28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Hartman v. Bachert · filed 1995-01-31(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 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Clapp v. County of Mono · filed 1995-03-02(c)(3)

When a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent 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.

De Wit v. Firstar Corp. · filed 1995-03-01(c)(3)

Here, the case now stands in the circumstances identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1267(e)(3): the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim, and this matter must be dismissed in its entirety.

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

McCoy v. Webster · filed 1995-03-14(c)

If after this appeal, however, no federal claim remains against any of the defendants, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims against both Brown and Webster.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a federal court discretion to dismiss pendent state claims after it disposes of the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization v. Bratton · filed 1995-03-15(c)(3)

The counterclaims asserted by defendants are pendent state claims. As such, they are hereby dismissed pursuant to this Court’s discretion under 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c)(8). That section vests the Court with discretion to dismiss remaining state claims after dismissing those claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Harrison v. Landmark Community Publications of Tennessee, Inc. · filed 1995-03-31(c)(3)

Title 28, U.S.C., § 1367(c)(3) grants a district court the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

L.S.T., Inc. v. Crow · filed 1995-04-06(c)(3)

Because diversity of citizenship does not exist and all the federal claims to which these state charges were jurisdictionally attached have been eliminated, the district court should consider on remand whether the continued exercise of its supplemental jurisdiction over counts four through thirteen of the complaint is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed); McCoy v. Webster, 47 F.3d 404, 408 & n. 4 (11th Cir.1995).

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

Harris v. Tate County School District · filed 1995-04-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims over which this court had 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Mathews v. Lancaster General Hospital · filed 1995-05-04(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on the only federal claims, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs pendent state law claims, to the extent those claims survive our ruling as to HCQIA immunity.

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.

Kirchgessner v. Wilentz · filed 1995-04-28(c)(3)

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

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

Seaner v. Schimke · filed 1995-05-30(c)(3)

Based on the foregoing analysis, I find that plaintiffs’ federal claims have no merit: “The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim if [] the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); ... Accordingly, plaintiffs’ state claims are dismissed.

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

Cooper v. Palmieri · filed 1995-05-19(c)(3)

We also affirm the district court's dismissal of Cooper's remaining state law claims. The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3).

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

Parsons v. Sanchez · filed 1995-06-01(c)(3)

Because the district court had dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it had discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Matter of Hanks · filed 1995-06-05(c)(3)

Even if there were ancillary jurisdiction, the Court would find it proper to decline to exercise such jurisdiction since it has dismissed the proceeding over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Pryor-El v. Kelly · filed 1995-06-27(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs claims are more appropriately pursued in the District of Columbia Superior Court, and because the Court will dismiss the claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Clinton v. County of York · filed 1995-06-16(c)(3)

In other words, the court has discretion whether or not to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims once it has dismissed the federal claims to which the state-law claims had attached.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, but does not require dismissal.

New England Co. v. Bank of Gwinnett County · filed 1995-07-13(c)(3)

Indeed, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse state law claim, where the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, but is not required to dismiss the ease.

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

K.M.B. Warehouse Distributors, Inc. v. Walker Manufacturing Company · filed 1995-07-21(c)(3)

Section 1367 explicitly provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3). The district court was thus well within its discretion when it dismissed KMB's state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) is triggered only when all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed, even if a particular defendant faces only state law claims.

Gudenkauf v. Stauffer Communications, Inc. · filed 1995-07-28(c)(3)

In this case, all of the plaintiff's federal claims have not been dismissed. Therefore, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) is not "triggered" and this court does not have the discretion to dismiss Skinner.

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.

K.M.B. Warehouse Distributors, Inc. v. Walker Manufacturing Co. · filed 1995-07-21(c)(3)

Section 1367 explicitly provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The district court was thus well within its discretion when it dismissed KMB’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when no claims remain within its original jurisdiction.

Behr v. Snider · filed 1995-08-03(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s conclusion that there are no claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Litz v. City of Allentown · filed 1995-08-18(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Kirsch v. Franklin · filed 1995-08-22(c)(3)

However, a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because I am denying Mr. Kirsch leave to proceed in forma pauper-is on his federal claims, I will decline to exercise jurisdiction over his claims under state law.

