28 U.S.C. § 1367

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.

Holland v. Freeman United Coal Mining Co. · filed 2008-09-04(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a claim where, as here, it 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 remaining state law claims after it dismisses all federal claims within its original jurisdiction.

Covenant Media of Georgia, LLC v. City of Lawrenceville · filed 2008-09-18(c)(3)

When a federal court has dismissed all of the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. ... Here, the Court has dismissed all of plaintiffs federal claims, and the remaining claims involve relatively complex decisions of state constitutional law. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

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

Gray v. Four Oak Court Ass'n, Inc. · filed 2008-09-22(c)(3)

A court may in its discretion, however, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” have been dismissed. ... That being the case here, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Gray’s remaining state-law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially when the state claims require additional factual and legal determinations.

Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free School District · filed 2008-09-30(c)(3)

Although the Court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining NYSHRL claim, ... it declines to do so as resolution of the state claim would require the determination of additional factual and legal issues.

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.

Ceslik v. Miller Ford, Inc. · filed 2008-09-30(c)(3)

Because the court is granting summary judgment as to, inter alia, all the plaintiffs claims over which the court has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all remaining state law claims.

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

Deschamps v. District of Columbia · filed 2008-10-23(c)(3)

She therefore has not stated a federal claim against Ms. Hill, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the statutory claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (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 if all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

R.M. Ex Rel. R.M. v. Waukee Community School District · filed 2008-12-05(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court hereby informs the parties that in the event this Order dismissing the federal claims becomes final, the Court will decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Dilacio v. New York City District Council of United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners · filed 2008-12-15(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Dzwonczyk v. Syracuse City Police Department · filed 2008-12-22(c)(3)

Regarding the City Defendants and SHA Defendants, because the federal civil rights claims against them, of which the court had original jurisdiction, have been dismissed in their entirety, the court may dismiss the remaining state law claims against them due to the lack of diversity 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.

Andritz, Inc. v. Southern Maintenance Contractor, LLC · filed 2009-01-07(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]”).

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

St. Germain v. Howard · filed 2009-01-20(c)

For this reason, the district court also did not err in dismissing Appellants’ state law claims. The district court has discretion to dismiss pendent state law claims, and may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims where it has dismissed 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.

Creusere v. Weaver · filed 2009-01-26(c)(3)

The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), states that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the district court has dismissed all other 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 the claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Hall v. Brooks et al. · filed 2009-02-10(c)(3)

This court therefore has only supplemental jurisdiction over Hall’s state-law claims, which it declines to exercise.

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

Cellular Technical Services Co. v. Trueposition, Inc. · filed 2009-02-12(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, this is the usual case, and therefore, this Court should hot retain jurisdiction merely to decide claims that arise wholly under state law.

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

Crosby v. Zoley · filed 2009-02-12(c)(3)

To the extent that any state common law claim might survive the faulty premise on which it is based, supplemental jurisdiction over the common law claims is declined. 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.

Cornelius v. City of Andalusia · filed 2009-02-26(c)(3)

The remaining claims, which are brought under state law, are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Busse v. Lee County Florida · filed 2009-03-05(c)(3)

Since the district court “had dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it therefore had the discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Busse’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Amerimax Real Estate Partners, Inc. v. RE/MAX International, Inc. · filed 2009-03-09(c)(3)

RE/MAX’s Counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice, as are Counts I and II of Amerimax’s Amended Complaint. The Court makes no determination as to whether Amerimax’s remaining state-law claim, Count III of the Amended Complaint, is viable, and the Court relinquishes jurisdiction on this Count. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); CropLife Am., Inc. v. City of Madison, 432 F.3d 732, 733-34 (7th Cir.2005).

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.

Ruttenberg v. Jones · filed 2009-03-11(c)(3)

Finally, because all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, over which there is jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, have been dismissed, plaintiffs’ state-law claims in Counts VI, VII, VIII, will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Sylvester v. Cain · filed 2009-03-11(c)(3)

The district court declined to do so because it had dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Sylvester has failed to establish in his motion that the district court erred in refusing to invoke its jurisdiction.

