28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Xinos v. Kappos · filed 2003-07-10(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it “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 Counts IV and V.

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

Gil v. Otero López · filed 2003-07-21(c)(3)

the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Verdecchia v. Douglas A. Prozan, Inc. · filed 2003-07-30(c)(3)

Because we will dismiss the federal claims against Defendants, we must decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs 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 state law claims, particularly because we conclude that there is no merit to Plaintiffs claims.

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

Busey v. BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS, COUNTY, SHAWNEE, KS · filed 2003-08-15(c)(3)

By statute, the court is authorized to decline supplemental jurisdiction upon the dismissal of 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.

Gagne v. DeMarco · filed 2003-08-26(c)(3)

The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gagne’s 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Pierce v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections · filed 2003-08-28(c)(3)

A district court, however, may and should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... As the Court has granted summary judgment to Defendants on these claims, the Court now declines to exercise its 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.

Baines v. Masiello · filed 2003-10-06(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed the claims over which it has 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Weissbrod v. Housing Part of the Civil Court of New York · filed 2003-10-23(c)(3)

Magistrate Judge Maas correctly determined that, because “all of the claims over which this Court potentially might have had original jurisdiction are subject to dismissal,” the Court should “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims. Report at 23; see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The 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.”). 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 dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Spencer v. Town of Chapel Hill · filed 2003-10-28(c)(3)

As all federal claims in this case have been dismissed, the court ... will yield jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, LLP · filed 2003-11-24(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that are related to those federal claims. ... Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), 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.

Priester v. Lowndes County · filed 2004-01-09(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision not to hear the appellant’s state law claims in federal court.

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

In Re: River Cty Tow · filed 2004-01-06(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.

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

Atraqchi v. Williams · filed 2004-01-22(c)(3)

I do not have subject matter jurisdiction over such an action unless I exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and, since I have dismissed all claims over which I have original jurisdiction, see § 1367(c)(3), I may — and do — decline to do so.

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

S.S. Ex Rel. Stutts v. Eastern Kentucky University · filed 2004-01-23(c)(3)

In this matter, the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs claims made under federal law and over which it had original jurisdiction. The Court now declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over his state claims. These claims shall be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses all federal claims, absent another basis for original jurisdiction.

Smith v. Barber · filed 2004-02-13(c)(3)

In this case, the court has determined that dismissal of plaintiffs’ federal claims is appropriate. Therefore, in the absence of another basis for original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Rosen v. County of Suffolk, NY · filed 2004-02-25(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3), this Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related State law claims, if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Given the meritless nature of these State law claims, as evidenced by the New York State Supreme Court’s dismissal and Appellate Division’s subsequent affirmation of the Plaintiffs identical claims against Hanra-han in the parallel State Court proceeding, this Court hereby declines 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.

Cotton v. Martin County, Fla. · filed 2004-02-27(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed the federal claims forming the substance of this action, declines to exercise jurisdiction on the remaining claims for negligent and intentional misrepresentation, negligent maintenance of personnel files and fraudulent concealment, all of which are grounded in state law.

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

Johnson v. City of Shorewood · filed 2004-03-05(c)(3)

A federal district court has the discretionary power to decline jurisdiction where 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 it dismisses every claim within its original jurisdiction.

Jacoboni v. KPMG LLP · filed 2004-03-11(c)(3)

Obviously, the Court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Jacoboni’s state claims, inasmuch as it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when no alternative basis for original jurisdiction remains.

Green v. Abony Bail Bond · filed 2004-03-30(c)

As a result of the fact that the Amended Complaint for Civil Rights Violations (Doc. No. 5, filed Mar. 4, 2004) fails to indicate an alternative basis for original jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims against the 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.

Hales v. City of Montgomery · filed 2004-03-31(c)(3)

Pursuant to § 1367(c), however, a district court may decline to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... The court finds that the state law claims remaining in this action are best resolved, if at all, by the Alabama state courts.