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

Barber v. Dale County Mental Health Center · filed 1995-08-23(c)(3)

The court’s rulings in its Memorandum Opinion and Order dispose of all of plaintiff’s federal claims against all defendants. Because the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3) the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and the state law claims embodied in the complaint will be DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Schwitzgebel v. City of Strongsville · filed 1995-08-28(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.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when a related state court action is pending.

Doe v. Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. · filed 1995-09-28(c)(3)

However, under the facts of this case, there seems little doubt that it would be appropriate to decline to exercise jurisdiction of the state claims, since the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction are to be dismissed (28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3)), and there is already an action pending in Hennepin County District Court in which the issues are raised.

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.

Redlich v. Albany Law School of Union University · filed 1995-10-03(c)(3)

The relevant exception to the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in this case is that this court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Thus, since all the federal claims have been dismissed, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and dismisses those claims, without reaching the merits, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Gorman v. Roberts · filed 1995-10-17(c)(3)

In accordance with the foregoing authority, since no claims remain from which the court had original jurisdiction, the court shall dismiss the remaining state claims without prejudice.

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

Brown v. Costello · filed 1995-10-31(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims if it “[h]as dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In the present ease, the court has dismissed all of plaintiffs’ federal claims. Therefore, to the extent that its resolution of these claims has not disposed of plaintiffs’ state law claims as well, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the same.

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

Brogren v. Pohlad · filed 1995-09-28(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that plaintiffs’-securities fraud claims, which are the basis of original jurisdiction, should be dismissed, jurisdiction over the negligent misrepresentation claims will also be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 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.

Burke v. Dowling · filed 1995-11-06(c)(3)

Under § 1367, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

In Re Mobile Telecommunication Technologies Corp. · filed 1995-11-06(c)(3)

Having now concluded that plaintiffs’ federal claims should be dismissed, the court declines 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 it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County · filed 1995-11-20(c)(3)

Federal law permits this court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3); ... Plaintiffs have filed the same state inverse condemnation claim in state court, and that case has been stayed pending the outcome of this ease. The state issues of law are both complex and novel. Accordingly, Count V will now be dismissed.

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

J. Burk VOIGT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard D. SAVELL; Ronald J. Woods; Karrold Jackson; State of Alaska, Defendants- · filed 1995-11-22(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The district court’s dismissal of Voigt’s state law claims was clearly within its discretion.

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

Cornett v. Aetna Life Insurance · filed 1995-12-05(c)(3)

Even if Dr. LaMarra's intervention were of right, the Court has discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over ancillary claims, when all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Grinnell v. General Electric Co. · filed 1995-12-07(c)(3)

In light of the fact that this decision results in the dismissal of plaintiff's remaining federal claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law cross-claims when a claim within its original jurisdiction remains unresolved.

NYLife Dist., Inc. v. Adherence Grp., Inc. · filed 1995-12-21(c)(3)

It necessarily follows and we further conclude that the district court erred when it also dismissed Gerasolo's cross-claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (1993) on October 26, 1994, believing that all claims over which it had original jurisdiction had been eliminated from the case.

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

Plasencia v. Gorham · filed 1997-02-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state 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.

Rodriguez v. City of Milwaukee · filed 1997-03-07(c)(3)

The statute, however, also give the court discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). That is the situation in the present case, and I will relinquish jurisdiction over the supplemental 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.

Cehrs v. Northeast Ohio Alzheimer Research Center · filed 1997-03-07(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(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 exercises its discretion and DISMISSES Cehrs’s 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 state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Campbell v. Masten · filed 1997-03-11(c)(3)

Districts courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... This Court believes the determination of the sufficiency of Campbell’s state law claims is best left to the Maryland state courts, and accordingly, this Court declines herein to exercise 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Taylor v. UNION PLANTERS BANK OF SOUTHERN MISS. · filed 1997-03-20(c)(3)

Because the federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Kutner v. Sprint Communications Co. LP · filed 1997-03-20(c)(3)

Furthermore, having dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction over plaintiffs 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.

Joyce v. Suffolk County · filed 1996-01-16(c)(3)

The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction by a federal court over a state law claim is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367 which provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he 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][3]. ... Accordingly, 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gordon v. Katz · filed 1996-01-17(c)(3)

I have considered the factors set forth above and have elected to exercise the court’s discretion to dismiss the pendent state-law claims. In 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), Congress granted the district courts discretion to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had 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.