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

Whittiker v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. · filed 2009-03-17(c)(3)

Pursuant to the statute, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the district court has dismissed all claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... After conducting a de novo review, the Court concurs with the Recommendation and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts 2 and 3 of the Complaint.

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

Oras v. City of Jersey City · filed 2009-04-01(c)(3)

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

Bash v. Patrick · filed 2009-04-09(c)(3)

The federal claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction have now been resolved against Plaintiffs. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Alabama law. All of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Alabama law are accordingly due to be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Wilfinger v. St. John Health · filed 2009-04-13(c)(3)

I have dismissed all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, and, as allowed by 28 USC § 1367(c)(3), decline to exercise jurisdiction over Wilfinger’s remaining state law claims.

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

Jones v. Delaney · filed 2009-04-20(c)(3)

To the extent the plaintiff intends to assert violations of the common law or District of Columbia statutes, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, given that all of the claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction will be dismissed at the outset of this case.

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

Díaz-Ortiz v. Díaz-Rivera · filed 2009-05-01(c)(3)

I may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, however, if all claims over which I have original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... As Díaz-Ortiz’ federal claims are hereby dismissed, so too must his state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves a district court discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses every claim within its original jurisdiction; the dismissal does not eliminate supplemental jurisdiction.

Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc. · filed 2009-05-04(c)(3)

Upon dismissal of the federal claim, the District Court retained its statutory supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Its decision declining to exercise that statutory authority was not based on a jurisdictional defect but on its discretionary choice not to hear the claims despite its subject-matter jurisdiction over them.

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.

Thomas v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corr. · filed 2009-05-12(c)(3)

Where all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because there does not appear to be any extraordinary circumstances surrounding this case which would warrant the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims it appears that these claims are properly dismissed as well.

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

National Football League Players Ass'n v. National Football League · filed 2009-05-22(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (allowing but not requiring the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). ... The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Williamses’ DATWA and CPA claims and will remand those claims to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Lewis v. District of Columbia · filed 2009-05-28(c)(3)

When the federal-law claims on which the court’s original jurisdiction is based have been dismissed, the court has discretion in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

G.C. ex rel. Cosco v. School Board · filed 2009-06-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed G.C.’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

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

Parker v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP · filed 2009-06-30(c)(3)

Having disposed of the claim giving rise to its original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Parker’s remaining state law claims. Those counts are therefore dismissed without prejudice to Parker’s right to refile them in state court.

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

Rectrix Aerodome Centers, Inc. v. Barnstable Municipal Airport Commission · filed 2009-07-10(c)(3)

All of the claims over which this court has original jurisdiction having been dismissed, the court (consistent with its customary practice) 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.

Cruz-Claudio v. GARCÍA TRUCKING SERVICE, INC. · filed 2009-07-28(c)(3)

In sum, having dismissed the federal claim before trial, the court will not retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs supplemental Law No. 100, Law No. 80, or Article 1802 state-law causes of action.

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

Manbeck v. Micka · filed 2009-07-30(c)(3)

Having determined that all of the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state-law causes of action (Counts Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, and Twenty-Nine).

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.

Marshall v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. · filed 2009-08-12(c)(3)

As I have granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on all claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs “state Act” claim.

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

Jacobson v. Schwarzenegger · filed 2009-08-25(c)(3)

Title 28, United States Code, Section 1367(c)(3), however, allows the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Rivera-Tirado v. Autoridad De Energia Electrica · filed 2009-09-01(c)(3)

Hence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3) dismissal against co-defendants Echevarria and Diaz is warranted.

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

Wiggins v. Logan · filed 2009-09-15(c)(3)

To the extent that they can be construed to assert a claim under state law, however, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which it did for the statutorily-authorized reason that it had dismissed all claims within its 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.

Bhatia v. Yale School of Medicine · filed 2009-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed Bhatia’s pendent state claims.

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

Harris v. BLUERAY TECHNOLOGIES SHAREHOLDERS, INC. · filed 2009-10-23(c)

Furthermore, at oral argument, the Court asked the parties whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal claim. Both sides agreed the Court should remand the plaintiffs’ state claims to state court in that event. Given the parties’ joint request, and given the factors set forth in § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state claims.

