28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Colon-Ramos v. Clinica Santa Rosa, Inc. · filed 2013-04-10(c)(3)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiffs state law claims when the federal claims that gave it original jurisdiction 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.

Taylor v. Westor Capital Group · filed 2013-04-22(c)(3)

Second, as the Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Taylor’s 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.

Customers Bank v. Municipality of Norristown · filed 2013-04-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, the Court will decline 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Luckette v. F.M. Howell & Co. · filed 2013-04-29(c)(3)

Supplemental jurisdiction may be declined where, as here, all claims over which the Court had 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.

LaBorde v. City of Gahanna · filed 2013-05-20(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where, as here, “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; that choice is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Whetstone v. Jefferson Prsh Pub School Bd, e · filed 2013-06-18(c)(3)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Whetstone’s state law claims against the doctors.

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

Alonso v. Weiss · filed 2013-07-22(c)(3)

Dismissal of the IAA claim means that the only remaining counts are state law claims. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these 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.

Franklin v. City of Slidell · filed 2013-08-27(c)(3)

Given that all of Plaintiffs remaining federal claims will have been dismissed by the instant order, 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 after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Basile v. Connolly · filed 2013-09-03(c)(3)

Even if he had raised such a challenge, however, it would be without merit as “the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is left to the discretion of the district court, and this court’s review is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion.” Purgess v. Sharrock, 33 F.3d 134, 138 (2d Cir. 1994); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). We identify no such abuse here.

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.

Kelly v. Signet Star Re, LLC · filed 2013-09-12(c)(3)

... given that under 28 U.S.C § 1367(c) and (c)(3), United States “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if they have “dismissed all claims over which [they] ha[d] original jurisdiction.” ... In light of these recent rulings, this Court will not evaluate any of 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.

Shetiwy v. Midland Credit Management · filed 2013-09-20(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims under federal law, I 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 dismissal of the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Cypress · filed 2013-09-30(c)(3)

Exercising my discretionary power to retain or release jurisdiction over the state law claims that remain following dismissal of the sole federal law claim, I elect to decline 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.

Redd v. McDowell County Board of Education · filed 2013-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of plaintiffs federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims. The court remands the case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Damian v. Montgomery County Bankshares, Inc. · filed 2013-11-08(c)(3)

Because the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Bell v. Children's Protective Services · filed 2013-11-12(c)(3)

This Court has previously held that a district court has the discretion to “remand supplemental state law claims when it has dismissed the claims that provide the basis for original jurisdiction,” and that is exactly what the district court did in this case. See Giles, 172 F.3d at 339 (citation omitted). Bell has not argued, nor do we find, any abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental 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.

Sprague v. Department of Family & Protective Services · filed 2013-11-15(c)(3)

Thus, Sprague has failed to show that the district court abused its “wide” discretion in declining to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Sprague’s pendent 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.

Francis Thomas Greiser, Jr. v. Whittier Towers Apts. Assoc. Inc. · filed 2014-01-03(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim after dismissing 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.

Saliba v. Five Towns College · filed 2014-01-10(c)(3)

However, given the dismissal of Saliba’s federal claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Saliba’s supplemental state law claims — the only remaining claims in this action.

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.

Mikhail v. Kahn · filed 2014-01-13(c)(3)

Because all of Mr. Mikhail’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims (Counts III through VI).

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.

Clark Memorials of Alabama Inc. v. SCI Alabama Funeral Services LLC · filed 2014-01-14(c)(3)

The Court has the discretion to dismiss the remaining state law claims when it has properly granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

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

Segers v. Williams · filed 2014-01-27(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.

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

Rogge ex rel. Rogge v. City of Richmond · filed 2014-01-31(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), which states that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the court should not maintain 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.

Slaughter v. United States Department of Agriculture · filed 2014-02-14(c)(3)

We also affirm the district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Slaughter’s state-law claims for conspiracy, fraudulent concealment, and alleged misconduct by his former attorney. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, with the balance of relevant factors guiding that choice.

Magee v. Hamline University · filed 2014-02-19(c)(3)

Because all federal claims in this case have been eliminated, the balance of factors points toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Du Daobin v. Cisco Systems, Inc. · filed 2014-02-24(c)(3)

Because all of Plaintiffs’ federal law claims are being dismissed, the Court de-dines to exerdse supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and those claims will be dismissed for lack of federal 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.