Watts v. Butte School District No. 5 · filed 1996-01-17(c)(3)

2. the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs fourth cause of action because all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction must be dismissed; ... 6. this action should be dismissed with prejudice.

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

Fahle v. Braslow · filed 1996-01-29(c)(3)

While the Court is permitted to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, it declines to do so.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed, with limited expenditure of resources supporting that choice.

Canada v. Thomas · filed 1996-02-02(c)(3)

Because few resources have been expended by both the parties and this Court, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on 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.

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Winship Green Nursing Center · filed 1996-02-12(c)(3)

Because this Court will dismiss all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ four remaining state law claims. 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.

Figuly v. The City of Douglas, a Municipal Corporation, H.R. Johnston, Individually, Ray Haskins, Individually · filed 1996-02-20(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(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.” Accordingly, the dismissal of appellant’s remaining state law claims was appropriate.

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.

Nobles v. Alabama Christian Academy · filed 1996-03-11(c)(3)

The court declines, however, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ernst & Co. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A. · filed 1996-03-21(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Since the parties are in the earliest stages of this case and the federal claim has been dismissed leaving no independent basis of jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, they will also be dismissed.

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

Lacy v. Berge · filed 1996-03-30(c)(3)

Because Lacy has failed to establish this essential element of his claims against Lutzow and because summary judgment is being granted on all claims and in favor of all parties over which this court has original jurisdiction, the court will dismiss all claims brought against Lutzow. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Choe v. Fordham University School of Law · filed 1996-04-10(c)(3)

We note that Judge Mukasey’s decision to dismiss Choe’s complaint without considering his pendent state law claims was well within his discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction have properly been dismissed.

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

Johnson v. Cullen · filed 1996-04-26(c)(3)

The Court, in the exercise of its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), will accordingly “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the plaintiffs’ Count III because the Court will “dismiss all claims over which it [had] original jurisdiction.”

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

Shahzad v. HJ Meyers & Co., Inc. · filed 1996-04-29(c)(3)

The Court having dismissed all claims over which it had jurisdiction, now dismisses the Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Dream Dealers Music v. Parker · filed 1996-05-06(c)(3)

The court hereby exercises its discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims asserted in the third-party complaint. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), those claims are hereby 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.

Dowdell v. Chapman · filed 1996-05-06(c)(3)

In accordance with the foregoing authority, since no claims remain from which the court had original jurisdiction, the court shall dismiss the remaining state claim without prejudice.

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

Mayberry v. Endocrinology-Diabetes Associates · filed 1996-05-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal law claims and THRA claim, this Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims for pain, suffering and distress, 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.

Mann Ex Rel. Parent v. Meachem · filed 1996-06-19(c)(3)

Thus, since all the federal claims have been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and dismisses those claims without reaching the merits for lack of subject matter 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.

Covington Greens Associates II v. Covington Water District · filed 1996-06-26(c)(3)

Accordingly, all of the claims over which this court had original jurisdiction having been dismissed, the court declines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, and the case (now consisting of the state claims and defenses thereto) will be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.

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

Castellano v. City of New York · filed 1996-06-28(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Bateman v. City of West Bountiful · filed 1996-07-10(c)(3)

In any event, once the district court dismissed Bateman's federal claims, it was authorized to dismiss the supplemental state claims as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where "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 claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Thaxton v. International Brotherhood of Painters · filed 1996-07-19(c)(3)

The Court likewise has discretion to remand any supplemental state claims under § 1367(c)(3). Section 1367 provides: “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction....” The Court has dismissed all claims in this action 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.

McKane v. City of Lansing · filed 1996-08-20(c)(3)

In this particular case, nothing has been pled, nor has anything occurred, which would cause this federal court to depart from the general rule in favor of dismissing the state claims. ... Therefore, because this Court has granted summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s only federal law claim, this Court will dismiss the state law 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.

Greenwood v. State of New York · filed 1996-09-03(c)(3)

As for Greenwood’s state law claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because I have dismissed all claims over which I had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Reed v. Iranon · filed 1996-09-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal questions in the instant case, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to the remaining state law claims.