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

Express Carwash of Charlottesville, L.L.L.P. Ex Rel. Weinschenk v. City of Charlottesville · filed 2004-05-27(c)(3)

The court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Finding no reason to disturb the recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Guiducci v. Kohl's Department Stores · filed 2004-06-14(c)(3)

Section 1367, supplemental jurisdiction, provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over State law claims if the district court dismisses the federal claim 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.

Cannarozzi v. Fiumara · filed 2004-06-02(c)(3)

The district court had dismissed "all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction," and the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over Cannarozzi's state law claims.

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.

Higgins v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma · filed 2004-06-29(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs have failed to state any cognizable federal claim, the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing the pendent state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing “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 state law claims after dismissing the federal claim that supplied original jurisdiction.

Kahn v. American Heritage Life Insurance · filed 2004-06-29(c)(3)

Thus we must dismiss the plaintiffs federal claim. Given that we further decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims, we need not address the defendants’ remaining arguments in support of their motion for dismissal.

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

NATSOURCE LLC. v. GFI Group, Inc. · filed 2004-08-20(c)(3)

According to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its New York law based claims, dismissing the complaint against all defendants in its entirety.

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

Livant v. Clifton · filed 2004-09-07(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related State law claims, if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court broad discretion to dismiss remaining state law claims after it dismisses the federal claims supporting original jurisdiction.

United States Ex Rel. Bailey v. Ector County Hospital · filed 2004-08-31(c)(3)

When federal law claims that serve as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed and only state law claims grounded on supplemental jurisdiction remain, a district court has broad discretion to dismiss the state law claims.

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

Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Roy, Utah · filed 2004-09-07(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an issue of state law where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Having resolved all federal claims, the court hereby DENIES the City’s motion for summary judgment that Doctor John’s is a sexually oriented business.

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

U.S. Small Business Administration v. Katawczik · filed 2004-08-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed the SBA’s federal claim, the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and dismissed them without prejudice. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the District Court may do so 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 a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

N.C. Ex Rel. M.C. v. Bedford Central School District · filed 2004-08-27(c)(3)

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) gives a district court the discretion not to exercise pendent jurisdiction when it has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Therefore, in light of the determination that the Plaintiffs’ have not stated a viable federal claim under 1983, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ § 50-b claim.

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.

Gorstein v. World Savings Bank · filed 2004-08-27(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after having dismissed all claims as to which there is federal subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Denenberg v. Mahler · filed 2004-09-10(c)(3)

Because there remains no federal claim in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Denen-berg’s 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.

Malapanis v. Regan · filed 2004-09-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims providing this Court with subject matter jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims against these 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.

Malapanis v. Regan · filed 2004-09-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims providing this Court with subject matter jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Robey v. Shapiro, Marianos & Cejda, L.L.C. · filed 2004-09-30(c)(3)

Further, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, having dismissed the only claim over which this Court possesses 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 within its original jurisdiction, including when discovery has not begun.

Home Quest Mortgage LLC v. American Family Mutual Insurance · filed 2004-10-12(c)(3)

Having granted defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ federal law claims and mindful that discovery has not yet begun in this case, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ pendent 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.

Reed v. Bullock County Hospital · filed 2004-09-28(c)(3)

Pursuant to § 1367(c), however, a district court may decline to exercise such jurisdiction if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... The court will exercise its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and decline jurisdiction over Reed’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.

Ubuy Holdings, Inc. v. Gladstone · filed 2004-10-12(c)(3)

The Court further notes, however, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and Plaintiffs’ remaining causes of action shall be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Article 78 claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Kelly v. City of Mount Vernon · filed 2004-10-29(c)(3)

I could consider the claim if it were pendent to a viable federal claim, but all of Plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed. ... Cases uniformly hold that federal courts should not hear Article 78 claims when all federal claims have been dismissed. ... For the reasons stated in Birmingham v. Ogden, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Article 78 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.

Doggett v. Perez · filed 2004-11-18(c)(3)

To the extent Amber and Elizabeth Doggett are asserting any state law claims, the court will dismiss those without prejudice to their reassertion in a state court proceeding. Subject matter jurisdiction over these claims is based on supplemental jurisdiction as described in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Pursuant to § 1367(c), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” The court has now “dismissed” all of the plaintiffs’ 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.