Amerijet International Inc. v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2014-03-05(c)(3)

Exercising my discretionary power to retain or release jurisdiction over the state law claims that remain following dismissal of the sole federal law claim, I elect to decline 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.

Shetiwy v. Midland Credit Management · filed 2014-03-26(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all of plaintiffs’ federal law claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

American Chiropractic Ass'n v. American Specialty Health Inc. · filed 2014-03-27(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over ACA’s remaining state law claims.

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

Fotopolous v. Board of Fire Commissioners of the Hicksville Fire District · filed 2014-03-31(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all of Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs sole remaining state law claim pursuant to New York Civil Service Law § 75. “District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

In re Residential Capital, LLC · filed 2014-04-02(c)(3)

When a Court’s basis for hearing a claim is established by supplemental jurisdiction, a federal court has discretion to dismiss the supplemental claims when it "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Kanderskaya v. City of New York · filed 2014-04-09(c)(3)

As this is the usual case, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kanderskaya’s remaining state-law claims and dismiss those claims, without prejudice.

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.

Nowell v. Dale County Board of Education · filed 2014-04-24(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... In this instance, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

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

Sky Medical Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claims Services, Inc. · filed 2014-05-07(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining declaratory judgment and state law claims, and dismisses such claims without prejudice.

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

Searcy v. Ben Hill County School District · filed 2014-05-16(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the section 1983 claim that initially gave rise to “original jurisdiction,” it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims against BHCSD and FBC, which largely form the basis of their Complaint.

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

Frazer v. Temple University · filed 2014-06-05(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims, including those remaining against Cerett.

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

Ahadams & Co., P.C. v. Spectrum Health Services, Inc. · filed 2014-08-18(c)(3)

Because AHAdams’s federal claim will be dismissed, 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Warden v. City of Grove · filed 2014-08-26(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 declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Rupert v. Bond · filed 2014-09-22(c)(3)

This Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Stevens v. Gooch · filed 2014-09-30(c)(3)

As the Court has decided to dismiss Plaintiffs federal claims, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims.

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

United States ex rel. Bilotta v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. · filed 2014-09-30(c)(3)

There is no reason to deviate from this rule here. Given that Relator’s federal off-label promotion claims under the FCA have been dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Relator’s state law off-label promotion claims.

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

Badder v. Schmidt · filed 2014-10-07(c)

Plaintiffs Section 1983 claims are the only claims in Plaintiffs Complaint over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. All of the claims over which the Court had subject matter jurisdiction having been dismissed, and Plaintiffs remaining claims in Counts I, III, and IV of her Complaint being purely state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those 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.

Chaney v. Races and Aces · filed 2014-11-04(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute permits a district court to decline 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). Since the district court dismissed—and we affirm dismissal of—all federal claims against TSSI, Johnson, Brown, and Evangeline, the district court did not err by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing Chaney’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.

Vail v. City of New York · filed 2014-12-02(c)(3)

Plaintiffs state-law claims arise only under a theory of supplemental jurisdiction, and therefore the Court need not and will not exercise its discretion to maintain such jurisdiction over those 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.

Jenkins v. Tuscaloosa City Board of Education · filed 2014-12-09(c)(3)

However, the converse is true as well — the court also has the discretion to decline to continue to exercise jurisdiction because all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction are being dismissed.

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

Stephens v. Broward Sheriff's Office · filed 2014-12-10(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on all federal counts (Counts II through V), which served as the basis for original federal court jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs state law claims. As such, these state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Yu v. McGrath · filed 2014-12-30(c)(3)

A district 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). Here, the District Court dismissed all of the remaining state and common law claims after awarding summary judgment to Defendants on all of the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction. It was within the District Court’s discretion to do so, and Yu’s conclusory statement that these claims “are entitled to be considered” does not convince us that the Court abused its discretion.

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

MedCath Inc. Employee Health Care Plan v. Stratton · filed 2015-01-16(c)

The Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction and under § 1367(c) declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 3 or any other state law claims in this action.

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

Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG · filed 2015-02-06(c)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) provides that a district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Andrew D. Dunavant, Jr. v. Sirote & Permutt, PC · filed 2015-02-09(c)

Because the district court properly dismissed the Dunavant’s claims under the FDCPA, see supra Parts II & III, it did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the Dunavant’s state law claim.

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

Frederick v. Hillyer · filed 2015-03-11(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining Counts IV and V and dismisses them 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.

