28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Velzer v. Amegy Bank · filed 2018-03-01(c)(3)

The district court did not err in declining to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction once it dismissed Van Velzer’s federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See § 1367(c)(3); Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. v. Dayco Prods., Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 2009).

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

Tubbs v. Garland County, Arkansas · filed 2018-03-09(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Tubbs’s state law claims, and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Dickman v. Office of the Cook County State's Attorney · filed 2018-03-16(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Wright v. Associated Ins. Companies, Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1250–1251 (7th Cir. 1994). ... Accordingly, having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims as to the Lurie Defendants.

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.

Karim-Panahi v. 4000 Massachusetts Apartments · filed 2018-03-27(c)(3)

As a result, none of Plaintiff’s purported federal claims of discrimination survives a motion to dismiss, and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdictional over Plaintiff’s claims arising under D.C. or common law, save the conspiracy claim.

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

Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Balt. Cnty. · filed 2018-03-27(c)(3)

In light of the fact that this Court has dismissed the federal claims in this case, there is no need for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional 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.

Kissinger v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch. · filed 2018-02-26(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that the district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" over state-law claims if the court "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction."

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

Espinoza v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Transp. · filed 2018-03-30(c)(3)

I have dismissed all claims over which I had original jurisdiction, as well as any state law claims governed under the same standards as their federal counterparts. Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NYCHRL claims, and these claims are dismissed without prejudice to re-filing in state court.

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

Clarke v. Tannin, Inc. · filed 2018-04-02(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court has discretion to dismiss the remaining state claims under Section 1367(c).

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

Classic Cab, Inc. v. Dist. of Columbia · filed 2018-04-11(c)(3)

Generally, when all of a plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed before trial, a federal court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining (non-federal) claims.

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

Turner v. Ware. · filed 2018-04-18(c)

The Court, having dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under all remaining claims, if any. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c).

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

Blackstone v. Stark · filed 2018-05-09(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed the federal claims without prejudice at the earliest possible stage of the proceedings and exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim at this time.

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.

Phan v. Hipple · filed 2018-05-18(c)(3)

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

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

Langan v. Smith · filed 2018-05-31(c)(3)

Here, because Plaintiff's sole federal claim will be dismissed at this early stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Uptown Tent City Organizers v. City of Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings · filed 2018-06-05(c)(3)

Because the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claim in Count I, Section 1367(c)(3), rather than Section 1447(c), provides the proper course of action for the disposition of Count I. Section 1367(c)(3) provides that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim (for which it has supplemental jurisdiction) 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Sanchez v. City of New York · filed 2018-06-05(c)(3)

The district court also acted properly in declining to hear the state law claims once all of the federal claims were 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.

D.S. v. City of New York · filed 2018-06-05(c)(3)

Additionally, the district court properly concluded that because it dismissed all of the claims against City defendants and Legal Aid, it would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Vega v. Mid-America Taping & Reeling, Inc. · filed 2018-06-12(c)(3)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims.

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

Kemp v. Seterus, Inc. · filed 2018-06-27(c)

Having dismissed all of Kemp's federal claims, the Court, as a matter of discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Jones v. Campbell University · filed 2018-06-29(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim because it has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction—i.e., Jones’s federal statutory claims against the Campbell defendants.

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

Alan Ross Machinery Corporation v. Machinio Corp. · filed 2018-07-09(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Alan Ross’s federal causes of action, it need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law causes of action.

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.

Isabella A. v. Arrowhead Union High Sch. Dist. · filed 2018-07-16(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim where the court has dismissed all the claims within its original jurisdiction.

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.

Sandknop v. Missouri Department of Corrections · filed 2018-07-16(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... After careful consideration of these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’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.

Nelson v. Lott · filed 2018-07-24(c)(3)

The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when: ... (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction , or ... (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

racy L. Chambers v. Cherokee County · filed 2018-07-30(c)(3)

Because Georgia law applies to claims arising under Georgia statutes and Georgia contract law, the district court was well within its discretion to dismiss those remaining claims without prejudice.

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

Senese v. Longwood Cent. Sch. Dist. · filed 2018-08-03(c)(3)

As this Court has dismissed the Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff'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.

Davila v. Gutierrez · filed 2018-08-30(c)(3)

Here, subsection (3) applies because the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Preston v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. · filed 2018-09-04(c)

Because the Court dismisses the FDCPA claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Preston’s state law ICFA claims.