Marino v. Mayger · filed 2004-12-07(c)(3)

The statute also states that a district court may decline to ... exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. subsection (c)(3). Such is the case here. Accordingly, we perceive no abuse of discretion.

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

Ashby v. Isle of Wight County School Board · filed 2004-12-15(c)(3)

Therefore, having granted summary judgment against Plaintiff on all the federal claims, the Court finds that it does not have original jurisdiction over the remaining claims asserted in Plaintiffs complaint, and that these claims should be raised by Plaintiff in the courts ... of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Court finds sua sponte 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 remaining claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Clark v. Meijer, Inc. · filed 2005-03-31(c)(3)

Having-dismissed “all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Brown v. UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 500, KANSAS CITY · filed 2005-04-05(c)(3)

However, the court need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction and may decline to do so under § 1367(c) if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e).

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

Perez v. Oakland County · filed 2005-03-31(c)(3)

The Court declines, however, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state-law claims, in light of the resolution of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

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

Pollock v. Chertoff · filed 2005-03-28(c)(3)

Having now dismissed all federal claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction, I decline 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Breese v. Triadvantage Credit Services, Inc. · filed 2005-02-02(c)(3)

A district court may, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” have been dismissed. ... In this case, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all claims that fall within the Court’s original jurisdiction, and the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Pederson’s 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.

Williams v. MAINE SUP. JUD. COURT INDIV. JUSTICES · filed 2005-02-04(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff contends that any factual allegations set forth in his articulated federal claims assert claims under Maine law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (expressly authorizing a district court to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction when it "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction").

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

Shevchynski v. Christiansen · filed 2005-02-11(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed all of Shevchynski’s claims against the City of Springfield and the individual defendants, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Niemyjski v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2005-02-22(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims on which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental 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.

Levine v. McCabe · filed 2005-02-23(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the district court has dismissed all of the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Thus in this case, even assuming that Levine has sufficiently stated any cognizable state law claims (a very generous assumption), supplemental jurisdiction over such claims is hereby declined.

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

Sabeta v. Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc. · filed 2005-02-23(c)(3)

The remaining state law claims — Counts 2, 5, 6, and 9 — are dismissed without prejudioe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), as I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Harding-Wright v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority · filed 2005-01-03(c)(3)

Defendant urges that even in the absence of original federal question jurisdiction, this court should retain supplemental jurisdiction for the sake of " 'judicial economy, convenience, and fairness ...,’ " Def.'s Opp’n at 18 (citation omitted). The court declines this invitation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) ("[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[.]”); see also Kingman Park Civic Ass’n v. Williams, 348 F.3d 1033, 1043 (D.C.Cir.2003) (upholding district court's refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction).

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

Chan v. Sprint Corp. · filed 2005-01-11(c)(3)

Having dismissed 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) allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Overby v. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK & JP MORGAN CHASE · filed 2005-01-03(c)(3)

However, because I can dispose of this case in its entirety, I exercise my discretion in favor of entertaining — and dismissing — these 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.

Connolly v. H.D. Goodall Hospital, Inc. · filed 2005-01-14(c)(3)

In accordance with the discretion afforded to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court is of the view that the most appropriate course of action is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and to grant Plaintiff the opportunity to revive this suit in the forum best suited to resolve the remaining issues: the state courts of Maine.

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.

Elementis Chemicals Inc. v. T H Agriculture & Nutrition, L.L.C. · filed 2005-01-31(c)(3)

Having “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367(c)(3) (2004), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, counterclaims and third-party claims that remain.

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.

Gamez v. Country Cottage Care & Rehab. · filed 2005-02-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims on which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental 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.

Velasquez v. Frontier Medical Inc. · filed 2005-02-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims on which the Court had original federal jurisdiction, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Hoffman v. Applicators Sales & Service, Inc. · filed 2005-03-09(c)(3)

The Court is of the view that under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and to permit Plaintiff to proceed on those claims based exclusively on state law in the forum best suited to resolve them: the courts of the State of Maine.