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

Ekwem v. Fenty · filed 2009-10-29(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of plaintiffs federal claims, there is no reason for the Court to retain jurisdiction over the remaining common law and D.C. statutory claims. ... The Court will therefore dismiss them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Agostinello v. Great Neck Union Free School District · filed 2009-11-18(c)

The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law failure to accommodate claim.

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

Middlebrooks v. Bonner Kiernan Trebach & Crociata · filed 2009-11-30(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of plaintiffs only federal claim, there is no reason for the Court to retain jurisdiction over the remaining common law and D.C. statutory claims. The Court will therefore dismiss these 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 claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Cohon Ex Rel. Bass v. New Mexico Department of Health · filed 2009-12-02(c)(3)

The Court believes that the best course of action would be to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and allow the New Mexico state courts to decide any issues of state law ... that remain, including the appeal of the administrative agency decision.

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

Thielen v. GMAC Mortgage Corp. · filed 2009-12-02(c)(3)

This Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims.

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

DELLAVOLPE v. City of New York · filed 2009-12-14(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court- declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dellavolpe’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL 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.

Mitchell v. Akal Security, Inc. · filed 2009-12-14(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Kach v. Hose ex rel. St. Moritz Security Services, Inc. · filed 2009-12-23(c)(3)

Here, the District Court plainly recognized its discretion to retain jurisdiction over Each’s remaining state-law claims but, having dismissed all of her federal claims, declined to do so for a reason that Congress explicitly green-lighted under these circumstances.

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

Perez v. Ormiston · filed 2010-02-03(c)(3)

Because 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, we also hold that the district court did not abuse it discretion by declining to hear Perez’s state law claims.

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

Anthony v. School Board of Iberia Parish · filed 2010-02-05(c)(3)

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

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

Boone v. Mountainmade Foundation · filed 2010-02-15(c)(3)

The court therefore has the discretionary authority to dismiss the state law claim under § 1367(c)(3) and chooses to exercise this authority.

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.

Marshall v. Decatur County General Hospital · filed 2010-02-26(c)(3)

The exercise by a district court of supplemental, or pendent, jurisdiction over state law ... claims is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which expressly permits the Court to decline the exercise of jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Absent any remaining federal claims against the Defendants, the Court, in its sound discretion, hereby DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Plaintiffs remaining state law claim.

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

Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co. · filed 2010-02-26(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Baughman’s remaining state law claims.

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

Williams v. City of New York · filed 2010-03-04(c)(3)

Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims and dismiss them as well.

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.

ANDELA v. University of Miami · filed 2010-03-08(c)(3)

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

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.

Palmore v. City of Pacific · filed 2010-03-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims as contained in Counts I and III. 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).

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

Granda v. Schulman · filed 2010-04-07(c)(3)

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

Rj Production Company v. Nestle USA, Inc. · filed 2010-04-15(c)(3)

In the absence of a federal claim against defendants,1 the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims but instead will remand the case to Superior Court.

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

Baumgardner v. Town of Ruston · filed 2010-04-28(c)(3)

All Plaintiffs’ federal claims are dismissed by this order. Accordingly, the Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and so has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under § 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.

Lindsay v. Kiernan · filed 2010-04-29(c)(3)

The district court did not err in granting Officer Kiernan summary judgment on Lindsay’s only federal claim. Therefore, we do not disturb the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lindsay’s remaining state claims.

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

Carthew v. County of Suffolk · filed 2010-05-06(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims given the absence of any federal claims that survive summary judgment and dismisses such state 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.

Boudreau v. Englander, et al. · filed 2010-05-24(c)(3)

Given that the court has determined that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to all of Boudreau's federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in plaintiff's complaint.

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

Austin v. Tennis · filed 2010-05-26(c)

We also conclude that the District Court acted within its discretion in refraining from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Austin’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.

Myers v. Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel · filed 2010-05-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only claims for which this Court had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, if any, and dismisses such claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Although the Court would have discretion to maintain these claims, it declines to do so given the status of the record.

