYCHRL claims.

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

Jenkins v. Tarrant County Sheriff's Office · filed 2022-02-11(c)

With respect to the statutory factors, the second and third factors weigh heavily in favor of declining to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against the Tarrant County Defendants. As all federal claims have been dismissed, there are no claims of original jurisdiction remaining, and state law claims dominate.

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

R.H. v. City of Redding · filed 2022-02-11(c)(3)

Here, comity strongly weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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, considering judicial economy and the inconvenience of refiling in state court.

Johnson v. Hurwicz · filed 2022-02-14(c)(3)

As the Court has not considered the merits of the Unruh Act claim, there is no interest in judicial economy in retaining the case. Nor has Plaintiff articulated any significant inconvenience that he would face in refiling in state court. The Court will, therefore, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act and dismiss it without prejudice.

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

Bell v. Haines · filed 2022-02-14(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s remaining claims concern interpretations of Pennsylvania law, and the federal claims have been dismissed before trial, the prudent course is to decline 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 the federal claims.

Arunachalam v. Davis · filed 2022-02-15(c)(3)

Because the federal claims must be dismissed, I decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

French v. Hester · filed 2022-02-15(c)(3)

Because the Court only has supplemental jurisdiction over French’s state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1367(a), the Court now declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims because all related constitutional and federal-law claims have been dismissed.

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

Richard v. Pritzker · filed 2022-02-16(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a court has discretion to dismiss claims that rely on state law if all claims over which a court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Hardeman v. Smash · filed 2022-02-16(c)(3)

Once all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.

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

Frederickson v. San Diego County Board of Supervisors · filed 2022-02-16(c)(3)

Here, because the Court is dismissing the only federal claim at the outset of the litigation, it is appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Trantham v. Prince George's County, MD · filed 2022-02-16(c)(3)

Under § 1367(c)(3), 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.” ... Because the Court has awarded summary judgment to Defendants on the only federal claim (Count One), the Court will exercise its discretion to dismiss Mr. Trantham’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants after dismissing all federal claims against them, based on the balance of relevant considerations.

Caldwell 805842 v. Cummings · filed 2022-02-16(c)

Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state law claims. 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, in light of the Court’s dismissal of the federal claims against Defendants Taskila, Cumming, Wilson, and Stromer, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction as to these Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Taskila, Cummings, Wilson, and Stromer will be dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Bordeaux v. Halstead Property Development Marketing LLC · filed 2022-02-16(c)(3)

Pursuant to its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, and these claims are 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.

LOPRESTI v. MURPHY · filed 2022-02-17(c)(3)

Here, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims under Articles I and VIII of the New Jersey Constitution. In this Opinion, I have dismissed the federal claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims are dismissed at the outset and the remaining state and city claims involve different substantive standards and unsettled state law.

Pompey-Primus v. Success Academy Charter Schools, Inc. · filed 2022-02-17(c)

The Court finds that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims would be inappropriate in this case. Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed at the threshold of this case, and her city and state claims implicate different substantive 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, upon consideration of the relevant factors.

Wade v. St. Paul Boulevard Fire District · filed 2022-02-17(c)(3)

In this case, the Court has dismissed all plausible federal claims. Upon consideration of all relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed before trial, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Kiang v. Yummy Oriental Restaurant, Inc. · filed 2022-02-18(c)

I decline to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Four factors bear on whether it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction: “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2018). As a general matter, where “a plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” Brzak v. United Nations, 597 F.3d 107, 113-14 (2d Cir. 2010); see Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. ex rel. St Vincent Catholic Med. Ctrs. Ret. Plan v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc., 712 F.3d 705, 727 (2d Cir. 2013); Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Bd. of Trade, 464 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs have articulated no persuasive reason to depart from the usual practice here.

After dismissing the federal claim, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims under § 1367(c)(3), taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Donna L. Chessen, Trustee of the 1997 K&M Family Trust Dated 12-11-97 v. City of San Rafael · filed 2022-02-22(c)(3)

In light of the federal claim’s dismissal, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).! All of the relevant considerations—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—point towards this outcome.