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

Wolff v. City of New York Financial Services Agency · filed 1996-09-04(c)(3)

Since plaintiffs complaint is dismissed in its entirety, this court exercises its discretion to dismiss Blaufarb’s counterclaim and cross-claim, over which it has solely supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1367(c).

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

Hollus v. Amtrak Northeast Corridor · filed 1996-09-20(c)(3)

Under such circumstances, a district court may, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McPherson v. Maryland Public Employees Council 67 · filed 1996-11-01(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court declines herein to exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and hereby dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Wicker v. City of Galveston · filed 1996-10-24(c)(3)

Under § 1367, however, a federal court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ remaining state law causes of action, thus the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to those state law claims is hereby DENIED.

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

Bookman v. Shubzda · filed 1996-11-21(c)(3)

The court may also decline to exercise such jurisdiction where, as here, the claims that permitted original jurisdiction have dropped out of the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction). In the exercise of its discretion, the court declines to consider the merits of defendants’ motion on the state-law claim, and instead dismisses it 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.

Lewis v. JC Penney Co., Inc. · filed 1996-12-06(c)(3)

The parties have not raised any considerations that would cause the Court to deviate from the general rule and instead exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lewis’ state law claims. In fact, Lewis concedes the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims upon dismissal of her federal claims. D.I. 29, at 14 (citing Heller v. CACL Federal Credit Union, 775 F.Supp. 839 (E.D.Pa.1991)). Accordingly, supplemental jurisdiction will not be exercised and Lewis’ state law claims will 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.

Hall v. Daka International, Inc. · filed 1996-12-18(c)(3)

However, having determined that Plaintiffs federal claims should be dismissed, this Court chooses to exercise its discretion and dismiss the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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

Buck v. Fries & Fries, Inc. · filed 1996-12-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

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

J.H. Ex Rel. David H. v. ABC Care, Inc. · filed 1996-12-20(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... Those claims will therefore be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Devore v. County of Jefferson, Defandants-Appellees · filed 1997-01-09(c)(3)

It is not clear from the district judge's language whether she dismissed this claim "on the merits" or declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We believe the latter option was the correct course.

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.

Garcia v. State of New Mexico Office of the Treasurer · filed 1997-04-07(c)(3)

Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs pendent state claims rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). That section permits district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when they have dismissed the claims over which they had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently allege a federal cause of action, the Court will refrain from passing on the merits of his state claims and will dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Schulz v. New York State Executive, Pataki · filed 1997-04-14(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, “[t]he 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Therefore, in light of the dismissal of all federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

unempl.ins.rep. (Cch) P 22,174 Sally Ann Valot, Jean Hansen, Anna D. Roosa v. Southeast Local School District Board of E · filed 1997-04-18(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim where it has dismissed all of the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... As set out above, the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs' federal claims. Thus, it did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claim on the basis of that dismissal.

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

Macri v. King County · filed 1997-04-21(c)(3)

The district court also properly remanded the remaining state inverse condemnation claim to state court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Saglioccolo v. Eagle Insurance Company · filed 1997-04-21(c)(3)

Under 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it has disposed of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Semple v. City of Moundsville · filed 1997-04-28(c)(3)

Finally, and in the alternative, this Court finds that even if plaintiffs’ state law claims are sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs’ state law claims should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because this Court has summarily disposed of all of plaintiffs’ claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, this Court finds, in its discretion, that the state law claims, in the event that the claims have merit, should be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss state-law claims after dismissing the claim that supported original jurisdiction.

Ramadan v. Chase Manhattan Corp. · filed 1997-04-29(c)(3)

Furthermore, because no reason exists to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims, those claims also must be dismissed.

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

Connecticut National Bank v. Rytman · filed 1997-05-20(c)(3)

In particular, under § 1367 (c) (3) a district court may refuse pendent jurisdiction when the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, supra, 383 U.S. 726.

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

Feirstein v. Nanbar Realty Corp. · filed 1997-04-24(c)(3)

The Court having dismissed all claims over which it had jurisdiction, now dismisses the Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Avello v. Hammons · filed 1997-04-29(c)(3)

Where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state claim and that claim is 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.

Robertson v. City of Beckley · filed 1997-05-07(c)(3)

All claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. After consideration of the factors discussed in Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106 (4th Cir.1995), the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the putative State claims.