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

Middlebrooks v. Godwin Corporation · filed 2010-06-25(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of plaintiff’s federal claims, there is no reason for the Court to retain jurisdiction over the remaining common law and D.C. statutory claims. The Court will therefore dismiss these 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Pease v. Burns · filed 2010-06-28(c)(3)

Here, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently asserted any actionable federal claims. In the absence of a cognizable federal claim forming the basis of the subject matter jurisdiction, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendant state law claims alleged in the Complaint.

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

Henry Taylor, Jr. v. Feldman · filed 2010-07-27(c)

The District Court acted within its discretion in refraining from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Taylor’s state law claims.

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

Estate of Manook v. Research Triangle Institute, International · filed 2010-08-12(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), this court recognizes its discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such state-law tort] claim[s] ... if ... [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... However, in light of the procedural posture of the case, the court sees no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law tort claims.

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

Foote v. Town of Bedford · filed 2010-08-13(c)

Where, as here, a district court has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court may exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction as to any 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.

De'Lonta v. Fulmore · filed 2010-09-20(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of plaintiffs federal claim, it is appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims, and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Schuler v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP · filed 2010-09-22(c)(3)

Furthermore, plaintiffs DCHRA claims for 2004 and 2005 are dismissed without prejudice 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.

Rees v. Office of Children and Youth · filed 2010-09-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and those causes of action will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

West v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department · filed 2010-10-31(c)

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). West originally brought her claims in state court. The Court therefore remands all remaining claims — all of which sound in state-law — to state court.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, absent special considerations favoring retention.

Velez v. Sanchez · filed 2010-11-30(c)(3)

Here, there are no special considerations to warrant a departure from the usual rule. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of the state-law claims, counterclaims and third-party 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.

Sirote v. BBVA Compass Bank · filed 2010-12-29(c)(3)

Accordingly, this court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and will exercise its discretion to dismiss those 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.

Mason and Dixon Lines, Inc. v. STEUDLE · filed 2011-01-13(c)(3)

In this case, the Court is dismissing all of the federal claims, which form the basis of the Court’s original jurisdiction. ... The Court believes that discretion compels declining jurisdiction over the nuisance claim in this case for that reason.

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. CITY OF MUSCLE SHOALS, ALA. · filed 2011-01-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), 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 state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Mabry v. Neighborhood Defender Service · filed 2011-01-31(c)(3)

As all the plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed, the plaintiffs state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Tucker v. CITY OF FLORENCE, ALA. · filed 2011-02-02(c)(3)

Having determined that summary judgment is due to be granted as to all of plaintiffs federal law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims plaintiff asserts in Counts II-IV of the original complaint. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with the state law claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Ross v. Goord · filed 2011-03-08(c)(3)

Although district courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over certain state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), 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,” id. at § 1367(c)(3). ... We therefore direct that, to the extent Ross asserted a fraudulent misrepresentation claim under New York law, the judgment should be modified to clarify that the dismissal of any such claim is based on a lack of jurisdiction.

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

Anderson v. COUNTY OF HAMILTON · filed 2011-03-14(c)(3)

As a result, Plaintiff fails to state a viable federal claim against the County Defendants or against Ms. Scherr, and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs 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.

Simon v. KEYSPAN CORP. · filed 2011-03-22(c)(3)

In any event, having dismissed all of plaintiff's federal claims, this Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides that a district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Loubriel v. FONDO DEL SEGURO DEL ESTADO · filed 2011-03-24(c)(3)

Therefore, having dismissed the federal claims before trial, the court will not retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs supplemental state law claims.

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

Schubert v. City of Rye · filed 2011-03-31(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

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.

Dc3, LLC v. Town of Geneva · filed 2011-04-12(c)(3)

To the extent that plaintiffs claims concerning irregularities in the passage of the Local Law comprise additional claims arising under the laws of New York State, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. ... Supplemental jurisdiction may be declined, however, where all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... Here, I find that those interests are best served by declining 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.

McCreary v. Redevelopment Authority of the · filed 2011-05-17(c)(3)

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, once the District Court dismissed the federal claims, leaving only the state-law claims, “the prerequisites for § 1367(c)(3) were met.” Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Group, Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 174 (3d Cir. 2009).

