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.

McKenzie v. EAP Management Corp. · filed 1999-02-04(c)(3)

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, as is now the case herein.

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

Ninigret Development Corp. v. Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Housing Authority · filed 1999-01-07(c)(3)

The statute explicitly states that this Court may decline to exercise its discretion if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because this Court dismisses Counts I to VII at this early juncture (see Section IV below), it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts VIII and IX.

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

Pleva v. Norquist · filed 1999-01-22(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that having dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims recited in counts V-VII 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.

Brewer v. City of Daphne · filed 1999-01-28(c)(3)

However, “the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Therefore, this Court having dismissed all of the federal claims that gave it original jurisdiction, hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Lemons v. US Air Group, Inc. · filed 1999-01-19(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed ah claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and because the remaining claims present issues of state law, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Martineau v. Kurland · filed 1999-02-08(c)

Having disposed of the underlying federal claims in this action, this court has discretion as to whether it exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (district court “may” decline jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction). ... I conclude that it is appropriate to dismiss Martineau’s state-law claims without prejudice.

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.

Odom v. St. Louis Community College · filed 1999-02-18(c)(3)

However, having dismissed all of the federal claims which created original jurisdiction in this matter, the Court is left with the discretion to exercise or not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction in this matter which will involve nothing other than the application of a state statute.

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

Equus Associates, Ltd v. Town of Southampton · filed 1999-02-27(c)(3)

However, even if the mootness issue was not present, the Court would deny this motion. In this opinion, the Court has already dismissed the plaintiffs federal Section 1983 claim, and would decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining or potential 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.

Clarkco Landfill Co. v. Clark County Solid Waste Management District · filed 1999-03-10(c)(3)

In the event that the Court dismisses the Plaintiffs federal law claims against the Trustees, it will decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs state law claims against all Defendants.

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

Montefusco v. Nassau County · filed 1999-03-11(c)(3)

However, because all federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this 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.

Graning v. Sherburne County · filed 1999-04-08(c)(3)

The district court may choose not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state claim when 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 it dismisses the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction.

Bynum v. Fort Worth Independent School District · filed 1999-04-06(c)(3)

Because the court is dismissing the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction, the court, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), is dismissing the state law claims 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.

Lares Group, II v. Tobin · filed 1999-04-19(c)(3)

The statute granting the district courts supplemental jurisdiction explicitly states that this Court may decline to exercise its discretion if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... This Court, mindful of the concerns of federalism and wary of wasting federal judicial resources, declines this opportunity to interpret state law in a matter devoid of any federal interest.

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

Doughty v. City of Vermillion · filed 1999-06-08(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Baker v. Coxe · filed 1999-06-08(c)(3)

The Court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state law claims when it has “dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Mercado-Garcia v. Ponce Fed. Bank, 979 F.2d 890, 896 (1st Cir.1992). Accordingly, Mr. Baker’s state law 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.

Stefiuk v. First Union National Bank of Florida · filed 1999-06-29(c)(3)

Moreover, having disposed of Stefiuk’s federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stefiuk’s state law claims.

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

Campbell v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · filed 1999-07-08(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.

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

Shannon v. Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians · filed 1999-06-03(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the one claim over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court dismisses these supplemental state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

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

Stachel v. City of Cape Canaveral · filed 1999-06-22(c)(3)

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

Johnson v. Economic Development Corp. · filed 1999-06-29(c)(3)

The court must dismiss these claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if ... (3) 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 the federal claims within its original jurisdiction.

Binder v. Gillespie · filed 1999-07-26(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may elect, in its discretion, not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if it has dismissed the original jurisdiction federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction, but that ground is unavailable while federal claims remain pending.

Henry v. BOARD OF LEAVENWORTH COUNTY · filed 1999-08-04(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... At least at this time, the Court cannot dismiss plaintiffs state law claims by simply declining to exercise jurisdiction over them.

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.

Howley v. Town of Stratford · filed 1999-08-05(c)(3)

It is axiomatic that when all federal causes of action are disposed of prior to trial, a federal court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. ... Based upon this precept, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining cause of action in the complaint which arises under state law.

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.

Metz v. United Counties Bancorp · filed 1999-08-24(c)(3)

However, § 1367 allows a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This Court no longer has original jurisdiction over any claims in this case and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 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.