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

Ambassador Animal Hospital, Ltd. v. Elanco Animal Health Incorporated · filed 2022-02-22(c)

Generally, when a district court dismisses all of a plaintiff’s federal claims, it should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims rather than resolve them on the merits. Cortezano v. Salin Bank & Tr. Co., 680 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2012); Wright v. Associated Ins. Cos. Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1252 (7th Cir. 1994) (pendent state-law claims “should be left to the state courts.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Because this Court dismissed the federal claim in Count I, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law conversion claim in Count II.

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

Wooley v. Robey · filed 2022-02-22(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Finnegan v. Cubesmart · filed 2022-02-22(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on the balance of judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state-law issues.

Johnson 754721 v. Wohlscheid · filed 2022-02-24(c)(3)

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

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

Willis v. Multnomah County Sheriffs Office · filed 2022-02-24(c)(3)

To the extent plaintiff alleges claims for relief under state law, although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As discussed above, plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a plausible federal claim for relief. If plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint which cures the deficiencies noted, plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed as well.

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

Willis v. Kvernland · filed 2022-02-24(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent plaintiff alleges claims for relief under state law, although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, the Court may also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As discussed above, plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a plausible federal claim for relief. If plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint which cures the deficiencies noted, plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed as well. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

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

Willis v. Langford · filed 2022-02-24(c)(3)

To the extent plaintiff alleges claims for relief under state law, although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, the Court may also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As discussed above, plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a plausible federal claim for relief. If plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint which cures the deficiencies noted, plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed as well.

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

MinedMap, Inc. v. Northway Mining, LLC · filed 2022-02-25(c)(3)

Because of this, the district court did not err in refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over MinedMap’s numerous state law claims. A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., 659 F.3d 234, 245 (2d Cir. 2011).

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

Lee-Bey v. Shaver · filed 2022-02-28(c)(3)

Here, no federal claim has passed initial review. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s North Carolina libel and defamation of character claims at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claim cannot proceed.

Mann v. Power Home Solar, LLC · filed 2022-02-28(c)(3)

Therefore, because the only basis of this Court’s jurisdiction is alleged to be “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims in the absence of federal jurisdiction.

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

Whitcombe v. Lanza Corp · filed 2022-02-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s Title VII claims for relief—i.e., the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction—the only claims remaining for consideration are those Plaintiff intends to press under New York State and New York City law. (See Compl. ¶¶ 3, 100-70). The Court, therefore, declines to exercise jurisdiction over any outstanding state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not favor retaining them.

Zonis v. Grubman · filed 2022-02-28(c)

Given the relatively early stage of the case and the predominance of state law claims over federal, the traditional “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity” that the Court must consider do not counsel in favor of exercising jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, Zonis’s state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Westbrook v. City of Jackson, Mississippi · filed 1991-08-22(c)(3)

Having concluded that plaintiffs’ federal claims which supported the removal of this action should be dismissed, the court declines to exercise pendent jurisdieiton over plaintiffs’ 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.

Miller v. Beneficial Management Corp. · filed 1991-10-18(c)(3)

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because no other ground for supplemental jurisdiction is alleged, supplemental jurisdiction will no longer be exercised in this case.

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.

Raggi v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. · filed 1991-12-12(c)(3)

Here, plaintiff brings two claims — one grounded in federal law and one pursuant to state law. This court has dismissed plaintiff’s federal claim as time-barred. Accordingly, plaintiff’s state law claim — over which the court has no original jurisdiction — is dismissed pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

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

Pomeroy v. Schlegel Corp. · filed 1991-12-19(c)(3)

This court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction and, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining claims.

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

Kahn v. Virginia Retirement System · filed 1992-01-23(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The parties and the Court agree that since all of the Plaintiffs’ federal securities law claims have been dismissed, it would be in the interests of justice to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law 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.

Manela v. Gottlieb · filed 1992-02-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed those claims as to MSBB and Lipkin, the Court now declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims alleged against those defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Evanowski v. Bankworcester Corp. · filed 1991-10-29(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Dismissal of plaintiff’s federal securities claims in Count One of the complaint will dispose of the only federal question raised in this case. Where the federal claims are dismissed before trial, it is well settled that any supplemental state claims should also be dismissed.