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

Torian v. City of Beckley · filed 1997-05-07(c)(3)

All claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... the Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the putative State claims.

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

Todd v. Rush County Schools · filed 1997-06-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court chooses to exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and hereby DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ state law claim against Defendants.

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

Wysinger v. City of Benton Harbor · filed 1997-06-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs federal claims, the only means by which the Court can retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs state claims is to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Under that section, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction^]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court, therefore, in its discretion, dismisses plaintiffs state claims.

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

Morales v. ATTORNEYS'TITLE INS. FUND, INC. · filed 1997-07-03(c)(3)

Having disposed of the two claims in Counts 1 and 2, over which the Court had original jurisdiction, 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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Morales v. Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc. · filed 1997-07-03(c)(3)

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1367(c)(3), a court whose supplemental jurisdiction has been invoked over one or more claims, may decline to exercise such jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Long v. Mango's Tropical Cafe, Inc. · filed 1997-07-14(c)(3)

Because the Court by this Order dismisses the federal-law claims on which jurisdiction for this case depends, the pendent state-law claims may be, and hereby are, 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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

Powell v. Computer Credit, Inc. · filed 1997-07-24(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the pendant state claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing every claim within its original jurisdiction, but does not require dismissal.

Baggett v. First National Bank · filed 1997-07-28(c)

Indeed, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-diverse state law claims, where the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, but is not required to dismiss the case.

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

First Ebenezer Baptist Church v. CONS. EDISON CO. OF NY, INC. · filed 1997-08-05(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) which provides that a district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Walaszek v. Reinke Interior Supply Co. · filed 1997-08-05(c)

Because defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, however, the basis upon which supplemental jurisdiction over the accounting “claim” was determined no longer exists. The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Ogletree Ex Rel. Estate Ogletree v. Columbia County · filed 1997-08-13(c)(3)

Plaintiffs federal law claims having been dismissed, the appropriate forum for her Count IV claim is in the courts of the state under whose law the alleged acts and omissions are claimed to be actionable. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Count IV.

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

Becker v. Department of the Army · filed 1997-10-01(c)(3)

As discussed above, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Mrs. Becker’s federal question claims against the Government due to the Government’s sovereign immunity. The Court’s decision to dismiss those claims results in a dismissal of all claims over which it has original jurisdiction because the claim against Abacus has no independent federal jurisdictional basis. ... The Court also declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction because the questions presented in the claim against Abacus are predominantly issues of state law.

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

Wilson v. Lawrence County, Mo. · filed 1997-09-16(c)(3)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), however, grants district courts discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Monroe v. Schenectady County · filed 1997-09-25(c)(3)

Because all of the claims upon which original jurisdiction was premised have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs 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.

Hand v. Fireman's Fund Ins. · filed 1997-09-29(c)(3)

As 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that the “district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” this Court has discretion to dismiss all remaining claims in this matter, namely the Millers’ claims against Golemi and Wethern.

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.

Turner v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · filed 1997-10-21(c)(3)

Here, the exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law claims is discretionary because plaintiffs only federal claim has been dismissed.

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

Hone v. Cortland City School District · filed 1997-10-24(c)(3)

Accordingly, having determined that Plaintiffs federal claims should be dismissed, this Court chooses to exercise its discretion and dismiss the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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

Rose v. Simi Valley Unified School District · filed 1997-11-03(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim if the court as dismissed all of the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 976 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1004 (1993). Therefore, the district court's dismissal of Rose's state claim under California Education Code § 51500 was within its discretion.

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

Harris v. District Board of Trustees of Polk Community College · filed 1997-11-13(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining State law claims since it 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Schwimmer v. Kaladjian · filed 1997-12-09(c)(3)

Thus, because the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has federal subject matter jurisdiction, the pendent state claims are dismissed pursuant to Section 1367(c)(3).

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.

Madison Restoration Corp. v. Smithsonian Institute · filed 1997-12-15(c)(3)

Exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is therefore within the discretion of the district court. ... The action here is at the initial stages and all federal claims have been dismissed. Therefore, unless the Complaint is amended to allege a federal claim providing for federal jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.