Morris-Eberhart v. J.G. Mathena & Assoc., Inc. · filed 1999-08-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the plaintiffs state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725-26, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) (“[I]f the federal claims are dismissed before trial, ... the state claims should be dismissed as well”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the remaining claims raise fundamental issues of state public policy.

Klavan v. Crozer-Chester Medical Center · filed 1999-08-16(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), we may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if we have “dismissed all claims over which [we] had original jurisdiction.” ... While Dr. Klavan’s situation cries out for prompt and definitive judicial resolution, we nevertheless decline to exercise our discretion under the supplemental jurisdiction statute precisely because of the gravity of his case. A federal court mindful of its limited jurisdiction should be reluctant to decide fundamental issues of public policy, especially a state’s public policy.

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

Hassell v. City of Chesapeake, Virginia · filed 1999-08-25(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of all of Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims alleged in Count Four of the Complaint.

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

Levy v. Swift Transp. Co. · filed 1999-09-21(c)(3)

The district court could decline supplemental jurisdiction after it dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See 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 when the state courts are the more appropriate forum.

Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, L.P. v. Warrington Township · filed 1999-09-21(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), we may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if we have “dismissed all claim over which [we] ha[d] original jurisdiction.” ... Because we find that the Pennsylvania courts are the more appropriate forum for Omnipoint’s state law appeal, we will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count III of Omnipoint’s complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, even if the parties favor keeping the case in federal court.

Koehler v. Cortland Memorial Hospital · filed 1999-09-29(c)(3)

After the dismissal of the United States as a party, the case against the remaining state defendants should be remanded to the New York State Supreme Court, Cortland County. ... Because the federal claim will be dismissed in this case, there remains no independent basis for federal 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.

Thomas v. Clayton County Board of Education · filed 1999-09-29(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 defendants’ motions for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ federal claims, § 1367(c)(3) applies. ... The Court concludes that dismissal is appropriate in this case, because plaintiffs’ federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Cardoza v. Healthfirst, Inc. · filed 1999-09-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs alleged state law claims in light of the dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs Federal causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives federal courts minimal discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Skerry v. Massachusetts Higher Education Assistance Corp. · filed 1999-10-05(c)(3)

Federal courts have minimal discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once the federal claims that formed the basis for the original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Bessette v. Avco Financial Services, Inc. · filed 1999-10-19(c)(3)

Although all of plaintiffs’ federal claims have been dismissed at this point, this Court will proceed to decide the state law claim because that claim will resurface if plaintiffs successfully amend Count III to state a claim under § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. In addition, this Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim where it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Reil v. Clinton County, New York · filed 1999-11-19(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state claims 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 it dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Brogan v. La Salle University · filed 1999-10-14(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), we may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if we have “dismissed all claims over which [we] ha[d] original jurisdiction.” ... We therefore decline to exercise our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Looper Maintenance Service Inc. v. City Of Indianapolis · filed 1999-12-13(c)(3)

We note that the district court's dismissal of Looper's state law claims was proper because the law is clear that a district court is empowered to decline jurisdiction over state law claims if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. sec. 1367(c)(3).

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

Acklin v. Formosa Plastics Corp. · filed 2003-12-08(c)(3)

Furthermore, once the district properly dismissed all of the claims which may have led to original jurisdiction, it did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the pending state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Kingman Park Civic v. Williams, Anthony A. · filed 2003-11-14(c)

Having determined that the Mayor was entitled to sum- mary judgment on the sole federal claim properly before this court, we affirm the District Court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 of the pendent D.C. law claims against him. That provision authorizes a district court to decline to exer- cise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent claims if ‘‘the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdictionTTTT’’ 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (1993). Dis- missal of the pendent claims was appropriate here, where all of the federal claims were properly resolved against appel- lants. 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 a state-law claim when no claim within its original jurisdiction remains.

Jones v. City of St. Louis · filed 2003-08-11(c)(3)

The court has determined not to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Count II Missouri common law claim, because no claim remains for disposition 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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

McNamara v. Cooley · filed 2003-08-21(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over McNamara’s state law claims after it dismissed all of 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Brown v. City of Bloomington · filed 2003-08-26(c)(3)

In this case, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all claims that fall within the Court’s original jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Brown’s remaining 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.