Uwadiegwu v. Department of Social Services · filed 2015-03-11(c)(3)

Having found that Plaintiffs federal claims fail as a matter of law, there is no longer any independent basis for federal jurisdiction in the within action. Although the Court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), it declines to do so.

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

Estrada ex rel. Estate of Estrada v. Cook · filed 2015-03-16(c)(3)

Once a court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court concludes that these factors weigh in favor of dismissing the remaining claims. The Court therefore dismisses these claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related local-law claims.

Guzman v. City of New York · filed 2015-03-18(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Guzman’s claims under the NYCHRL and dismisses those claims 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.

Traylor v. Hammond · filed 2015-03-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed the plaintiffs federal law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims. 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.”

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.

Robinson v. Pezzat · filed 2015-03-19(c)(3)

Supplemental jurisdiction is not obligatory and a federal court may “decline to exercise” such jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court accordingly cedes supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses plaintiffs nonfederal claims without prejudice.

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.

Bacon v. Walgreen Co. · filed 2015-03-20(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over all of plaintiffs remaining state law claims, and dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

Hagan v. Quinn · filed 2015-03-23(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s ruling that Plaintiffs state no federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claim (Count II).

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.

Benedict v. Southwestern Pennsylvania Human Services, Inc. · filed 2015-03-24(c)(3)

Under the circumstances, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims as to certain Defendants, and will remand this action to state court.

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

Berkery v. Wissahickon School Board · filed 2015-03-27(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the federal claims supplying original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Fernandez-Ocasio v. WalMart Puerto Rico Inc. · filed 2015-03-31(c)(3)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiffs state claims when the federal claims that gave it original jurisdiction are dismissed.

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.

MJJG Restaurant LLC v. Horry County · filed 2015-04-06(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all of the plaintiffs federal claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the zoning appeal.

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.

Contest Promotions, LLC v. City & County of San Francisco · filed 2015-04-22(c)(3)

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

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

Murdock v. Esperanza, Inc. · filed 2015-04-22(c)(3)

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

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

Harper v. Carbon County School District · filed 2015-04-24(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a federal court may decline to exercise supplement 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 state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Mines v. Barber · filed 2015-04-28(c)(3)

A district court, however, can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when all claims over which it had 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.

Browne v. Zaslow · filed 2015-05-05(c)(3)

In light of the foregoing, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), we will decline to exercise supplemental- jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Positano v. Pennsylvania Cardiothoracic Surgery, Inc. · filed 2015-05-11(c)

Regarding Positano’s state-law tort claims, we note that, absent extraordinary circumstances, “[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); see also Shaffer v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Albert Gallatin Area Sch. Dist., 730 F.2d 910, 912 (3d Cir. 1984). As Positano has not claimed any exceptional circumstances warranting supplemental jurisdiction, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing these claims.

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

Greenman v. Officer Jeremiah Jessen · filed 2015-05-28(c)(3)

We likewise conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Greenman’s state-law claims. See Johnson v. City of Shorewood, Minn., 360 F.3d 810, 819 (8th Cir. 2004) (“A federal district court has the discretionary power to decline jurisdiction where it has ‘dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3))).

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

Deffert v. Moe · filed 2015-06-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims in Counts IV through VI.

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

Billups v. Retail Merchants Assn, Inc. · filed 2015-06-15(c)(3)

The district court did not err in declining to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction once it dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Weathers v. Ziko · filed 2015-06-25(c)(3)

This court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” ovér these State law claims because it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This decision lies within this court’s discretion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claim supplying original jurisdiction has been dismissed.

Shoemaker v. Lake Arbutus Pavilion, LLC · filed 2015-06-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims after a federal claim that gave rise to original jurisdiction has dropped from the case.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction while claims within the court’s original jurisdiction remain.

Kuhne v. Florida Department of Corrections · filed 2015-07-02(c)(3)

Since, pursuant to our order, claims brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 remain and are yet at the pleading stage, that dismissal cannot be sustained.

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.

Hays v. LaForge · filed 2015-07-06(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Demopoulos v. Anchor Tank Lines, LLC · filed 2015-07-27(c)(3)

To the extent the Court has supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise it because “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” have been dismissed.

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

Huffman v. Village of Newburgh Heights · filed 2015-07-27(c)(3)

When, as here, the Court disposes of 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with the case’s stage and potential inconvenience or unfairness informing that choice.