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

In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig. · filed 2018-09-05(c)(3)

In light of the foregoing, the Court DECLINES to exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claims and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's eighth, eleventh, and nineteenth causes of 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.

Harenton Hotel v. Village of Warsaw · filed 2018-09-10(c)(3)

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Robert Every, Plaintiff v. Town of Littleton, New Hampshire; Andrew Dorsett, Town Manager; Milton Bratz, Selectman; Schu · filed 2018-09-11(c)

As drafted, plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth the essential elements of any viable federal claims. Consequently, the court need not consider whether it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 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.

Domitz v. City of Long Beach · filed 2018-09-14(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise jurisdiction over Domitz’s remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (explaining that a “district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only when the court has original jurisdiction, and the court may decline it after dismissing the federal claims.

Adler v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2018-09-18

Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 of the allows a federal district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims only if the court has original jurisdiction. Because the Court is dismissing the Adlers’ federal claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state claims.

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

Navajo Nation v. Wells Fargo & Co. · filed 2018-09-25(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss Plaintiff's state and tribal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after weighing judicial economy and comity.

Morton v. Cnty. of Erie · filed 2018-09-26(c)(3)

Judicial economy weighs in favor of dismissing the supplemental state law claims. ... No factor weighs in favor of an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise such jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law and declaratory judgment 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.

Kho v. N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. · filed 2018-09-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kho's remaining 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.

Miller v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority · filed 2018-10-02(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court has granted Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions and has dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims. The remainder of Plaintiffs’ complaint has been dismissed as well, because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common 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; the usual balance favors state court absent a distinguishing factor.

Zubrod v. Hoch · filed 2018-10-22(c)(3)

A “district court [that] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” “may decline to exercise supplemental 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.

De Mejias v. Malloy · filed 2018-10-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the plaintiffs' federal law claims, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims. Where "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction," it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining causes of action.

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

Juech v. Children's Hosp. & Health Sys., Inc. · filed 2018-11-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the federal claims over which the court has jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over her remaining state law claim.

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

Mirabella v. William Penn Charter School · filed 2018-11-05(c)(3)

Because the District Court correctly dismissed with prejudice the Mirabellas’ ADA claim, it did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims.

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.

McCormack v. Livergood · filed 2018-11-07(c)(3)

Since plaintiff's federal claims over which this court had original jurisdiction shall not be permitted to proceed to trial, the court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims, Counts Five and Six, against defendant Livergood.

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

Mirabella v. William Penn Charter School · filed 2018-11-23(c)(3)

Because the District Court correctly dismissed the Mirabellas’ ADA claim, it did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims.

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

Karageorge v. Urlacher · filed 2018-11-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court relinquishes its supplemental jurisdiction over Karageorge’s state law claims against the served defendants.

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.

Martinez v. Toor · filed 2018-12-03(c)(3)

Given that no federal claims remained in the case, the district court did not err by denying leave to add state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Zimmerman v. Arkansas Dept of Finance · filed 2018-12-27(c)(3)

Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Zimmerman’s state law claims.

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

Sinfuego v. Curry Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners · filed 2018-12-27(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all of the federal claims. 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 a state law claim after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Matthews v. Filson · filed 2019-11-06(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claim.

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

Johnson v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, LLP · filed 2019-11-12(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Sant v. Stephens · filed 2019-11-12(c)(3)

Having determined that all of the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law causes of action.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Bogus v. Harris County District Attorney · filed 2019-10-17(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing all of plaintiffs federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over any state law claims raised by plaintiff.

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

Genao v. 307 LGF Mott Street LLC · filed 2019-10-18(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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.

Mares v. Colorado Division of Insurance · filed 2019-10-21(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 juris- diction.” 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3); see also, e.g., Gaston v. Ploeger, 297 F. App’x 738, 746 (10th Cir. 2008) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdic- tion over a plaintiff’s remaining state-law negligence claims and stating that “we have repeatedly recognized that this is the preferred practice”). And when a district court dismisses a primary cause of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it loses all original jurisdiction on which to append supplemental state law claims, even if they arose from the same common nucleus of fact. Estate of Harshman v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp., 379 F.3d 1161, 1168 (10th Cir. 2004). To proceed further on the counts against Mr. McCarther would invite reversible error, see id., and be inconsistent with the preferred practice of this Court. The Court, therefore, dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

Morgan v. Downstate Correctional Facility · filed 2019-10-28(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law negligence claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state law claims without prejudice when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Turner v. County of San Diego · filed 2019-10-31(c)(3)

However, because Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of federal law, the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss his pendent state law claims without prejudice.