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

Young v. Warner-Jenkinson Co. · filed 1997-12-19(c)(3)

Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be sustained on all counts of race and disability discrimination. The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim of retaliation for filing a state worker’s compensation claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). That count is 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.

Meek v. Springfield Police Department · filed 1998-01-13(c)(3)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that 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 the instant case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Full Draw Productions v. Easton Sports, Inc. · filed 1997-12-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once it has dismissed 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.

Paleologos v. Rehab Consultants, Inc. · filed 1998-01-16(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 defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ federal claims, § 1367(c)(3) applies. ... Accordingly, the Court dismisses plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims without prejudice.

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

Castegneto v. Corporate Express, Inc. · filed 1998-01-28(c)(3)

Although federal courts have discretion ... in maintaining jurisdiction over state law claims, ... the First Circuit has stated that if a “court determine[s] so far in advance of trial that no legitimate federal question exist[s], the jurisdictional basis for plaintiffs pendent claims under [state] law evaporate[s].” ... Accordingly, Castegneto’s state law claims are also DISMISSED.

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

Burden v. Wilkes-Barre Area School District · filed 1998-02-11(c)

Furthermore, in dismissing plaintiffs federal claims, this Court now lacks original jurisdiction over the state law claims presented in Counts IV-VII and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), See Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780 (3d Cir.1995).

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

GUSEMAN BY GUSEMAN v. Martinez · filed 1998-02-17(c)(3)

The court is expressly authorized to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... After considering the relevant factors in this case, the court finds no compelling reason to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and determines in the interest of comity and federalism that plaintiffs' remaining state law claims be heard 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.

Schuloff v. Queens College Foundation, Inc. · filed 1998-03-10(c)(3)

Since federal jurisdiction over these cases rested entirely upon these statutory provisions, 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 a state law claim after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, including out of deference to federalism and the state’s interest in resolving complex state law issues.

Bryant v. New Jersey Department of Transportation · filed 1998-02-17(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides in relevant part that “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... In this case, in deference to principles of federalism and to New Jersey’s interest in determining complex issues of state law, I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 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.

Terrell v. Hancock Bank · filed 1998-03-11(c)(3)

The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). For this reason, the Court finds that the remainder of the plaintiffs claims should be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Avondale Federal Savings Bank v. Amoco Oil Co. · filed 1998-03-19(c)(3)

However, having granted summary judgment for Amoco on Avondale’s RCRA claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Avondale’s state common law claims.

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

Skou v. Pacific International Pipe Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1998-03-03(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the remainder of this action is dismissed 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 supplying original jurisdiction.

Tucker v. Kenney · filed 1998-03-04(c)(3)

Having dismissed the plaintiffs Section 1983 claim against the Legal Aid defendants which serve as the Court’s source of original jurisdiction in the ease with respect to those defendants, the Court, in an exercise of its discretion, dismisses the remaining state law claim, without prejudice and with leave to refile, if desired, in New York State Court.

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

Greffey v. State of Ala. Dept. of Corrections · filed 1998-03-20(c)(3)

This court shall dismiss all of the federal claims that gave it original jurisdiction, and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim.

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

Kennedy v. Schoenberg, Fisher & Newman, Ltd. · filed 1998-04-03(c)(3)

According to the supplemental jurisdiction statute, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over pendent state law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state law claims after all federal claims had dropped from the 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.

Kia P. v. McIntyre · filed 1998-04-15(c)(3)

Since the sole source of federal jurisdiction over this case is the § 1988 claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction when the dismissal of all claims under original jurisdiction is reversed.

Fang ex rel. Fang v. United States · filed 1998-03-31(c)(3)

Because two of the plaintiffs claims against the United States were erroneously dismissed, the reason for dismissing the remaining supplemental claims no longer exists.

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

Yellow Cab Co. v. City of Chicago · filed 1998-04-30(c)(3)

Because the court dismisses the federal claim in count II, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Yellow Cab’s state law claims in counts I and III.

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

Komac v. Gordon Food Service · filed 1998-05-06(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all original jurisdiction claims have been dismissed. Because Komac’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over her 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.

Hosler v. Greene · filed 1998-05-21(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiffs federal claims should be dismissed, this Court chooses to exercise its discretion and dismiss the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(e)(3) (“[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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

Toney v. Schopmeyer · filed 1998-05-25(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims 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 remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bitmar Corp. v. Derrickson · filed 1998-06-17(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court finds that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) governs this matter and the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action.