Lattisaw v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-07-28(c)(3)

This Court has already concluded that Lattisaw’s federal claims against Defendants must be dismissed. Moreover, this matter is at an early stage procedurally, and this Court sees no likelihood of undue inconvenience or unfairness to the parties due to the Court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lattisaw’s state law claims.

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

Jiménez-Marcial v. Garcia-Padilla · filed 2015-07-28(c)(3)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiffs’ state claims when the federal claims that gave it original jurisdiction are dismissed.

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

Bell v. City of Chicago · filed 2015-07-30(c)(3)

It follows that relinquishing jurisdiction over the state law claims is the appropriate course under § 1367(c)(3).

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

Benton v. Laborers' Joint Training Fund · filed 2015-08-10(c)(3)

However, a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where, as here, the “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.

ScripsAmerica, Inc. v. Ironridge Global LLC · filed 2015-08-11(c)(3)

Because Scrips’ only remaining federal claim has been dismissed with prejudice, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state law claims, which it has stayed under Colorado River.

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.

Daniel v. Hancock County School District · filed 2015-09-11(c)(3)

But 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). Because the district court properly dismissed Daniel’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Mattern v. City of Sea Isle · filed 2015-09-15(c)(3)

Further, dismissal under § 1367(c)(3) is especially appropriate where, as in this case, these non-diverse, nonfederal question parties face only 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.

Dusek v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · filed 2015-09-17(c)(3)

It is well established that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). As set forth above, plaintiffs’ claims arising under federal law are dismissed. Accordingly, there is no independent basis for jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. With that being the case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, which 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.

Fiers v. La Crosse County · filed 2015-09-18(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fiers’s remaining state-law claims (Counts II-IV). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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.

Ehrbar v. Forest Hills Hospital · filed 2015-09-22(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Plaintiffs age discrimination and retaliation claims pursuant to the NYCHRL are therefore dismissed without prejudice to re-file in state court.

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

Robert Lee, Jr. v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2015-10-05(c)(3)

In general, a district court may decline to decide state law claims when the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction are dismissed.

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

Gerber Plumbing Fixtures LLC v. Bryan, Pendleton, Swats & McAllister, LLC · filed 2015-11-05(c)(3)

Relinquishing jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims is appropriate when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); RWJ Mgmt Co., Inc. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 672 F.3d 476, 479 (7th Cir.2012). As the Court has dismissed all claims against Defendant over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court also dismisses all remaining state law claims against' Defendant.

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

Lasalle v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority · filed 2015-11-10(c)(3)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiffs state claims when the federal claims that gave it original jurisdiction are dismissed.

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.

McGuire v. Independent School District No. 833 · filed 2015-11-13(c)(3)

Once the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III through VI of McGuire’s Second Amended Complaint, and these counts are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Domenech-Rodriguez v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico · filed 2015-12-18(c)(3)

Because ...those claims were the only ones over which the court had original jurisdiction, the court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims in the complaint.

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

New York State Catholic Health Plan, Inc. v. Academy O & P Associates · filed 2015-12-18(c)(3)

No state contract or tort claim has been sufficiently examined to warrant exercise of 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.

McCrimmon v. Mariner Finance North Carolina, Inc. · filed 2016-01-05(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and the remaining claims will be remanded to the Superior Court of Lee County, North Carolina.

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

Ryan v. Armstrong · filed 2016-01-05(c)(3)

However, because Ryan fails to establish a constitutional violation, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. It may, now, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. ... Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count V of Ryan’s Complaint, and this count will be dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Burch v. NC Department of Public Safety · filed 2016-01-19(c)(3)

For example, pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental-jurisdiction over a state law claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... For the reasons stated above, these claims must be dismissed for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted, leaving only claims arising under North Carolina law. 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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Polansky v. McCoole · filed 2016-01-20(c)(3)

Where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over remaining state law claim.

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

Schroeder v. County of Nassau · filed 2016-01-28(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a state law claim when the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... In any event, to the extent plaintiff claims that any state law claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Guenther v. Griffin Construction Co. · filed 2016-02-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed the Estate’s only claim involving a federal question — its ADA claim — the Court now declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the Estate’s ACRA claim. ... A district court may, however, decline to exercise supplemental 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 when it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Mercado-Rodriguez v. Rosario · filed 2016-02-16(c)(3)

Because Mercado’s FLSA claim does not survive Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these, unrelated state law claims.