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

Brierly v. Deer Park Union Free School District · filed 2005-03-23(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim where, as here, it dismisses all of the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Since none of Brierly’s disputes with the Defendants are cognizable under federal law, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brierly’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.

Valencia v. Mississippi Baptist Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2005-03-29(c)(3)

The Court must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims. Such a determination is driven by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides in relevant part: “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.... ” This is the current posture of the case before the Court. ... Consistent with the general rule, 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Douglass v. General Motors Corp. · filed 2005-03-31(c)(3)

Here, the court has granted summary judgment on all of plaintiffs federal claims and 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.

Bennett v. City of Biddeford · filed 2005-04-05(c)(3)

The Court is of the view that under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Zamora v. City of Belen · filed 2005-04-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claim on which the Court had original federal jurisdiction, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Fitzgibbons v. Putnam Dental Associates, P.C. · filed 2005-05-11(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, we exercise our discretion and dismiss plaintiffs remaining state law claims without prejudice.

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

Mays & Associates, Inc. v. Euler · filed 2005-05-18(c)(3)

This Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims contained in Counts III-VIII of Plaintiffs Complaint.

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.

Cogswell v. County of Suffolk Deputy Sheriff's Dept. · filed 2005-07-07(c)(3)

Because this decision grants the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing all of the Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses any and all 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.

City of Cleveland v. Woodhill Supply, Inc. · filed 2005-08-18(c)(3)

Congress has authorized a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when that court has already dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and the court has “broad discretion” to do so. ... In its discretion, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the City’s state law claims against Woodhill and Kaufman.

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.

Barstad v. Murray County · filed 2005-08-26(c)(3)

A federal district court has discretion to decline jurisdiction if it has "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... This court finds no abuse of discretion in this case.

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

Cortes v. Airport Catering Services Corp. · filed 2005-08-31(c)(3)

The Court, nonetheless, has opted not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim under 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.

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Werner-Masuda · filed 2005-09-16(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court has discretion to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court “has dismissed ah claims over which it has original jurisdiction .... ” ... Because the court will dismiss the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court will decline 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.

Curry v. Weiford · filed 2005-09-21(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the plaintiffs federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

Galen Institute, LLC v. Lewis · filed 2005-09-28(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). ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims, and those claims are dismissed.

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

Teen Ranch v. Udow · filed 2005-09-29(c)(3)

Even if a state law claim for damages had been properly pled, the Court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over the damages claim because the Court has dismissed all of 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Grant v. Trinity Health-Michigan · filed 2005-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ 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.

Perdue v. C. HAGER & SONS HINGE MFG., CO., INC. · filed 2005-11-01(c)(3)

Because the defendant is entitled to summary judgment regarding the “claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,” namely the federal claim of religious discrimination, the court may exercise its discretion, pursuant to subsection (c)(3) above, to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Perdue’s state law claims.

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

Save Ardmore Coalition v. Lower Merion Township · filed 2005-11-09(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed all Plaintiffs’ federal claims, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ related state law claim, which may be pursued in the appropriate Pennsylvania court.

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.

Russo v. Voorhees Township · filed 2005-11-29(c)(3)

(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. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Russo’s state law claims.

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

Edgar v. City of Collierville · filed 2005-12-14(c)(3)

We also note that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Edgar’s state-law claims because it dismissed all of his federal claims.

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

Gibson v. Weber · filed 2005-12-15(c)(3)

Congress unambiguously gave district courts discretion in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to dismiss supplemental state law claims when all 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.

Alexander v. New Jersey State Parole Board · filed 2005-12-28(c)(3)

The District Court may refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Richard St.Cloud, Sr v. Weber · filed 2006-01-10(c)(3)

Congress unambiguously gave district courts discretion in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to dismiss supplemental state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed, and there is no basis to find an abuse of discretion here.

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

Jerrytone v. Musto · filed 2006-01-23(c)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) provides that a District Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. That is precisely what happened here because the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all of Jerrytone’s federal question claims. Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and ordinarily calls for declining jurisdiction over the remaining state claims absent extraordinary circumstances.