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.

Wynn v. Board of Education · filed 2011-05-17(c)(3)

This court has dismissed Dr. Wynn’s federal claim, which is the basis for this court’s original jurisdiction over this action, and therefore, must decide whether to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Dr. Wynn’s state-law claims. ... Because none of these exceptions applies, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case. Dr. Wynn’s state-law claims accordingly are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Smith v. OPPENHEIMER FUNDS DISTRIBUTOR, INC. · filed 2011-06-06(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Having dismissed Plaintiffs First Cause of Action, his sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to his remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves district courts discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all claims within their original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Lacey v. Maricopa County · filed 2011-06-09(c)(3)

Rather, the dis- trict court retains discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims even after all federal claims are dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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.

Davis v. City of Newrk · filed 2011-06-28(c)(3)

Because the District Court properly dismissed all of Davis’s constitutional and federal claims, it did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her 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.

Gatling v. Nickel · filed 2011-06-28(c)(3)

As to remand, a district court is permitted to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over related claims where the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). Because the court will dismiss the federal law claims, it has the power to remand the state law claims and will do so pursuant to the request and stipulation of the parties.

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

STADTMILLER v. UPMC Health Plan, Inc. · filed 2011-06-29(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment resolves the only extant federal claims, the court, in the exercise of its discretion, declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction ... over Stadtmiller’s state law claims.

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

Birster v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. · filed 2011-07-07(c)(3)

While this Court may have authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, the Court may nevertheless decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where, as here, 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 remaining state claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Wright v. District of Columbia · filed 2011-07-29(c)(3)

By the same token, they “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such] claim[s] ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” § 1367(c)(3). ... Here the factors weigh against a retention of the case. ... The Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims providing original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc. · filed 2011-08-09(c)(3)

And in any event, the district court retains discre- tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to exercise supplemental jurisdic- tion over state law claims even after the federal claims, which provided the original jurisdictional anchor, are dismissed.

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

Townsend v. Coffee County · filed 2011-08-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state-law claims.

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

Grant Anderson v. Eric Holder, Jr. · filed 2011-08-16(c)(3)

With no federal claims remaining in the case, the district court also properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Anderson’s claim under the D.C. Human Rights Act.

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

North Carolina ex rel. Bishop v. County of Macon · filed 2011-08-22(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where it has dismissed all claims over which it has jurisdiction.

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

Calmat Co. v. San Gabriel Valley Gun Club · filed 2011-08-22(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) this court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... This court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and this action will be dismissed in its entirety.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, but that ground does not apply while federal claims remain pending.

Miskovsky v. Jones · filed 2011-08-30(c)(3)

When state-law claims come within the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the court has discretion not to exercise that jurisdiction once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See id. § 1367(c)(3); Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213, 1229 (10th Cir. 2010). That discretion would have been exercised properly if we had affirmed the dismissal of all Mr. Miskovsky’s federal claims. But because we reverse the dismissal of two of those claims and remand them to the district court, § 1367(c)(3) no longer applies. We therefore set aside the dismissal of the state-law claims and remand for further consideration.

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.

Dyson v. District of Columbia · filed 2011-08-31(c)(3)

In its discretion, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. § 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.

Murphy v. Daryl Bloom · filed 2011-08-31(c)(3)

In any event, the District Court would be justified in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Murphy’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Leslie v. Cumulus Media, Inc. · filed 2011-08-31(c)(3)

A court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims is discretionary. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.... ” ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Chambers v. North Rockland Central School District · filed 2011-09-27(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which permits “[t]he district courts [to] decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Johnson v. Bac Home Loans Servicing, LP · filed 2011-09-29(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, pursuant to the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ only claim arising under federal law in the present case, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims set forth in Counts II, III, IV, V and VI of the amended 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.

Miller v. Graham · filed 2011-10-24(c)(3)

A district court may decline 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); Rhyne v. Henderson Cnty., 973 F.2d 386, 395 (5th Cir. 1992). When a district court exercises its discretion and dismisses the state-law claims, it must do so without prejudice so that the plaintiff may refile in the appropriate state court. Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 246 (5th Cir. 1999). Miller argues that the district court should not have dismissed his state-law claims. Miller has not shown any abuse of discretion.