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

Trout v. Knox County Board of Education · filed 2016-02-17(c)(3)

When a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

White v. City of Chicago · filed 2016-02-18(c)(3)

It follows that relinquishing jurisdiction over the state law claim is the appropriate course under § 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.

Paterno v. Pennsylvania State University · filed 2016-02-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these 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.

Nero v. Mayan Mainstreet Inv 1, LLC · filed 2016-03-09(c)(3)

Once the district court dismissed the claims over which it had jurisdiction, it acted within its discretion in declining to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Nero’s state law claims.

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

Fotinos v. Fotinos · filed 2016-03-18(c)

Having dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the district court referenced 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) and properly exercised its discretion in declining 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.

Jackson-Cobb v. Sprint United Management · filed 2016-03-28(c)(3)

The Court, therefore, dismisses this state law claim, to the extent it is plead, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Terrill v. Windham-Ashland-Jewett Central School District · filed 2016-03-31(c)(3)

' Where (as here) a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 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.

DeVecchis v. Scalora · filed 2016-03-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed'all claims arising under federal law, 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.

Rowe v. Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, P.L.L.C. · filed 2016-03-31(c)(3)

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

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

Radford v. United States · filed 2016-04-01(c)(3)

To the extent plaintiffs attempt to assert claims under Chapter 334 of the Missouri Revised Statutes (334.097.3 - modification of medical records and 334.100.4(k) - termination of medical care without notice), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any alleged claims as it is dismissing all federal 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.

Wilson v. Jayne Miller · filed 2016-04-25(c)(3)

A federal district court has discretionary power to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction where the 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 a state law claim after dismissing the federal claim that supplied original jurisdiction.

Banerjee v. Wilmot · filed 2016-05-03(c)(3)

With the dismissal of the procedural due process claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim of fraudulent misrepresentation.

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

Glunk v. Noone · filed 2016-05-16(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if all claims ’over which it has original jurisdiction are dismissed.

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

Trump Tight, LLC v. Bell · filed 2016-05-18(c)(3)

With only the state law claim remaining, the Court declines to exercise 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.

Odermatt v. Way · filed 2016-05-25(c)(3)

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs federal claims have all been dismissed for failure to state a claim and the Court has denied leave to replead. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining State-law claims: namely, the claim that Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights under Article I, section 8, of the New York State Constitution and the claim that Defendants violated New York Labor Law § 201-d.

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

Tarpley v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2016-07-21(c)(3)

Because the Court has disposed of Tarpley’s federal claims, and the remaining claims depend on determinations of state law, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Noffsinger v. Landers · filed 2016-07-22(c)(3)

As explained above, I have dismissed the only claims over which I have original jurisdiction. The statute therefore permits me discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Martinez v. Guadalupe County · filed 2016-07-29(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, and there is a potential complex issue of state law in the determination whether N.M. Stat. Ann. § 33-2-11(B) applies to Martinez’ claims. See McGrath v. City of Albuquerque, 2015 WL 4997153, at *60. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remands the remaining state law claims to the Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalil-lo, State of New Mexico.

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

Jones v. SCO Family of Services · filed 2016-08-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Smith v. Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, L.P.A. · filed 2016-08-15(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 properly dismissed Smith’s FDCPA and RICO claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Smith’s state-law claims.

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

Singh v. Joshi · filed 2016-08-15(c)(3)

The Court agrees that the unique nature of an Article 78 proceeding warrants declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. That is particularly true here, since all of the plaintiffs’ federal claims will be dismissed.

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

DeLaTorre v. Minnesota State High School League · filed 2016-08-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed DeLaTorre’s due process claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his claim for breach of contract.

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

Central Bank & Trust v. Smith · filed 2016-08-31(c)(3)

When a federal district court possesses original jurisdiction in a case and the claims forming the basis of that original jurisdiction are dismissed, the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... The Court, in its discretion, finds no reason why this Court should retain jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Bliss v. MXK Restaurant Corp. · filed 2016-11-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed Bliss’s federal claims, however, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over her NYSHRL and NYCHRL sexual-orientation discrimination 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, absent factors warranting retention.

Patel v. Meridian Health Systems Inc · filed 2016-11-15(c)(3)

Given the absence of federal claims and of any extraordinary factors warranting supplemental jurisdiction, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Appellants’ 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.

Trujillo v. Rio Arriba County ex rel. Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Department · filed 2016-12-19(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment on the claim which invoked the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Trujillo’s 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.