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

Mir v. Zucker · filed 2019-11-01(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction; reinstatement of those claims on appeal removes the basis for a prior dismissal of the supplemental claims.

Hanson v. La Flamme · filed 2019-01-10(c)(3)

We therefore vacate the dismissal of Claims 9 and 10. If Claims 1 and 2 are subject to dismissal on some other ground, the district court may once again consider whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gardner v. Mutz · filed 2019-01-28(c)(3)

Here, the Court determines it is appropriate to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. Therefore, those claims are dismissed without prejudice so that Plaintiffs may re-file them in state court, if they wish.

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

Nguyen v. FXCM Inc. · filed 2019-02-01(c)

This Court, however, may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the state law claims since it is dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy, convenience, and fairness guiding that choice.

Peters v. Board of Directors of Raytown Consolidated School District No. 2 · filed 2019-02-21(c)(3)

And since the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count II. The Court finds that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Fowler v. Michael Zenk, N.H. State Prison Warden, and Stephen O’Rourke, N.H. Department of Corrections Hearin · filed 2019-03-11(c)(3)

As this Order disposes of all of the federal claims in this action, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over, and dismisses, without prejudice, the state law claims asserted in the Complaint, numbered here as Claim 5.

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.

Hennington v. First National Bank of Crossett · filed 2019-03-18(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court exercises its discretion to reject supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. · filed 2019-03-19(c)(3)

Finding no justification for departing from that “usual practice”!? in this case, Plaintiff's state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Parker v. Blackerby · filed 2019-03-26(c)(3)

Having determined that all of Plaintiff's claims against Agent Blackerby and all of Plaintiff's federal claims against the CSH Defendants are not viable, the Court considers whether it should continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims against the CSH Defendants and concludes that it should not.

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

Carter v. Curators of the University of Missouri · filed 2019-03-27(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline jurisdiction over this case’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.

Chris H. v. State · filed 2019-03-28(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the district court properly dismissed Henry’s federal claims, the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his 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.

Haddad v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. · filed 2019-03-29(c)(3)

This presumption is 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 have been dismissed. ... Because the federal claims have been dismissed, this Court also relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Vargas v. Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board · filed 2019-03-29(c)(3)

Moreover, having dismissed Plaintiffs’ due process claims with prejudice, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Washington v. Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. · filed 2019-03-29(c)(3)

This presumption is 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 have been dismissed. ... Because the federal claims have been dismissed, this Court will also relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, if Washington is unable to successfully file an amended complaint.

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.

Mooney v. Ill. Educ. Ass'n · filed 2019-04-11(c)(3)

No claims remain over which this Court has original jurisdiction. ... In accordance with the presumption, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff'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.

Frazier v. Morristown Memorial Hospital · filed 2019-04-12(c)(3)

The District Court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Frazier’s state law claims because it dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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.

Woods v. Lewis · filed 2019-04-23(c)(3)

We further conclude that it was proper for the district court not to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

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

Asensio, the Parent of E.A., a Minor v. Roberts · filed 2019-04-26(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Generally, “when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction[.]” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (footnote omitted). Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Francis v. City of New York · filed 2019-05-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

DaVita, Inc. v. Amy's Kitchen, Inc. · filed 2019-04-05(c)(3)

Similarly, the Court will not reach Amy's arguments that DaVita's state claims should be dismissed due to ERISA preemption and failure to state a claim because 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Reaves v. Medlin · filed 2019-05-07(c)(3)

Indeed, a District Court is well within its discretion to dismiss state law claims once the basis for original federal court jurisdiction no longer exists.

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

Lamitie v. Middlesex Hosp. · filed 2019-05-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed Ms. Lamitie's federal claims, the Court declines to take supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Lamitie's remaining state law claims.

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

Higgins v. Aramark · filed 2019-05-20(c)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

EklecCo NewCo LLC v. Town of Clarkstown · filed 2019-05-21(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where it has dismissed all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Given that the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 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.