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

Mize v. School Bd. of Polk County, Fla. · filed 1998-06-30(c)(3)

Therefore, since the federal question claim has been dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court dismisses these two pendent state law claims for lack of federal jurisdiction.

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

Franklin v. Harry A. Zain, M.D. · filed 1998-08-07(c)(3)

Unlike a claim over which it has original jurisdiction, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Kelly v. Forest Hills Local School District Board of Education · filed 1998-08-14(c)(3)

The Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court will dismiss these state law claims without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of related state law claims when all claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed; reinstating the federal claims restores jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Vathekan v. Prince George's County · filed 1998-08-28(c)(3)

We note further that the district court dismissed Vathekan’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which permits district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Because Vathekan’s federal claims have been reinstated, district court jurisdiction over the state law claims is restored. As a result, we also reverse the dismissal of 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.

2BD Associates Ltd v. Cnty Comm Queen Anne · filed 1998-09-02(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exer- cise supplemental jurisdiction when it "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . ." ... On the basis of that authority, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in declining to exercise sup- plemental jurisdiction.

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

Arrington v. Wong · filed 1998-09-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), the court refuses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Plaintiffs’ state law claims because, as noted above, the court has dismissed the only federal claim.

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

Moore v. Prison Health Services, Inc. · filed 1998-09-30(c)

Because 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), the court dismisses plaintiffs claims arising under state law 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.

Kaplan v. Reed · filed 1998-10-21(c)(3)

That statute also states that “[a] district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim in subsection (a) if the district court has dismissed all claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Under the circumstances, the Court finds that is appropriate in this case.

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.

Makris v. Salem, NH · filed 1998-10-29(c)(3)

Because this court has eliminated the federal claims, the court declines to hear this case based upon state-law claims alone. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c) (1998) (authorizing district court to decline jurisdiction after it "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction"); Camelio v. American Federation, 137 F.3d 666, 672 (1st Cir. 1998) ("balance of competing factors ordinarily will weigh strongly in favor of declining jurisdiction over state law claims where the foundational federal claims have been dismissed at an early stage in the litigation").

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

Mercer v. Duke University · filed 1998-11-09(c)(3)

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

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

Carter v. McCaleb · filed 1998-11-12(c)(3)

The Court, therefore, in its discretion, will dismiss Plaintiffs state claims without prejudice.

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

Matthew Sikora, Jr. v. Hopkins · filed 1998-10-23(c)(3)

Because the claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction were properly dismissed, and the district court may decline to exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), we amend the dismissal of the property-destruction claim to be without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the claims within their original jurisdiction.

River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park · filed 1998-11-19(c)(3)

Contrary to plaintiffs’ assertion, a district court is not required to dismiss pendent state claims after dismissing the claim from which its original jurisdiction stems. Instead, a district court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims under these circumstances.

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.

Melvin v. Brodeur, Comm'r · filed 1998-12-08(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed the federal claims, it declines to hear this case based solely upon plaintiff's state- law claim of negligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (1998) (authorizing district court to decline jurisdiction after it has dismissed "all claims over which it has original jurisdiction").

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

Doyle v. City of Columbus · filed 1998-12-18(c)(3)

District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As there is no remaining federal question left, this Court, in the interest of comity and federalism, declines to exercise jurisdiction over a case which is constituted exclusively of 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.

Evans v. City of Neptune Beach · filed 1998-12-23(c)(3)

Plaintiffs federal law claims having been dismissed, the appropriate forum for his state law claims is in the courts of the state under whose law the alleged acts and omissions are claimed to be actionable. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Counts I through V and VIII through XI pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

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

Evans v. Rudy-Luther Toyota, Inc. · filed 1999-01-15(c)

Where, as here, all of the claims which fall within our original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent 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.

Bilida v. McCleod · filed 1999-01-21(c)(3)

The statute explicitly says that a court may decline to exercise its discretion if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Panayotides v. Rabenold · filed 1999-01-27(c)(3)

Since the federal claims against all of the Defendants have been dismissed we must decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. A court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction [over state law claims] if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs potential state law claims and thus dismiss those claims.