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.

Koch v. City of Del City · filed 2011-11-02(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Viteritti v. Incorporated Village of Bayville · filed 2011-11-21(c)(3)

As discussed above, each of the plaintiffs’ federal claims are dismissed and, therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Rooker v. Ouray County · filed 2012-01-13(c)(3)

Pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining claims. Invoking § 1367(c)(3) to decline supplemental jurisdiction is permissive.

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

Barnes v. City of Dothan · filed 2012-01-31(c)(3)

Because Barnes’s federal claims — the only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction — are due to be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Pass v. Capital City Real Estate, LLC · filed 2012-02-01(c)(3)

This Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining District of Columbia statutory and common law claims because this Court has dismissed the claim over which it had original jurisdiction—plaintiff’s RESPA 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.

Ass'n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Christie · filed 2012-02-02(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Because the Court is granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss as to the federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Brown v. Hannah · filed 2012-02-06(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, for this Court to simultaneously adjudicate his state law claims, a federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court, having dismissed the majority of Plaintiffs federal claims, will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Strumsky v. Washington Post Company · filed 2012-02-07(c)(3)

This Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining common law claims because the claim over which the Court had original jurisdiction has been dismissed.

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.

Rodriguez v. Shulman · filed 2012-02-21(c)(3)

Insomuch as Count XI purports to make out a state law conspiracy claim, see First. Am. Compl., ¶¶ 125-27, or the First Amended Complaint implicitly contains other state law claims, the Court, having disposed of all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 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 has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Estate of Kenney v. Floyd, et al. · filed 2012-02-28(c)(3)

Having disposed of the federal law claims in this action, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Camelio v . Am. Fed’n, 137 F.3d 666, 672 (1st Cir. 1998) (district court may decline jurisdiction after dismissing 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.

Haber v. ASN 50th St. LLC · filed 2012-03-07(c)(3)

Since all of Haber’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law violations and conspiracies to commit those violations that can fairly be read from the complaint.

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

Nollner v. Southern Baptist Convention, Inc. · filed 2012-04-03(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Nollners’ DFA claim will be dismissed with prejudice and the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Wheeler v. Ulisny · filed 2012-04-25(c)

When the claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction are dismissed, the district court may decline to decide the pendent state claims.

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

Martinez v. Columbia Sportswear USA Corp. · filed 2012-05-09(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state] claim” when “all claims over which is has original jurisdiction” have been dismissed. ... Therefore, Plaintiffs state claims are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Favors v. Cuomo · filed 2012-05-16(c)(3)

To the extent that Ullman also claims that Ramapo’s division into multiple assembly districts violates Article III, § 5, of the New York State Constitution, we decline to exercise 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Brace v. County of Luzerne · filed 2012-06-12(c)(3)

A district court may refuse to exercise such jurisdiction where, as in the instant case, “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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Mears v. McCulley · filed 2012-07-19(c)(3)

Summary judgment is due to be granted in favor of both defendants on plaintiffs federal claims. Therefore, the balance of factors weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction, and this court exercises its discretion to dismiss plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Sudler v. City of New York · filed 2012-08-07(c)(3)

We need not decide whether the district court’s dismissal of Batthany’s state law claims was error at the time of dismissal, because the district court has now dismissed all the federal claims in this case, thus permitting the discretionary dismissal of the state law 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.

Sebrite Agency, Inc. v. Platt · filed 2012-08-07(c)(3)

A federal court may decline 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). Because this Court has original jurisdiction over only two of Sebrite’s claims — and because those claims have been dismissed — the Court finds that Sebrite’s remaining state-law claims should be decided by a state court. ... The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sebrite’s state-law claims and dismisses those claims 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.

Puiia v. Cross et al. · filed 2012-08-08(c)(3)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims as I have dismissed all claims over which I have 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.

Tagliaferri v. Winter Park Housing Authority · filed 2012-08-10(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Tagliaferri and Stephens’s remaining state law claims. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim after dismissing 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

McFarlane v. Roberta · filed 2012-08-30(c)(3)

Because the court is dismissing all of Ms. McFarlane’s federal law claims, the court declines jurisdiction over Ms. McFarlane’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.