Troutman v. Hydro Extrusion United States, LLC · filed 2019-05-24(c)(3)

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." ... As a result, supplemental jurisdiction will no longer be exercised in this case.

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

Dynarex Corporation v. Farrah · filed 2019-05-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims asserted in the amended complaint.

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

Hurston v. City of Chicago, a municipality · filed 2019-06-03(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and for the reasons stated below, the court relinquishes subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff'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.

Ramirez v. New York City/Department of Corrections · filed 2019-06-03(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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.

BOYD v. PLAINFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2019-06-06(c)(3)

In its discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

Mitchell v. Bank of New York Mellon, The · filed 2019-06-07(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Mitchell’s 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.

Rivas v. The Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2019-06-10(c)(3)

Although the district court had original jurisdiction over Rivas’s federal claims, all those claims were dismissed. The district court therefore had discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rivas’s state law claims.

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

Smith v. The City Of New York · filed 2019-06-13(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the part of this claim that survives. A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” once it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Young v. Kelly & Bramwell Attorneys At Law · filed 2019-06-18(c)(3)

Having considered the relevant factors,31 the Court will decline to exercise its discretion over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claim and will dismiss it 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.

MESADIEU v. CITY OF LINDEN · filed 2019-06-18(c)(3)

The Court is again dismissing Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims, which provided the Court with federal question jurisdiction. As a result, the Court will use its discretion pursuant to Section 1367(c), and declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that all original-jurisdiction claims were dismissed when a federal claim remains pending.

Cooper v. State of Hawaii Department of Taxation · filed 2019-06-20(c)(3)

However, as discussed above, Count 17 contains a federal claim that still remains. Thus, the Court does not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the Court has not “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ECF No. 45-3 at 30; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Ambellu v. Re'ese Adbarat Debre Selam Kidist Mariam, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Religion Church · filed 2019-06-21(c)(3)

First, the Court may do so when it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because the Court has dismissed the RICO counts, it finds that declining to exercise jurisdiction is proper.

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

Ambellu v. Re'Ese Adbarat Debre Selam Kidist Mariam · filed 2019-06-21(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the RICO counts, it finds that declining to exercise jurisdiction is proper.

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

Myers v. City of Chicago · filed 2019-06-25(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, because the federal claims fail, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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.

Bator v. The Board of Trustees of the Inter-Local Pension Fund of the Graphic Communication Conference of the Internatio · filed 2019-06-26(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims asserted in Counts III and IV.

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.

Harris v. Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice · filed 2019-06-26(c)(3)

Having determined that plaintiff’s federal claims must be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claim.

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

Morelli v. Hyman · filed 2019-06-28(c)(3)

If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, the court will decline jurisdiction over state-law claims pursuant to § 1367(c) and dismiss 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.

Baker v. Huntsville Hospital Association, Inc. · filed 2019-07-09(c)(3)

In addition, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Castanon v. Cathey · filed 2019-07-11(c)(3)

This court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a state-law claim when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and remands the case to the District Court of Oklahoma County.

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, with judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity informing that choice.

Dependable Sales and Service, Inc. v. Truecar, Inc. · filed 2019-07-12(c)(3)

Because the remaining claims are brought under the laws of multiple jurisdictions and turn on state- specific requirements, principles of judicial economy, fairness, convenience and comity will be served best by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and, accordingly, all such claims are dismissed.

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

Wood v. City of Farmington · filed 2019-07-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s federal due process and conspiracy claims, there are no claims remaining in this lawsuit over which the Court has original jurisdiction. ... Although Defendants have moved for summary judgment or dismissal on a number of these claims in the motions before the Court,6 the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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.

Weeks v. Camuti · filed 2019-07-17(c)(3)

Because the only claim over which this court has jurisdiction is being dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claims and they will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) For the reasons set forth above, the court will dismiss by separate Order Mr. Weeks’ monetary claims against Judge Beachley and Judge Long.

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

Huber v. Jefferson County Public Schools · filed 2019-07-19(c)(3)

Under these circumstances, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Huber’s state-law claims because it has dismissed her federal claims as untimely.