Fields v. Palmdale School District · filed 2003-07-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Parents’ remaining claims, both of which are based on California law and more appropriately adjudicated in California courts.

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

Wojnicz v. Davis · filed 2003-07-29(c)(3)

The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wojnicz’s state habeas petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may ... decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Smith v. Blue Dot Services Company · filed 2003-08-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claim over which this court has original jurisdiction, the court in the exercise of its statutory discretion declines to assume supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claims against the defendants.

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

Gray v. Tunica County, Mississippi · filed 2003-07-02(c)(3)

Because the claims upon which original jurisdiction with this Court have been dismissed, the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction under 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.

Everett v. Witcher · filed 2003-05-16(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Everett’s state law claims because it had dismissed all of the claims over which it had 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.

Dunbar v. Hamden Board of Education · filed 2003-06-04(c)(3)

Finally, Dunbar invokes certain Connecticut constitutional, statutory and common law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction over such claims is declined in light of the dismissal of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

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

Patten v. Foley's · filed 2003-06-06(c)(3)

After reviewing each of plaintiffs’ claims in the present case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction after it dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Cedarapids, Inc. v. Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad · filed 2003-05-21(c)

The Court’s dismissal of the claims set forth in Count I of Cedarapids’ Complaint results in the dismissal of the only claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), ... the Court, in its discretion may decline to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental claims involved in this case.

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

Connelly v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n · filed 2003-03-14(c)(3)

Because dismissing count one removes the only claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court further declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims and remands them with all pending motions to the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Waterbury at Water-' bury.

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.

Zak v. Robertson · filed 2003-03-17(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “[t]he 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). ... Because this court has granted summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims, it will decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ 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.

Caci v. Wiz of Lake Grove, Inc. · filed 2003-03-31(c)(3)

As there remains no federal claim in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Caci’s state law ... claims — the only remaining claims in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claim 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 remaining state-law claims after it disposes of claims supplying original jurisdiction.

Scott v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc. · filed 2003-01-14(c)(3)

The Court, finds ... that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this suit any further and, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on those same grounds.

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

Mosley v. Reeves · filed 2000-01-21(c)(3)

Inasmuch as the Court will dismiss all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, see discussion supra at Sections II.A and B, the undersigned declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America · filed 2000-01-28(c)(3)

District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim forming part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims if the district eourt has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Having concluded that Plaintiffs Section 301 claims are subject to arbitration and that the parties have invoked the grievance procedure, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims and, accordingly, DENIES Plaintiffs motion to amend the Complaint to add them.

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.

Lincoln v. Momentum Systems Ltd. · filed 2000-03-01(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 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.”

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

Katz v. Stannard Beach Ass'n · filed 2000-03-10(c)(3)

Inasmuch as the Court has dismissed all the federal claims, it declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses Plaintiffs’ claims under the Connecticut Constitution and common law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

C.A. v. Lowndes County Department of Family & Children Services · filed 2000-03-13(c)

Having dismissed the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Therefore, the court shall dismiss the Plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice.

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.

Ortiz v. Prudential Insurance · filed 2000-03-22(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), “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.” ... In consideration of these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Fourth Count of the complaint.

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

John Gil Construction, Inc. v. Riverso · filed 2000-04-06(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because all of plaintiffs federal claims are dismissed, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims and find that those claims must 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, taking account of the state court’s familiarity with the case and unresolved questions of state law.

Clark v. City of Kansas City, Mo. · filed 2000-05-16(c)(3)

All federal claims have been dismissed, leaving only state-law claims. Diversity of citizenship is lacking, so the Court does not have original jurisdiction over the remaining claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. In making this decision, the Court notes that this case has spent most of its existence in the state court, and the state court is therefore more familiar with its history. The Court also notes that this case does not necessarily involve a straightforward application of tort law, as it may raise questions relating to the existence of a duty and exceptions to sovereign immunity. For these reasons, the Court concludes that it would be more appropriate for the case to return to state court.

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

Carrico v. Village of Sugar Mountain · filed 2000-05-22(c)(3)

Thus, all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims lack merit and all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. The undersigned declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law causes of action and the action will be dismissed. 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.

PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. · filed 2000-05-25(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... The Court has dismissed all of plaintiffs’ federal claims. Accordingly, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ 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.