Stewart v. California Deptartment of Education · filed 2012-09-20(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the Stewarts’ state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001).

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

Frodge v. City of Newport · filed 2012-10-05(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Plaintiffs point to no other factors that would support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 over their state law claims in light of the federal claims being dismissed. Consequently, this court finds the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining 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 has disposed of all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Turner v. Hawaii First Inc. · filed 2012-10-15(c)(3)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims because it has dismissed or disposed of all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

S.S. v. Princeton House Charter School, Inc. · filed 2012-11-15(c)(3)

Having disposed of S.S.’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when claims giving rise to original jurisdiction 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.

Hughes v. Southern NH Services, Inc. · filed 2012-11-26(c)(3)

Given that the court has dismissed all of the federal claims in Hughes’s complaint, and taking into consideration the factors identified in Camelio, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hughes’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.

Bentley v. City of Lebanon, et al. · filed 2012-12-13(c)(3)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) ("The district courts 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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially when resolving the state-law claims would require additional legal and factual issues.

Solent Freight Services, Ltd. v. Alberty · filed 2012-12-19(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction and the resolution of the state law claims would require resolving additional legal and factual issues, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 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.

Jones v. Mermon · filed 2012-12-21(c)(3)

The Magistrate Judge declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because all of Jones’ claims over which the District Court had original jurisdiction had been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). There was no abuse of discretion in this decision.

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

Quezada v. Marshall · filed 2013-01-15(c)(3)

All other claims will be dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), under which “district courts 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Speed v. Mills · filed 2013-01-30(c)(3)

With the dismissal of Mill’s federal claims, this Court no longer has a basis for jurisdiction. To the extent that Mills asserts any state common law claims, which is far from apparent from his complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when state courts are better placed to resolve those claims.

Harris v. Falls · filed 2013-01-30(c)(3)

Because the Alabama state courts are in the best position to interpret and apply the provisions of the Alabama Constitution and state-agent immunity, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count Three of plaintiffs Complaint.

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

Genovese v. Town of Southampton · filed 2013-02-01(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction against the Southampton defendants over the remaining state law claims given the absence of any federal claims that survive summary judgment against them, and dismisses such state claims without prejudice.

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

Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Nagata · filed 2013-02-11(c)(3)

However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court also has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any pendent state law claims if it has first dismissed all claims over which it has original juris- diction. ... Accordingly, because the district court correctly dismissed SEL’s purported federal law claim, it did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for SEL’s remaining state law claims.

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

Albino v. Municipality of Guayanilla · filed 2013-02-15(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all claims over which it exercised original jurisdiction, and it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff Ruiz’s Commonwealth claims. Accordingly, plaintiff Ruiz’s Commonwealth law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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.

Ruotolo v. Mae · filed 2013-03-13(c)(3)

When the federal claims are dismissed in a case initially presenting both federal and state law claims, the Court has discretion either to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and adjudicate the state law claims in federal court or to dismiss the case and allow the state law claims to be litigated in state court.

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

Nadeau v. Nye · filed 2013-03-14(c)(3)

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. ... Because Nadeau’s federal claims have been dismissed well before any trial proceedings, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim.

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.

Perlman v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC · filed 2013-03-26(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over Wendy’s cross-claims against Blass and her counterclaim against Hildegard, and dismisses such state claims without prejudice.

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

Handy v. Lane County · filed 2013-03-26(c)(3)

Rather, where a district court dismisses “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it may, in its discretion, “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over pendent 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.

John Hancock Life Insurance v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. · filed 2013-03-29(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, the Court refuses to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining common law claims.

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

Schreiber v. Dunabin · filed 2013-03-29(c)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) provides that a district court may decline to. exercise discretion over a state law claim after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Ex Rel. Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Centers Retirement Plan v. Investme · filed 2013-04-02(c)(3)

We conclude that the District Court, consistent with its careful and well-reasoned analysis elsewhere in its decision, did not err, much less “abuse” its discretion, by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.