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, upon weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Santos v. Eye Physicians and Surgeons, PC · filed 2019-07-22(c)(3)

The Court therefore must conduct the discretionary inquiry required by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Garfinkel’s recommendation and therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Santos’s remaining claims under Connecticut state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi, LLC v. Computer Assisted Practice Electronic Management Solutions · filed 2019-07-22(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any non-federal claims over which it could have supplemental jurisdiction if the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Having disposed of the Law Firm’s only federal claim, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate its state law claims. Therefore, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Hampton v. Judicial Branch · filed 2019-07-24(c)(3)

Because her federal claims are dismissed, Ms. Hampton’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to being refiled in state court, as the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the case remains before trial and litigation has focused on the federal claims.

Boden v. St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2019-07-25(c)(3)

As this action is still in the pretrial stages, the focus of litigation to this point has been not on the state-law claims but on whether ERISA governed the Plan, and the Court has dismissed the claims upon which the Court had original jurisdiction, the Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining two 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, upon consideration of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Singleton v. Shearer · filed 2019-07-25(c)(3)

Following thorough considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Singleton’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.

Day v. State of Minnesota · filed 2019-07-26(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state-law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); accord Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009). ... The magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Day’s state claims on this basis is legally sound, and nothing in Day’s objections warrants a different result.

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

Hood v. Livingston · filed 2019-07-29(c)(3)

Because in this case the Court has dismissed all of Hood’s claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 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.

Jones v. Carter · filed 2019-07-30(c)(3)

Because the court has determined that all of Jones’ federal claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims that are alleged in the Complaint and will dismiss such claims without prejudice.

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

BOYLAN v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY · filed 2019-07-31(c)(3)

Because none of the three exceptions apply in this case, 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.

LANIADO v. COUNTY OF OCEAN · filed 2019-07-31(c)(3)

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

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, taking account of judicial economy, fairness, comity, and the nature of the state law issues.

Funderburk v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company · filed 2019-08-01(c)(3)

Therefore, after balancing the relevant factors, the court finds that they weigh in favor of it declining the exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims for negligence and trespass.

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.

Gragg v. Humane Society of Central Illinois · filed 2019-08-06(c)(3)

Without a federal claim, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim if the district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction); Anderson v. Aon Corp., 614 F.3d 361, 365 (7th Cir. 2010).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims supporting original jurisdiction, taking account of economy and convenience.

Thompson v. University Medical Center · filed 2019-08-06(c)(3)

I have dismissed the only claims supporting original jurisdiction in this court. The plaintiffs originally brought suit in state court, and now that the claim supporting removal has been dismissed, remand is appropriate. The case has not progressed so far in federal court that concerns about economy or convenience are implicated. I therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and I remand this case to the state court from which it was removed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been resolved before trial; doing so is usually sensible but is not required.

Lavite v. Dunstan · filed 2019-08-07(c)(3)

The district court acted well within its discretion in declining to exercise sup- plemental jurisdiction after it dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The rule is not rigid, but this practice is common and usually sensible if all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been re- solved before trial.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy among the factors guiding that choice.

Mothe v. Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors · filed 2019-08-08(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), 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.”

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

Archuleta v. Chavez · filed 2019-08-08(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed the federal law claims and noting that there is no diversity jurisdiction, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the “libel slander breach of contract and trust” 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.

Doe v. North Homes, Inc. · filed 2019-08-09(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state-law claims when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... In light of these considerations, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Doe’s negligence claim is unwarranted here.

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

Hill v. Onslow Co. Dept. Social Services, Tina Coffey Dean · filed 2019-08-09(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.” ... Where no federal claims remain, the court declines to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over state law claims raised by plaintiff.

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

Tomsheck v. Town of Long Beach The · filed 2019-08-12(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state-law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court therefore relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Armstrong v. DCSO · filed 2019-08-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear any state law claims set forth 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.

Cobey v. Waxford Health Services, Inc. · filed 2019-08-14(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (stating 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 claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Nowak v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · filed 2019-08-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), 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 a claim after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Schmitt v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A. · filed 2019-08-15(c)(3)

The Supreme Court has stated 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.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). This Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Schmitt’s NCPA claim.

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

Rubi v. Town of Mountainair · filed 2019-08-15(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims and Plaintiff has not moved to amend his Complaint, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims under both the NMTCA and IPRA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1248 (10th Cir. 2011) (stating that “[w]hen all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims”) (citation omitted).