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

Lahaza v. Azeff · filed 1992-03-31(c)(3)

Once the claims are dismissed under this Court’s original jurisdiction, the Court has discretion whether to hear any remaining claims.

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

Bonger v. American Water Works · filed 1992-04-08(c)(3)

A federal court that has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, may decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Therefore, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after all claims within their original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Freer v. Mayer · filed 1992-06-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (1990), the “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state] claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” As a result of our granting summary judgment to the defendant on the § 14(a) claim, there no longer exists a federal question in this suit. Whether to continue hearing the state claims is conferred to our broad discretion.

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

Frumkin v. International Business MacHines Corp. · filed 1992-07-01(c)(3)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s non-federal claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation are also dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (Supp.1991) (effective Dec. 1, 1990).

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

Rhyne v. Henderson County · filed 1992-09-15(c)(3)

Therefore, we find that the district court's dismissal of the state-law claims was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Ass'n v. Gettysburg College · filed 1992-07-02(c)(3)

As a result of the foregoing, all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction will be dismissed. With regard to the remaining state law claims against the private defendants, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, and will remand these claims to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over nonfederal claims after dismissing the federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

In Re General Development Corp. Bond Litigation · filed 1992-07-08(c)

There being no independent basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction to support the non-federal claims asserted in the Complaint, the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (Supp.1991) (effective Dec. 1, 1990) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, and the Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

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

Packett v. Stenberg · filed 1992-07-16(c)(3)

We presume that the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim. ... The present action clearly fits within subsection (c)(3) above. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue.

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

Lake Erie Institute of Rehabilitation v. Marion County, West Virginia Board of Education · filed 1992-07-28(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it is within the discretion of the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. The court now exercises that discretion, and dismisses the third party action.

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.

Packett v. Stenberg · filed 1992-08-20(c)(3)

The present action clearly fits within subsection (c)(3) above. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue.

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.

Simmerman v. Corino · filed 1992-10-23(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, 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.” ... Accordingly, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining supplemental claims after it dismisses the claims supplying original jurisdiction.

Allen v. Diebold, Inc. · filed 1992-11-24(c)(3)

The claims remaining before this court are DISMISSED pursuant to the codification of United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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.

Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc. v. CJR Processing, Inc. · filed 1992-11-30(c)(3)

Although these claims are so related to the CERCLA count such that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” see id. at § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims after all claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Rhyne v. Henderson County · filed 1992-10-13(c)(3)

The district court has properly dismissed all of the federal questions that gave it original jurisdiction in this case. Therefore, we find that the district court's dismissal of the state-law claims was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss state law claims after dismissing the federal claim on which its original jurisdiction rests.

Abrash v. Fox · filed 1992-11-02(c)(3)

Since this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is premised on Plaintiffs claim under the federal securities law, Defendant’s motion is granted and the Complaint is dismissed as to the federal claim, and the state law claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss a claim that lacks independent federal jurisdiction after resolving the claims within its original jurisdiction.

City Environmental, Inc. v. U.S. Chemical Co. · filed 1993-02-05(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court having no independent subject matter jurisdiction over Count IV of Plaintiffs Complaint, that Court IV shall be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Long v. Board of Educ. of City of Philadelphia · filed 1993-01-20(c)(3)

As this court has dismissed all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, this court will not exercise its discretion to decide this supplemental state law claim.

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

Wilde v. County of Kandiyohi · filed 1993-01-25(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wilde’s state law claims because it has dismissed the federal law claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss a supplemental state law claim after dismissing the federal claim that supplied original jurisdiction.

Crosby v. City of Jackson · filed 1993-01-28(c)(3)

Further, plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claim shall be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Marrazzo v. Bucks County Bank and Trust Co. · filed 1993-02-09(c)(3)

Inasmuch as the Plaintiffs’ federal claims must be dismissed, this Court sees no need to evaluate the sufficiency of their state law claims. Rather, we find that those causes of action are more suitably raised and considered in the appropriate state court. Accordingly, Counts IV through VIII are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to Plaintiffs to refile them in the proper state forum.