Fielder v. Credit Acceptance Corp. · filed 2000-05-25(c)(3)

However, a district court can decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction if, inter alia, it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Since all federal claims have been dismissed, leaving only state-law claims, the Court remands all the remaining claims to the jurisdiction of state court. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Amsterdam Tobacco Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. · filed 2000-05-17(c)(3)

Here, because no Federal claims remain, Plaintiffs state law claims are dismissed.

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

Boyle v. D'ONOFRIO · filed 2000-05-31(c)

The Court lacks original jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining claims and will exercise our discretion to dismiss the remaining claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Pentagen Technologies International Ltd. v. United States · filed 2000-06-29(c)(3)

Moreover, as all federal and state claims properly before the Court have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ 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.

Christie Thomas and Scott Fisher v. Gregory Dickel, Joseph Leo, and City of Des Moines, Iowa · filed 2000-06-28(c)(3)

We believe, therefore, that the district court had ample discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3), which provides that a district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction ... 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-law claim after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Quental v. Connecticut Commission on the Deaf & Hearing Impaired · filed 2000-08-17(c)(3)

In light of the fact that the court has rendered judgment against Quental on all of her federal claims in this action, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Quental’s Connecticut state law cause of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to dismiss supplemental claims after disposing of the claims supporting original jurisdiction.

Serio v. Baltimore County · filed 2000-07-20(c)(3)

Because Judge Daniels has already ruled on Counts I-V of the complaint, the Court will also dismiss these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the case is recent and discovery has not begun.

Meghani v. Shell Oil Co. · filed 2000-08-29(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that remain after dismissal of the claims over which the court originally had subject-matter jurisdiction. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. This case was filed relatively recently and discovery has not yet begun.

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

Lunde v. Big B, Inc. · filed 2000-09-27(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs remaining state law claims and orders that those claims be dismissed without prejudice, thereby affording the plaintiff the opportunity to pursue her state law claims in state court..

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.

Grace v. Rosenstock · filed 2000-08-25(c)(3)

Second, we are disinclined to remand for the court to exercise pendent jurisdiction over this state-law claim because all of the federal claims have now been dismissed.

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

Brotman v. United States · filed 2000-09-05(c)(3)

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Since the parties are at an early stage of the ease and the federal claims have been dismissed, leaving no independent basis of jurisdiction over the remaining state claims brought against the Foundation, the claims against the Foundation are also 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.

Dean v. Westchester County District Attorney's Office · filed 2000-11-03(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, as all federal claims have been dismissed, the Court exercises its discretion and dismisses all of the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

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

Gainer v. City of Winter Haven, Fla. · filed 2000-11-08(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over Count III of Plaintiffs’ Complaint because the Court has dismissed all other claims, Counts I and II, over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Monell v. BEST PERSONNEL SYSTEMS, INC. · filed 2000-11-17(c)(3)

Regarding the actions brought under this court’s supplemental jurisdiction, it has been widely recognized that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it dismisses all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, causes of action brought under this court’s supplemental jurisdiction as to Best Personnel are also 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.

Weeks v. Portage County Executive Offices · filed 2000-12-19(c)(3)

Supplemental jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which includes an explicit provision permitting the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when that court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c) (3). Having granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed all of the federal claims in this action, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after the claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Gregoire v. Weber · filed 2000-12-29(c)(3)

Once claims over which a district court has original jurisdiction are dismissed, it is left to the court's discretion whether to exercise supplemental 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.

Richards v. City of Weatherford · filed 2001-02-27(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and declines to exercise jurisdiction over Richards’ remaining state law claims.

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.

Bui v. IBP, Inc. · filed 2001-02-07(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the plaintiffs state law claims against the defendant.

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

Naumoff v. Old · filed 2001-03-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs claim over which the court has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

In Re DoubleClick Inc. Privacy Litigation · filed 2001-03-28(c)(3)

When federal claims are dismissed, retention of state law claims under supplemental jurisdiction is left to the discretion of the trial court. ... We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ 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.

Howard-Ahmad v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees · filed 2001-03-30(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court, having dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to Ahmad’s state law claims, and dismisses Count III without prejudice.

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.

Williams v. Eastside Lumberyard and Supply Co. · filed 2001-03-23(c)(3)

Thus, this Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim and remands the case back to the state court for disposition of Count 3 (state law retaliatory discharge tort).