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

Genao v. Harriet Tubman P.S. 154 · filed 2019-08-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Jarvois v. Ferrara · filed 2019-08-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Mr. Jarvois’ claims based on a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and there being no other basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Jarvois’ state law claims to the extent that he asserts them in his complaint. See 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.

Weidman v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC · filed 2019-08-20(c)(3)

Accordingly, this 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 a remaining state law claim after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Ndulue v. Fremont-Rideout Health Group · filed 2019-08-21(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim where ... (3) the court has dismissed all original jurisdiction claims, ... 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Here, as explained below, with no federal claims pending before the court and only a single claim sounding purely in state law left to be resolved, the court declines to retain jurisdiction.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims by weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Sobh v. Phoenix Graphix Incorporated · filed 2019-08-22(c)(3)

In most instances, when “all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [pendent state-law claim] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”). Here, the Cohill factors weigh against retaining jurisdiction over Count Six.

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

Peterson v. Nelnet Diversified Solutions, LLC · filed 2019-08-23(c)(3)

A court may dismiss a case when, as here, the court dismisses all claims over which it had 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.

Talley v. Wetzel · filed 2019-08-23(c)(3)

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

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

Scott v. City of Rochester · filed 2019-08-26(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Alvarado-Gonzalez v. Thompson · filed 2019-08-27(c)(3)

One such circumstance is when as here, the district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, courts must balance judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. at 172-73. Weighing those factors, this Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction as to Plaintiff’s state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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.

Chavez v. State of New Mexico · filed 2019-08-27(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed the federal law claims, and noting there is no diversity jurisdiction, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the "Negligence, Wrongful Act, or Omission" claims.

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

Payne v. Norfork School District · filed 2019-08-29(c)(3)

But since the Court has now dismissed all claims over which it has original federal-question jurisdiction, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

WILSON v. CITY OF FERNDALE · filed 2019-08-29(c)(3)

In the absence of any surviving federal claims, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ELCRA claims and will dismiss the 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, taking judicial economy, convenience, and fairness into account.

LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council · filed 2019-08-29(c)(3)

Since plaintiff’s federal claims over which this court had original jurisdiction shall not be permitted to proceed to trial against union defendants, the court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims against union defendants.

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

BARTLEY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2019-08-30(c)(3)

Because the Court dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”)

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

FLOOD v. SHERK · filed 2019-08-30(c)(3)

Because there are no federal claims remaining in this case, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and counterclaims in this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Peterson v. Nelnet Diversified Solutions, LLC · filed 2019-09-03(c)(3)

A court may dismiss a case when, as here, the court dismisses all claims over which it had 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Li v. Swedish American Hospital · filed 2019-09-03(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed the claims that I have original jurisdiction over, I can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. ... I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the other state law claims, and they 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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Torres v. The Blackstone Group · filed 2019-09-03(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” “In determining whether to continue to retain jurisdiction, district courts consider factors such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Anegada Master Fund, Ltd. v. PXRE Grp. Ltd., 680 F. Supp. 2d 616, 625 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). In this case, those factors weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction. The Court therefore dismisses any remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the federal claims are dismissed early.

GREEN v. SLAUGHTER · filed 2019-08-29(c)(3)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the district court has discretion to 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 the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Thu v. Yahanda · filed 2019-09-09(c)

The Court will dismiss any state law claims contained in the complaint without prejudice should Thu wish to pursue them in state court. See Doe-2 v. McLean Cty. Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Ordinarily, when a district court dismisses the federal claims conferring original jurisdiction prior to trial, it relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).”).

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.

TRAMAGLINI v. MARTIN · filed 2019-09-09(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Counts I and II, only state-law claims remain. ... Indeed, the parties have not allocated many resources to this case as it has yet to surpass the motion-to-dismiss stage. 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.

Crabbe v. Manhattan Mini Storage · filed 2019-09-09(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of fairness, federal policy, comity, and judicial economy.

Bartlett v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2019-09-09(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... The Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Robinson’s state law claims, which are remanded to state court.

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

Zambon v. Crawford (TWP1) · filed 2019-09-09(c)(3)

To the extent that Ms. Zambon is attempting to raise a tort claim relating to her allegation that money was taken from her purse, such claim should be raised pursuant to state law, and the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this potential claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) (a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over pendent state law claims after dismissing all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction).

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

Joyner v. Woodspring Hotels Property Management LLC · filed 2019-09-11(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Thus, the district court was within its discretion to dismiss the claims.