City of Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations Ex Rel. Pollard v. Key Bank USA · filed 2006-01-24(c)(3)

The caselaw is clear that when a district court has dismissed the claim or claims that gave it original jurisdiction, it should decline to hear pendent state claims, absent extraordinary circumstances.

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

Gurfein v. Ameritrade, Inc. · filed 2006-01-26(c)(3)

Because the defendants’ motions to dismiss the federal claims are granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)(“The 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) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Piedmont Behavioral Health Center, LLC v. Stewart · filed 2006-01-31(c)(3)

When the basis for federal jurisdiction is dismissed, however, a court has discretion to retain or dismiss pending state law claims.

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

Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2006-02-02(c)(3)

The Court need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction, however, and it may decline to do so if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, the Court has dismissed all of plaintiffs federal claims. Plaintiffs remaining claim relies on a state law cause of action for retaliatory discharge. Plaintiff does not allege diversity of citizenship, and the Court is not inclined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining claim.

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

Bellanich v. Doe · filed 2006-02-03(c)(3)

Because the district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Bellanich’s federal claims, it correctly declined to exercise jurisdiction over any of Bellanich’s state law product liability claims. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Beckwith v. Erie County Water Authority · filed 2006-02-08(c)(3)

Assuming arguendo that the Court does have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs Article 78 claim, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim because all of his federal claims have 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.

University Gardens Apartments Joint Venture v. Johnson · filed 2006-03-09(c)(3)

Because the court will dismiss Count 1, the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction, and Count 4 as discussed below, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to § 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.

Baron v. Frederickson · filed 2006-03-14(c)(3)

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

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

Trinidad v. New York City Department of Correction · filed 2006-03-21(c)(3)

Having disposed of the federal claims for gender discrimination over which this court has original jurisdiction, 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.

Doron Precision Systems, Inc. v. FAAC, INC. · filed 2006-03-23(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Doron’s remaining state law claims.

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

Aguilera v. County of Nassau · filed 2006-03-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed the plaintiffs Section 1983 cause of action, there is no longer any independent basis for federal jurisdiction in this action. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs 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.

Cunningham v. Equicredit Corporation of Illinois · filed 2006-03-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claims in this lawsuit, 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 state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gibson v. Cleophus Gains, Jr. · filed 2006-04-04(c)(3)

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

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

American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners · filed 2006-04-18(c)(3)

A federal court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), when it has dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Having dismissed all of the ACLU’s federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims based on the Ohio Constitution. Accordingly, the ACLU’s remaining state constitutional claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Orta-Castro v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme Química P.R., Inc. · filed 2006-05-09(c)(3)

Since we have found that the district court properly dismissed the appellants' federal claims, we decline the appellants' invitation to compel the district court to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that federal district courts, in their discretion, may "decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a)," e.g., a state law claim, if the court "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction").

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

Tyree v. Department of Transp., New Mexico · filed 2006-05-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to subsection (c), however, the Court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction if, among other things, 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 dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Hoffman v. CIBA VISION CORP. · filed 2006-06-07(c)(3)

Considering that the federal claims in this action are to be dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction of the remaining state law claim is declined, and that claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Onyiuke v. NEW JERSEY STATE SUPREME COURT · filed 2006-06-27(c)

Further, because this disposition requires the dismissal of all Plaintiffs federal claims, and because no independent basis for remaining state law claims has been alleged, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) would permit the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining State law claims.

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

Schaefer v. Town of Victor · filed 2006-07-13(c)(3)

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of all of Schaefer’s federal claims, on remand, the district court can exercise its discretion whether to invoke supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Schaefer’s remaining state law claims. We note that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, and the general rule favors doing so.

Oliver v. Prator · filed 2006-07-17(c)(3)

A district court may, and the general rule is that it should, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The Court finds that the appropriate disposition of any remaining state law claims is, therefore, to 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.