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

Karen L. Brown, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Lucky Stores, Inc. John Hunt, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellant · filed 2001-04-17(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has discretion to elect not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if it has dismissed the federal 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, particularly when the remaining dispute is better resolved in state court.

Young v. Halle Housing Associates, L.P. · filed 2001-05-07(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the other claims if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... All the federal claims having been dismissed, the remaining dispute is essentially a landlord-tenant matter that is more appropriately resolved in state court. ... Accordingly, this court declines to exercise jurisdiction over claims five through nine of the complaint, and they will also 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.

Hernandez v. Remco Hydraulics, Inc. · filed 2001-05-08(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims brought under state law. 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.

Legal Asset Funding, LLC v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. · filed 2001-05-08(c)(3)

Neither will the Court retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. This Court possesses supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) permits a district court at its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See Lyon v. Whisman, 45 F.3d 758, 760 (3d Cir.1995). The state law claims are therefore 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.

Cook v. Chelan County Sheriff's Department · filed 2001-05-25(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Cooks’ state law claims after it properly dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Natale v. Schwartz · filed 2001-05-31(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has disposed of all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Because I decline to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining claims, I will dismiss these claims without prejudice for lack of 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.

Green v. Fund Asset Management, L.P. · filed 2001-06-05(c)(3)

This court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims recently reinstated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit where it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (1990).

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

Opoku v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2001-07-02(c)(3)

Having “dismissed all claims over which [this court] has original jurisdiction,” we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law causes of action and will dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Frederick v. Simpson College · filed 2001-07-09(c)(3)

In this case, there remain no claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction. The remaining counts involved in the action implicate state law and will solely involve interpretation of state law. Furthermore, although this matter has been before this Court for over two years, this Court has not devoted significant time to adjudicating the remaining specialized state law issues. Until now, this Court has dealt primarily with the federal counts brought by the plaintiff. The Court therefore declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this matter when only state law claims remain.

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

Sawicki v. American Plastic Toys, Inc. · filed 2001-07-11(c)(3)

Pursuant to this statute, this Court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in the circumstances of this case, particularly when the federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Griffin v. Acacia Life Insurance · filed 2001-07-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims which provided the basis for original jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims under D.C. law and will dismiss those claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Firoozye v. Earthlink Network · filed 2001-07-31(c)(3)

As a result, his complaint as of the date of this Order only includes state-law causes of action, and no federal issue is present on the face of the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint. This Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining purely state-law claims.

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

Johnson v. Yurick · filed 2001-08-27(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court “may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Finally, there are no extraordinary circumstances, such as a substantial investment of time, which would warrant this Court’s retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs remaining state statutory and common law claims.

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

Turner v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2001-08-31(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because the district court properly dismissed the federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the pendent state law 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.

Vasilescu v. Black & Veatch Pritchard, Inc. · filed 2001-08-06(c)(3)

Having granting summary judgment as to all of Plaintiffs claims over which the court has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Pipoly v. Premier Parks, Inc. · filed 2001-08-20(c)(3)

The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is not mandatory, and a district court may decline to exercise that jurisdiction when it has dismissed all other claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Marotte v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 2001-08-29(c)(3)

Because the Marottes’ claims are time-barred by the Convention’s two-year statute of limitations, American’s motion for summary judgment [D.E. 9] is GRANTED. I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Marottes’ claims against Ms. Barrett, who apparently still has not been served.

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

McGuire v. City of Moraine, Ohio · filed 2001-09-04(c)(3)

It is well settled that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it possessed original jurisdiction.

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

Ove v. Gwinn · filed 2001-09-04(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367 (c)(3); see also San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478 (9th Cir. 1998) (district court not required to provide explanation when declining jurisdiction under §§ 1367 (c)(3)). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion.

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.

Carter v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore · filed 2001-09-13(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... Since all of plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed under Rule 56 or under Rule 8 and since there are no exceptional circumstances here, this Court will not exercise pendent jurisdiction in this case over Counts II-VIII.

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

Roer v. Oxbridge Inc. · filed 2001-09-26(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pending any amendments to the pleadings.

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

Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc. · filed 2001-10-15(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ remaining claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) without prejudice to their refiling in state court.