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

Swanson v. Fields · filed 1993-02-17(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all of the federal law claims over which it had original jurisdiction are dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... In its discretion, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Cruz v. City of Wilmington · filed 1993-02-23(c)(3)

The Court in the exercise of its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 will “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the plaintiffs’ state law claims and the defendants’ state law crossclaim because the Court will “dismiss all claims over which it [had] original jurisdiction;”

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

Achtien v. City of Deadwood · filed 1993-02-24(c)(3)

However, this Court also has discretion to dismiss state law claims over which it has only supplemental jurisdiction if the Court has dismissed all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court dismisses Achtiens’ state law claims without prejudice.

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

Ruh v. Samerjan · filed 1993-03-01(c)(3)

Since all of Ms. Ruh’s federal claims, Claims #1, #2, #3, #5 and # 6 are to be dismissed, I believe that the court should also refuse to exercise jurisdiction over her two pendent state claims [Claims #4 and #7].

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

Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc. · filed 1993-03-19(c)(3)

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when “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 dismissal of the claims supporting original jurisdiction.

Board of Education v. Leininger · filed 1993-03-29(c)(3)

Dismissal of these counts removes all basis for the court’s original jurisdiction. The court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law counts of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Counts III through Y are therefore dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman · filed 1993-04-05(c)(3)

This Court therefore no longer has original jurisdiction in this ease and we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

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

Staggs v. Ausdenmoore · filed 1993-04-27(c)(3)

Whether or not to dismiss a pendent state law claim after all federal claims have been dismissed is a question left to the discretion of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction are dismissed); see Kitchen v. Chippewa Valley Schools, 825 F.2d 1004, 1009 (6th Cir.1987). ... The district court dismissed Staggs' pendent claim without prejudice, as was appropriate. Staggs has not even suggested that this was an abuse of discretion, and we therefore hold that the district court properly dismissed this aspect of the case without prejudice.

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

Yusuf v. Vassar College · filed 1993-04-19(c)(3)

As authorized under § 1367(c)(3), I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim where the court “has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Mussington Ex Rel. Jacobs v. St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center · filed 1993-06-11(c)(3)

As to the other state law claims, since the federal claims over which this Court has original federal jurisdiction are dismissed, this Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the accompanying 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.

Renz v. Schreiber · filed 1993-07-07(c)(3)

Because the plaintiffs’ federal securities law claims will be dismissed, this court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims and will dismiss them as well.

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

Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert · filed 1993-07-08(c)(3)

Here, the district court properly exercised its discretion under section 1367(c)(3) and de-dined to retain the pendent state claims after it dismissed all of the other claims in the complaint.

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

Wals v. Fox Hill Development Corp. · filed 1993-08-04(c)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because the court will dismiss the claim over ... which it has original jurisdiction, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Associacao dos Industriais de Cordoaria e Redes v. United States · filed 1993-07-28(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (Supp. III 1991), federal courts possess the power to dismiss claims whose jurisdiction was purely supplemental where the claims over which original jurisdiction exists are dismissed early in the litigation. ... As Cordoaria’s CIT original jurisdiction claims have been dismissed, this court chooses to leave resolution of Cordoaria’s remaining claims, most of which involve state law issues, to other adjudicators.

Section 1367 permits a court to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when some claims within its original jurisdiction survive dismissal.

Piazza v. Major League Baseball · filed 1993-08-04(c)(3)

Because I have not dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, I will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Brown Leasing Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 1993-08-11(c)(3)

This Court finds that dismissal of Counts IV and V in Brown Leasing’s amended complaint for failure to exhaust administrative procedures is warranted under the circumstances and the recognized purpose of the elaborate procedures outlined in FIRREA. Having dismissed these counts, this Court refuses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted against non-FDIC defendants.

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

Save Our Health Organization v. Recomp of Minnesota, Inc. · filed 1993-08-13(c)(3)

The court, however, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims because it has dismissed the claim in this action over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Turkish v. Kasenetz · filed 1993-09-08(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims in that case, having dismissed all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Urban v. King · filed 1993-09-29(c)

Now that the claims over which the court had original jurisdiction are dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Smith v. Walsh · filed 1993-09-29(c)(3)

The Court also dismisses without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), plaintiffs state claims against Sheriff Walsh under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act and under the common law theory of respondeat superior. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (1990) (giving district court judge discretion to dismiss state claims once all federal claims against a party have been dismissed).