Otay Land Co. v. U.E. Ltd., L.P. · filed 2006-07-18(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) supports dismissal of supplemental state law claims when all claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Khosroabadi v. North Shore Agency · filed 2006-07-19(c)(3)

A district court should dismiss a supplemental state law claim where all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Untracht v. Fikri · filed 2006-08-30(c)(3)

In addition, the Court granted summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs federal claims and dismissed his state claims 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, and generally it should do so.

Maranto v. Citifinancial Retail Services, Inc. · filed 2006-09-11(c)(3)

A district court may, and the general rule is that it should, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims 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.

Habecker v. Town of Estes Park, Colorado · filed 2006-09-25(c)(3)

I have dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, which provided the sole basis for this court’s original jurisdiction. I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Ward v. City of North Myrtle Beach · filed 2006-09-29(c)

Specifically, this court can decline to continue the action as to the pendent claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Morton v. Hall · filed 2006-10-05(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because all of the federal claims have been resolved.

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

Davies v. Valdes · filed 2006-11-01(c)(3)

Thus, in view of the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs Section 1983 claims should be dismissed, the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law tort claims.

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

Penoyer v. Briggs · filed 2006-11-24(c)(3)

Finally, even if the court could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over a Florida state-law claim, because it dismissed all the federal issues that gave it original jurisdiction, and, because we find that such dismissal was appropriate, the district court correctly dismissed this claim as well. 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.

Ramlet v. E.F. Johnson Co. · filed 2006-11-27(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may, sua sponte, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state-law claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Based on Section 1367(c)(3) and Johnson, 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 the federal claims within its original jurisdiction; the balance of interests usually favors declining jurisdiction.

Iverson v. Pfizer · filed 2006-11-30(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the balance of interests usually "will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims." Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988); see also Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 647 (8th Cir.2006); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The district court's decision to dismiss the state law claims was in accord with these principles.

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.

Parker v. Salina Regional Health Center, Inc. · filed 2006-12-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs EMTALA claim on which the court had original federal jurisdiction, this court may decline to exercise continuing “pendent” or supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs 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.

Arnold v. Tuskegee University · filed 2006-12-19(c)(3)

Pursuant to the supplemental jurisdiction statute, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if, inter alia, the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

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.

Jones v. Fluor Fernald, Inc. · filed 2006-12-21(c)(3)

Fluor Fernald now cross-appeals the district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. While we understand that Fluor Fernald would have preferred to have the district court rule on the Ohio discrimination claim given that it ruled favorably on the analogous federal claims, its decision to the contrary does not represent an abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Gardner v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers · filed 2007-01-03(c)(3)

Because the Corps is not liable under the APA, and the only remaining issue is one that arises under state law, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this a 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.

Rivera v. City of Yonkers · filed 2007-01-18(c)(3)

As set forth above, this Court has granted summary judgment for Defendants on each of Plaintiffs four federal causes of action. Accordingly, this Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims that supplied original jurisdiction, taking account of the local character of the dispute and the absence of substantial federal issues.

Walker v. Seldman · filed 2007-01-18(c)

Section 1367(c), however, gives federal courts discretion to dismiss remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims that formed the basis for original jurisdiction. Given the particularly local nature of land disputes, the absence of any substantial federal issues, and the predominance of local statutory law issues, the Court declines to adjudicate any of the remaining claims, counterclaims, and cross-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.

Streamcast Networks, Inc. v. Skype Technologies, S.A. · filed 2007-01-19(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... The Court finds this case to be no exception. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over StreamCast’s remaining state law claims.

When all claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Payton v. Public Defender Administration Board · filed 2007-01-22(c)(3)

Because Payton’s only federal claim is dismissed, it is within the sound discretion of the Court to determine whether or not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining claims. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction regarding his remaining claims.

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

A.T. Massey Coal Co. v. Meadows · filed 2007-03-01(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims where it has dismissed all of the claims that provided it with original jurisdiction. ... The court is of the opinion that plaintiffs’ remaining claims would be more appropriately handled by a state court, and accordingly dismisses 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.

Gagliardi v. Fisher · filed 2007-03-16(c)(3)

This court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs Pennsylvania law causes of action 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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

Mirzai v. New Mexico General Services Department · filed 2007-03-30(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Mirzai’s federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it is free to decline to exercise jurisdiction over his 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.