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

Henderson Amusement, Inc. v. Good · filed 2001-11-02(c)(3)

Inasmuch as this court is dismissing with prejudice the federal claim over which it has original jurisdiction, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims (including, but not limited to, any Motion for Appropriate Relief or Motion for Return of Seized Property) and dismiss those claims without prejudice as to filing in an appropriate state forum.

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

Bilow, Sharon v. Much Shelist Freed · filed 2001-11-07(c)(3)

This does not mean, however, that the court is required to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; to the contrary, it may decline to do so if it "has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction," as it did in this case. 28 U.S.C. sec. 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits, but does not require, a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ampleman v. Trans States Airlines, Inc. · filed 2001-12-17(c)(3)

This Court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction over Ampleman’s remaining state-law claims because his federal question claim has been dismissed; but, the Court is not required to decline jurisdiction.

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

Adoption Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Ragaglia · filed 2001-12-17(c)(3)

The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Adoption Services’ Connecticut Administrative Procedure Act claim on the ground that 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.

Lindsay v. Dunleavy · filed 2001-12-20(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs potential state law claims against the Defendants.

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.

Resel v. Fox · filed 2001-12-20(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims because it had dismissed all claims over which it had had 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.

Hewitt v. Alcan Aluminum Corp. · filed 2002-01-11(c)(3)

Nevertheless, when the federal claims were dismissed, the state claims left are open to dismissal as the court, in its discretion, can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state claims, § 1367(c)(3).

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

John Keith Blakely and John Emmett Long v. United States of America · filed 2002-01-11(c)

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), itself, makes clear that a district court may, not must, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in such instances.

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

Kingray, Inc. v. National Basketball Ass'n · filed 2002-02-01(c)

Because the Court grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims, which formed the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law causes of action and hereby DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Arruda v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · filed 2002-02-07(c)(3)

As 28 U.S.C. § 1367 states, the Court may decline jurisdiction if the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Here, because the Court has dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Menebhi v. Mattos · filed 2002-02-11(c)(3)

The statute granting the district courts supplemental jurisdiction explicitly states that a court may decline to exercise its discretion if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... In the present case, no federal claims remain, leaving the only questions of law arising under Rhode Island state law. Under these circumstances, this Court declines the opportunity to interpret state law in a matter devoid of federal interest. Accordingly, the Court will not exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs 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.

Interior Contractors, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Newman Memorial County Hospital · filed 2002-01-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed ICPs claim over which this court has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the plaintiffs state law claims against the defendant.

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.

Hall v. Prince George's County · filed 2002-03-14(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), this court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." ... Given the dismissal of all of the federal claims at the threshold of this litigation, the court, in its discretion, will dismiss the remaining state law claims 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.

Callahan v. BANCORPSOUTH INS. SERVICES OF MISS. · filed 2002-02-28(c)(3)

Because there exists no independent basis of federal jurisdiction, and in the interest of comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants, the Court exercises its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims.

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

Johnson v. Morehouse College, Inc. · filed 2002-03-28(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 defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs federal claims, § 1367(c)(3) applies.

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

CFSC CONSORTIUM, LLC v. Ferreras-Goitia · filed 2002-03-28(c)(3)

The Court finds that the third exception in § 1367(c) is applicable to the case at bar. Clearly, under the third exception, a district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] 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.

Torres v. City of Chicago · filed 2002-03-29(c)(3)

I have dismissed all of the claims in counts III and IV, over which I have original jurisdiction, and may therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the City in counts I and II.

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.

Pennington v. Penner · filed 2002-05-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, the court in the exercise of its statutory discretion declines to assume supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claims against the different 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.

Bryant v. Adventist Health System/West · filed 2002-05-20(c)(3)

Because the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing 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.

Martin v. City of Oceanside · filed 2002-06-07(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.” The Court, having dismissed plaintiffs federal claims, 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.

Kimmel Ex Rel. Estate of Kimmel v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY · filed 2002-07-23(c)(3)

In this case, the third factor enumerated in § 1367(c) is clearly present, and to only a slightly lesser extent, the second and fourth factors as well. The Court has dismissed all of the claims that were within the Court’s original jurisdiction and only Plaintiffs’ state law claims remain. And those claims are manifestly better suited for resolution by a state court, applying squarely applicable state law, in front of a jury of state citizens. Accordingly, the Court respectfully declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC v. Rhode Island · filed 2002-08-20(c)(3)

As § 1367 states, the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Here, because the Court has dismissed Count I, the only federal claim in the complaint, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Markel Insurance v. Duncan Co. · filed 2002-08-13(c)(3)

Even if the third-party complaint can be considered to be “part of the same case or controversy” presented by Markel, this court, in an exercise of its discretion, respectfully declines ancillary jurisdiction, because it earlier dismissed the original claim.