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

Myers v. Becker County · filed 1993-10-12(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Myers’ state law claims because it has dismissed the federal law 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Petitti v. Massachusetts Department of Mental Health · filed 1993-11-12(c)(3)

This court need not reach the question of whether the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiffs state court claim because this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Therefore, having dismissed plaintiffs federal claims on summary judgment, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim.

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

Presnick v. Berger · filed 1993-11-05(c)(3)

Inasmuch as the court has dismissed all of the plaintiffs federal law claims — ie., all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction — the court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), declines, in the exercise of its discretion, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after the claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

In Re Fidelity Bank Trust Fee Litigation · filed 1993-11-19(c)(3)

... in light of our decision, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

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

Gehl Group v. Koby · filed 1993-12-02(c)(3)

This being the case, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Wong v. Thomas Bros. Restaurant Corp. · filed 1994-01-04(c)(3)

Moreover, because plaintiffs’ 10b-5 claim is their sole justification for federal jurisdiction over eight pendent state law claims, these remaining state law claims should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3) (“The district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; a case’s pendency for over two years alone is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting retention.

Pauli v. Farmington Cent. Com. School Dist. 265 · filed 1994-01-12(c)(3)

Therefore, this Court finds that the fact that this case has been pending for over two years is not an extraordinary circumstance and declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the Paulis’ state law claims.

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

Ricci v. Gooberman · filed 1993-12-28(c)(3)

As a result of this holding, no issues conferring original jurisdiction on this court remain in plaintiffs case. Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remands the remainder of the case to state court.

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

Urashka v. Griffin Hospital · filed 1994-01-24(c)(3)

Inasmuch as the plaintiff’s federal claims have all been dismissed, the court also dismisses the plaintiff's remaining claims — all of which are grounded exclusively in state law — pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Chayo v. Kaladjian · filed 1994-02-09(c)(3)

The sole basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ various state law claims against defendants is this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). A court may decline to exercise such jurisdiction when the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The Court has dismissed all of the claims in this case over which it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court dismisses the pendant state law claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. 1367(c).

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

Lowry v. Clark · filed 1994-02-11(c)(3)

Moreover, the Court will not consider his remaining arguments in favor of dismissing Lowry’s state law claims because it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Lust v. Burke · filed 1994-02-16(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... Since plaintiffs’ federal claims against defendant Stephen DeSanto are being dismissed and since there are no exceptional circumstances here, this Court will not exercise pendent jurisdiction over him 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, particularly when complex state law issues remain.

Novak v. Cobb County-Kennestone Hospital Authority · filed 1994-02-28(c)(3)

Because all the claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction now have been removed from the case due to the Court’s decision to grant all defendants’ motions for summary judgment with respect to the federal claims, § 1367(c)(3) applies. ... The Court concludes that dismissal is appropriate in this case, both because all federal claims have been dismissed and because the remaining case raises a wide variety of complex state law issues.

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.

Fluent v. Salamanca Indian Lease Authority · filed 1994-03-14(c)(3)

Since it is recommended that the District Court dismiss the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the District Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lyle v. Dodd · filed 1994-03-22(c)(3)

Because the only claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction now have been dismissed from the case, § 1367(c)(3) applies. ... Accordingly, the Court dismisses the remaining state-law claims.

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

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Berger · filed 1994-03-29(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court will exercise its discretion to decline to entertain plaintiff's state law claims, following the dismissal of those claims over which the Court's original jurisdiction was based.

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

Giambalvo v. National RR Passenger Corp. · filed 1994-03-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed those claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Eisenberg v. District Attorney of County of Kings · filed 1994-04-01(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed all of plaintiff's claims against the District Attorney over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's 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 claims after it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Baker v. Mecklenburg County · filed 1994-04-11(c)(3)

The Court believes the remaining claims under the North Carolina Constitution should also be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for jurisdictional reasons. According to that statute, “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction....” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiff’s action obtains original jurisdiction in this Court only by virtue of his having stated a claim for relief under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Since the Court has granted summary judgment as to those federal claims, it no longer has original jurisdiction over the pendant state law claims. Accordingly, the Court will in its discretion dismiss the remaining claims arising under the North Carolina Constitution because that actions arising under that document are better left to North Carolina’s courts.