Polidi v. Bannon · filed 2016-12-28(c)(3)

Because original subject matter jurisdiction derived only from the federal claims that must be dismissed, and because only state-law claims remain, it is appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law-law claims and to dismiss those claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that all original-jurisdiction claims were dismissed while federal claims remain pending.

Ornelas v. Los Arrieros, LLC · filed 2017-01-09(c)(3)

Because I have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the federal claims, consideration of declining supplemental jurisdiction is premature. I, therefore, also deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss the state claims for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Boustany v. Xylem Inc. · filed 2017-01-25(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims is within the Court’s discretion if it 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Betts v. Hall · filed 2017-02-09(c)

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

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

Darling v. Falls · filed 2017-02-17(c)(3)

Because the Court will grant the Judicial Defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal claims for monetary relief against the Judicial Defendants, the Court declines, in its discretion, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims under the North Carolina Constitution.

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

Maco v. Baldwin Union Free School District · filed 2017-04-13(c)(3)

Although the Court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), it declines to do so. See 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 .... ”); Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998) (“In general, where the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well.”).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the remaining claims raise novel state-law questions.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Stein · filed 2017-05-02(c)

Thus, because the court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal claims, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their State-law claims, which will also be dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Cavezza v. Metcalf · filed 2017-05-19(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute gives this Court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction oyer remaining state law claims when all claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... This case gives no reason for the Court to depart from this general rule. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Cavezza’s state law claim1'against Crockett 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, considering statutory and common law factors.

Pennie v. Obama · filed 2017-06-02(c)(3)

The court determines that the statutory factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), as well as the common law factors, weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Agyeman v. Roosevelt Union Free School District · filed 2017-06-05(c)(3)

Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim given the absence of any federal claim that survives summary judgment, and it dismisses plaintiffs state law claim without prejudice to re-filing in state court.

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

Brookhaven Town Conservative Committee v. Walsh · filed 2017-06-15(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28' U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim against defendants given the absence of any federal claim against them that survives the motion to,dismiss, and it dismisses plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claim without prejudice to re-filing in state court.

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

Reyher v. Grant Thornton, LLP · filed 2017-07-06(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 I am granting Grant Thornton’s motion to dismiss the Dodd-Frank claim, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Reyher’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.

Roosevelt Williams, Jr. v. Monroe County District Attorney · filed 2017-07-11(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed all of the federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’s 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.

Cromartie v. Alabama State University · filed 2017-07-13(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Diaz v. Bullock · filed 2017-08-03(c)(3)

In addition, remand serves the goals of judicial economy and comity by allowing the New Jersey courts to apply New Jersey law. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction,, over Plaintiffs remaining state .law. claims pursuant to Section 1367(c)(3) and will remand the action to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County.

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.

Thorpe v. Upper Makefield Township · filed 2017-09-25(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment with regard to the federal ■ claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim.

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

Silberberg v. Board of Elections of New York · filed 2017-09-28(c)(3)

However, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law claim] if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Having dismissed plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, 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.

Fressadi v. Arizona Municipal Risk Retention Pool · filed 2017-10-26(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fressadi’s state law claims after dismissing Fressadi’s federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).

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

Taylor v. Ohio County Commission · filed 2017-11-28(c)(3)

This Court notes that it has dismissed the federal claims present in the Complaint—the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction. This Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

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

Levine v. City of Eureka Springs, Arkansas · filed 2017-12-29(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Mr. Levine’s claims over which it has original federal-question jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Levine’s state-law claims.

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

Acosta v. Democratic City Comm. · filed 2018-01-22(c)(3)

Here, because the Court has dismissed the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under the Pennsylvania Election Code.

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

Goffin v. Peek · filed 2018-01-23(c)(3)

Having disposed of all of Goffin’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

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

Dyson v. The City of Calumet City · filed 2018-01-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

McPartlin v. County Of Cook · filed 2018-02-10(c)(3)

Indeed, this presumption is statutorily expressed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides for the discretionary relinquishment of jurisdiction over state claims when the claims providing original jurisdiction (here, federal question jurisdiction) have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction; when federal claims remain, that ground does not warrant declining jurisdiction.

Twede v. Univ. of Wash. · filed 2018-02-13(c)(3)

Because the court has not dismissed all of Plaintiffs' federal claims, the court denies UW's request.