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

Dominguez v. Alliance Mortgage Co. · filed 2002-08-23(c)(3)

Having disposed of all claims over which we had original jurisdiction, we decline to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law 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.

De Tendevous Inc v. Village Libertyville · filed 2002-09-13(c)(3)

Furthermore, having dismissed all the federal causes of action, the district court did not err in dismissing the state law claim. While 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction to decide state law claims that form part of the same claim or controversy on which the federal law claims are based, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) provides that a district court may decline to exercise sup- plemental jurisdiction when “the district court has dis- missed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). That is what the district court did here, quite reasonably.

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.

Schoenfield v. City of Toledo · filed 2002-09-18(c)(3)

Given that removal was predicated upon the Court’s federal question jurisdiction and all federal claims have been disposed of, 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 remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gaumond v. City of Melissa, Tex. · filed 2002-09-19(c)(3)

Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Gaumond’s remaining state law claims.

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

Hurdle v. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality · filed 2002-09-25(c)(3)

The record discloses no valid reason for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hurdle’s non-federal claims and thus the invitation to do so is declined.

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.

Gatlin Ex Rel. Gatlin v. Green · filed 2002-09-26(c)(3)

The Court, having now dismissed the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state 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.

Pechinski v. Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 2003-01-06(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over claims supported only by supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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.

Nazelrod v. GARRETT COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT, INC. · filed 2003-01-15(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Since summary judgment in favor of defendant Sanitary District is being granted as to all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, and since there are no exceptional circumstances here, this Court will not exercise pendent jurisdiction in this case over Counts IV, VI and VII.

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.

Dyack v. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joseph K.P. Villagomez · filed 2003-01-23(c)(3)

In the absence of diversity jurisdiction, the district court had discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dyack’s state-law claims.

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

Hill v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. · filed 2003-01-28(c)(3)

The court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims which are based solely on state law based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... In this instance, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claims, and those claims are hereby REMANDED to state court.

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.

Gregory v. Otac, Inc. · filed 2003-02-19(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; if the federal claims are reinstated, dismissal of the state law claims must be reconsidered.

Shaev v. Lawrence Saper Alan B. Abramson David Altschiller Joseph Grayzel, M.D. George Heller Arno Nash Datasco · filed 2003-02-21(c)

The District Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the District Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because the District Court erred in dismissing the federal securities claims, we vacate the District Court’s dismissal of Shaev’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and remand for its consideration in light of the decision we reach on this appeal.

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

Jenkins v. Area Cooperative Education Services · filed 2003-03-10(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs Connecticut state law claims on the ground that it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Wilson v. Brock · filed 2003-03-19(c)(3)

When federal claims, which were the basis of subject matter jurisdiction, have been dismissed, the court is obligated to reassess the jurisdictional basis for the state claims. ... Therefore, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction as to the state law claims, the only remaining claims in this case.

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

Whisenant v. First National Bank & Trust Co. · filed 2003-04-14(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... The Court therefore exercises its discretion and declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 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.

Al-Qudhai'een v. America West Airlines, Inc. · filed 2003-04-30(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. ... Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and (d), the Court will dismiss plaintiffs’ state law claims against defendants 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.

Brennan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · filed 2003-05-09(c)(3)

Because all of plaintiffs’ federal claims are barred as a matter of law, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brennan and Francis’ 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.

Neff v. Hmurovich · filed 2003-05-13(c)(3)

Subsections (3) and (4) apply here. As to subsection 3, we have dismissed all of Mr. Neffs federal claims on defendants’ motion for summary judgment so that declining jurisdiction over his pendent claims is proper.

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

Nadig v. Nagel · filed 2003-06-27(c)(3)

Under § 1367(c)(3), a 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). As stated above, I have dismissed both of plaintiffs’ federal claims. Having dismissed those claims over which I had original jurisdiction, I shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.