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.

Dr. And Mrs. Wentworth S. Morris, and Mary Mauricia Morris v. Montgomery County, Tennessee · filed 1994-04-20(c)(3)

The district court's decision not to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state claims must be upheld unless it represents an abuse of discretion. ... Under the circumstances presented here, the district court's decision not to exercise jurisdiction was explicitly sanctioned by subsection (c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an intervenor’s claims after the claims within its original jurisdiction have ended.

Cunningham v. Subaru of America, Inc. · filed 1994-05-03(c)(3)

The court also notes that under the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, which took effect December 1,1990, it has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim involving intervention of additional parties, where the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)(3). As an alternative ground for denying applicant’s motion for permissive intervention, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the applicant’s claims, in the interest of maintaining the finality of the judicial proceeding between the original parties to this case.

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

Biase v. Kaplan · filed 1994-05-09(c)(3)

Accordingly, to the extent jurisdiction over Count V could be predicated on the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, Count V would be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Koelsch v. Town of Amesbury · filed 1994-05-17(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1976 & Supp.1992) the court has discretion over whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

James v. City of Chester · filed 1994-05-18(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Because the court has determined that all of the plaintiffs federal causes of action must be dismissed, the court will exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction over the supplemental 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.

Respass v. New York City Police Department · filed 1994-05-19(c)(3)

In light of the conclusion reached above that plaintiffs federal claims must be dismissed, this court lacks an independent basis for jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim and, in the exercise of its sound discretion, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. ... Because this court has dismissed all of plaintiffs federal claims, and in the interest of judicial economy, this court hereby dismisses plaintiffs state law claim for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Johnson v. Turner · filed 1994-06-16(c)(3)

Since plaintiff has no federal claim, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction to consider the state claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the court has dismissed all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction).

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

Field v. Kirton · filed 1994-06-21(c)(3)

Inasmuch as the remaining counts of the complaint are based exclusively on state law, the court could readily dismiss these claims by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Carrasco v. New York City Off-Track Betting Corp. · filed 1994-06-30(c)(3)

When the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over ancillary 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.

Bloom v. Martin · filed 1994-07-22(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over and dismisses the remaining state law claims.

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

Brewer by and Through Brewer v. Miami County Hosp. · filed 1994-08-05(c)(3)

Now that the claim over which the court had original jurisdiction is dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows dismissal of supplemental state claims after all claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Winston v. Shell Oil Co. · filed 1994-08-18(c)(3)

When the RCRA claims are dismissed, this court no longer has original jurisdiction over this action and, therefore, under § 1367(c)(3) the supplemental state claims will also have to be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Thomas Ray Newsome, Jr. v. Patrick G. Baca, Individually and as Secretary, New Mexico Department of Labor · filed 1994-07-20(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3), a district court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed those claims upon 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.

Martinez v. Western Ohio Health Care Corp. · filed 1994-08-24(c)(3)

In that event, the Court will also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, thus dismissing such claims without prejudice to refiling same in state court, where those claims may proceed as a free standing lawsuit or as a matter consolidated with the Westbrook litigation.

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

Reynolds v. Mercy Hospital · filed 1994-08-24(c)(3)

However, once those claims were recommended to be dismissed, under § 1367(c)(3), the remaining state claims become subject to dismissal as the court may, in its discretion, decline supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. While the complaint in this case was filed in 1991, a trial date has not yet been set, and the remaining issues are solely based on state malpractice law. Accordingly, based on relevant Second Circuit law, the court should decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Doe v. Karadzic · filed 1994-09-07(c)(3)

When the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Thus, this Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of the work done on those claims and the availability of another forum.

Franklin v. Ciroli · filed 1994-09-12(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 allows district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In the present case the parties have dedicated relatively little time to the preparation of the dependent state law claims, and the plaintiffs retain access to an alternative forum for the resolution of these claims. It is appropriate in this case for the court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction and to order the state law claims dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits, but does not require, a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Fallin v. Mindis Metals, Inc. · filed 1994-09-21(c)(3)

Indeed, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the district court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse state tort claim, where the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, but is not required to dismiss, or in this instance remand, the case.