Evans-Gadsden v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP · filed 2007-06-03(c)(3)

As set forth above, this Court has granted summary judgment for Defendant on each of Plaintiffs cognizable federal causes of action. This Court declines to assert ... supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims that could be interpreted as arising in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, including any claims under the New York Human Rights 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.

Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. · filed 2007-06-04(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3) over the two remaining state law claims.

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

Williams v. Berkshire Financial Group, Inc. · filed 2007-06-11(c)(3)

One of the grounds for declining supplemental jurisdiction, specifically listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, is where the district court has dismissed the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... I therefore decline 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Palen v. Alcan Packaging · filed 2007-06-14(c)(3)

Consequently, because Plaintiffs case is now one that solely concerns state law, and the Court is unable to fully resolve those claims on Defendants’ instant motion, the Court will décline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

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

Marrero-Gutierrez v. Molina · filed 2007-06-20(c)(3)

A district court retains the discretion, however, to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where 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 disposing of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Des-Ogugua v. Pennsylvania Department of Community & Economic Development · filed 2007-07-13(c)(3)

Having found plaintiff’s remaining federal claim to be insufficient to survive summaiy judgment, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law PHRA claim.

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

Van Meter v. CITY OF LANETT, ALA. · filed 2007-08-24(c)(3)

Because summary judgment is due to be granted on their federal claims, this court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state claims, since it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The language of the statute is discretionary, but case law leans toward dismissing state-law claims in the absence of a federal claim to tether them to federal court.

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

Novak v. MetroHealth Medical Center · filed 2007-09-28(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(c)(3). ... Because the district court dismissed Novak's federal claims, the court could properly refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state law claims.

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

Lynch v. Bulman · filed 2007-10-15(c)(3)

Because the court properly granted summary judgment to Defendants on Lynch’s federal claims, the court was w ell within its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); Exum, 389 F.3d at 1138-39.

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.

Mercatus Group LLC v. Lake Forest Hospital · filed 2007-11-15(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), 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 jurisdiction. ... Because the court dismisses the federal claims against the Village Defendants, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law causes of action of ultra vires and vested rights.

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

Boyd v. District of Columbia · filed 2007-11-26(c)(3)

It is within the court s discretion whether to exert jurisdiction over supplemental claims after the dismissal of “all claims over which [the court] has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Oberhausen v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government · filed 2007-12-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, 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.

Garelli Wong & Associates, Inc. v. Nichols · filed 2008-01-16(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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.

McCray v. Potter · filed 2008-01-16(c)(3)

Considering our disposition of this appeal, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over McCray’s state law claims because all other claims over which the court had original jurisdiction were dismissed.

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.

Mason v. Sullivan · filed 2008-02-11(c)(3)

After dismissing Mason’s section 1983 federal claims, the district court was within its discretion to decline jurisdiction over Mason’s remaining state law claims.

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

Gilman v. Woodford · filed 2008-03-12(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gilman’s 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.

Republic Property Trust v. Republic Properties Corp. · filed 2008-03-31(c)(3)

Under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, however, when a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining claims, and they must also be dismissed.

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

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. an Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement in the Cloverly Subterranean Ge · filed 2008-05-09(c)

The district court also acted well within its discretion in declining 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.

Durso v. SUMMER BROOK PRESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION · filed 2008-06-23(c)(3)

Plaintiff has yet to state a claim under federal law, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims until Plaintiff has alleged a substantial and non-frivolous federal 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.

Castro-Medina v. Procter & Gamble Commercial Co. · filed 2008-06-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal law claims, we will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Rodriguez v. Editor in Chief · filed 2008-07-02(c)(3)

It is proper for a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims once it has disposed of all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

VILLAS AT PARKSIDE PARTNERS v. City of Farmers Branch · filed 2008-08-29(c)(3)

Now that the federal law claims, the only claims over which the court had original jurisdiction, have been dismissed, the court has discretion whether to retain the remaining state law claim. ... The court therefore exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.