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

Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa · filed 1994-09-29(c)(3)

In the present case, the court has indeed dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... This federal court does not believe that it is appropriate or necessary for the federal court to adjudicate matters that are plainly within the purview and expertise of the state court where there is no independent federal jurisdiction. ... This matter will therefore be 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.

Servicemaster Co., LP v. FTR Transport, Inc. · filed 1994-09-07(c)(3)

When a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, Counts II, III and IV are dismissed without prejudice as to their refiling in state court.

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.

Gonzales v. Galveston Independent School District · filed 1994-10-04(c)(3)

Under § 1367, however, a federal trial court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all the 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.

Sanders v. Coman · filed 1994-10-11(c)(3)

Section 1367(c), however, states that a district court may decline to exercise such jurisdiction for several reasons, including that the “district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” As stated above, the court has found that plaintiffs’ allegations do not state causes of action under the United States Constitution and all of those claims will be dismissed. Because those claims were the ones over which this court had original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and plaintiffs’ state law claims will be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state-law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Baranowski v. Borough of Palmyra · filed 1994-11-02(c)(3)

The only remaining claims arise under state law, and we will dismiss those claims as well. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Baker ex rel. Baker v. Putnal · filed 1994-10-14(c)(3)

Pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), this Court declines to hear Plaintiffs State Court claims. Thus, Plaintiffs State court claims are HEREBY 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.

Custodio v. United States · filed 1994-10-26(c)(3)

Because I have decided to dismiss all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, I decline, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third claim, a purely state law claim.

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

Bielawski v. AMI, INC. · filed 1994-10-27(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... Accordingly, this Court, in its discretion, dismisses the supplemental state law claims, without prejudice, for lack of a substantial federal claim.

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

North Penn Transfer, Inc. v. ATD-American Co. · filed 1994-11-16(c)(3)

Since I have granted summary judgment against plaintiff on its federal undercharge claim, the only claim over which this Court had original jurisdiction, I have the option of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state undercharge claim. ... Therefore, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state undercharge claim of plaintiff.

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.

Supermarket of Marlinton, Inc. v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc. · filed 1994-11-23(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims if the district court dismisses all claims over which, it has original jurisdiction. To the extent that I will grant summary judgment on the federal claims in this action, I exercise the discretion that section 1367 grants and dismiss the state law claims.

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

Long v. Madigan · filed 1994-11-23(c)(3)

Since this action was commenced after the effective date of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, Pub.L. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5089 (effective December 1, 1990), we look to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 in order to ascertain our supplemental jurisdiction to address those issues which are ancillary to the Plaintiffs’ claims that have been previously dismissed with prejudice. ... Here, there are no claims pending before the Court as to which Federal Court jurisdiction attaches. ... Accordingly, we recommend that the Court decline to exercise its jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance, and that the Motion be 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.

West Virginia Ex Rel. McGraw v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc. · filed 1994-11-25(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims if the district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. To the extent that I will grant summary judgment on the federal claims in this action, I exercise the discretion that section 1367 grants and dismiss the state law claims.

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

Callahan v. Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit 13 · filed 1994-12-05(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 codified the common law abstention doctrines and reads in relevant part: (c) The 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.

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

Ciszewski v. Milas · filed 1994-12-06(c)(3)

As a result, the remaining state law claims advanced by the plaintiff over which this court had supplemental jurisdiction will also be dismissed.

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

Maidenbaum v. Bally's Park Place, Inc. · filed 1994-12-28(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.A. § 1367. ... We find no extraordinary circumstances that would justify retention of jurisdiction, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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.

Hope v. Cortines · filed 1995-01-05(c)(3)

Although this matter came before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court has determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must therefore dismiss the federal claims. The Court declines to exercise its discretion and adjudicate plaintiffs’ state law. claim in the absence of an independent federal jurisdictional basis.

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

McKay v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc. · filed 1995-02-27(c)(3)

However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over McKay’s state law claims since the claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction are being dismissed.

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.

Valot v. Southeast Local School District · filed 1995-02-28(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction have all been dismissed. ... Accordingly, this Court, in its discretion, dismisses plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claim, without prejudice, for lack of a substantial federal claim.

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

Booth v. Old National Bank · filed 1995-03-07(c)(3)

Furthermore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.