28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Alpert v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2019-09-12(c)(3)

The Court has now dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims upon which removal was originally based. Dkt. ## 58, 123. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing that choice.

Hughes v. Three Forks Regional Jail · filed 2019-09-12(c)(3)

However, after a “district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not mandatory. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court sees nothing, on this record, to overcome the weighty presumption.

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

Sgromo v. Imperial Toy LLC · filed 2019-09-13(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to assert supplemental jurisdiction or pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims, the Court declines to exercise that jurisdiction because the Court dismissed all claims over which the Court 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.

Trevino v. Steinreal 1 Family Limited · filed 2019-09-16(c)(3)

In this case, the Court dismissed all federal claims when it granted Treviño’s motion to file an amended complaint. Thus, § 1367(c)(3) counsels remand.

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.

Collardey v. Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC · filed 2019-09-16(c)(3)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if there is a jurisdictional basis for doing so, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Plaintiff does not argue that the Court should retain jurisdiction over his state law claims if the federal claims are dismissed, and the Court does not find any compelling reason to do so. Accordingly, plaintiff’s second, third, and fourth claims for relief will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Williams v. American College of Education · filed 2019-09-16(c)(3)

The court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction over ACE’s state law counterclaim.

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

Shaw v. State of Maryland · filed 2019-09-16(c)(3)

In the absence of any federal claims, I will exercise my discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims lodged under Maryland law.

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.

Ford v. City of Harrisburg, PA · filed 2019-09-16(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, as is the case here, the Court may 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

POPE v. WILKINSBURG BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2019-09-16(c)(3)

Because summary judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants on the only claims that give this Court federal question jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the remaining nine (9) 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.

Ussery v. Flores · filed 2019-09-17(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental or pendant jurisdiction over a state law claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because the Court is dismissing all of plaintiffs federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental or pendant jurisdiction over any state law claims raised by plaintiff.

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.

Sutton v. State of Maryland Department of Human Services · filed 2019-09-17(c)(3)

Having disposed of the federal claims which formed the basis of this Court's jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pending state law claims.

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

Johnson v. City of New York · filed 2019-09-18(c)(3)

Typically, where “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.” Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc., 712 F.3d 705, 727 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (where a court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over remaining state law causes of action). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and contract 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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Roday Productions, LLC v. Krannel Pictures, LLC · filed 2019-09-20(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

BUNTING v. NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER · filed 2019-09-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims for the reasons above, and without any affirmative justification for deciding the remaining state law claims, the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (allowing district courts to decline to exercise supplement jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Padmanabhan v. New York Institute of Technology Campus, New York · filed 2019-09-20(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over this claim as it has dismissed the federal claim which it had original jurisdiction on.

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.

Pugh v. Frazier · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

His remaining federal claims will be dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Anderson v. Franklin County, Missouri, 192 F.3d 1125, 1131 (8th Cir. 1999).

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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Monetti v. Independent Group Home Living Program, Inc. · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

Given the absence of a viably pled federal claim, as explained above, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any state law claims that may be reasonably construed from the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count eight in the Monetti action.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Lovell v. Echol · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims after dismissing “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Having dismissed all of Plaintiff's federal law claims, and there being no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court declines to exercise its 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.

O'Hara v. MortgageIT, Inc · filed 2019-09-24(c)(3)

Without any federal question adequately pled, I dismiss the federal claims without prejudice and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... Section 1367(c)(3) specifically instructs 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.”

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

Beach v. New York State Police Wurtsboro · filed 2019-09-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims the second amended complaint can be liberally read to assert. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Plaintiff’s state law claims, to the extent he asserts them, 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.

Tilchen v. CEMD Elevator Corp. · filed 2019-09-24(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

HOPKINS v. SOUTH MOUNTAIN SECURE TREATMENT UNIT · filed 2019-09-24(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. ... There is no affirmative justification for retaining jurisdiction over Hopkins’s state law claims against any of the Defendants.

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

Zhang v. Akami Inc. · filed 2019-09-25(c)(3)

But “this is traditionally a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right,” and “a district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Id. at 122 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Because I have dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, I must balance the “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in order to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice to filing those claims in state court.

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.

Arellano v. PHH Mortgage Corporation · filed 2019-09-26(c)(3)

However, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. See id. § 1367(c)(3). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and REMANDS the action to the Riverside Superior Court.

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

Dearing v. Roundtree · filed 2019-09-26(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 all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Porter v. Half Hollow Hills Central School District · filed 2019-09-26(c)(3)

A 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). The decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary. Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2018). Upon consideration of all relevant factors, and balancing the issues of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, this Court declines 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.

Hood v. City of Columbus · filed 2019-09-26(c)(3)

It is well-settled that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it possessed original jurisdiction. Saglioccolo v. Eagle Ins. Co., 112 F.3d 226, 233 (6th Cir. 1997). Indeed, the Sixth Circuit has recognized that if all federal claims are dismissed before trial, remaining state claims generally should be dismissed. Id.; Taylor v. First of Am. Bank-Wayne, 973 F.2d 1284, 1287 (6th Cir. 1992). Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and (d), the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against all Defendants without prejudice.

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

Ortiz v. Nogales, City of · filed 2019-09-27(c)(3)

Pursuant to that statute, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also San Pedro Hotel Co. v. Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478-79 (9th Cir. 1998). Because Heck requires the dismissal of the federal claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Jackson v. Pierre · filed 2019-09-27(c)(3)

The dismissal of all of Jackson’s federal claims gives rise to the situation contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), where the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 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 claims after dismissing every claim within its original jurisdiction, and to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Brent v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed the only federal cause of action in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state causes of action and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Biccum v. City of Watertown · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

A district court may, however, "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). "[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered . . . —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). For the reasons discussed above, plaintiffs' federal claims have all been dismissed. Especially considering that those federal claims should have been dismissed almost three years ago, fairness and comity point well away from allowing plaintiffs' state claims to proceed here. Accordingly, plaintiffs' state claims must be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after all claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Hill v. Village of Hamler · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, and there being no other basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Finally, considering judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants, the district court in its discretion is permitted to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) makes the decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction discretionary after dismissal of all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

KUZMINSKI v. WARREN COUNTY · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3), “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” As the statutory language makes clear, this provision is discretionary.

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

Lucero v. Gordon · filed 2019-10-01(c)(3)

Absent a viable federal claim, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

Ervin v. San Diego, County of · filed 2019-10-02(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Thus, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Oriental v. Village of Westbury · filed 2019-10-02(c)(3)

Having granted the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal claims, there is no longer any independent basis for federal jurisdiction in this action. Although the Court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, it declines to do so.

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

Llanes v. Zalewski · filed 2019-10-04(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claims asserted here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the parties’ counterclaims.

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, convenience, fairness, and comity guiding that decision.

Kaki, M.D. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation · filed 2019-10-09(c)

The remaining counts all arise from Michigan law. The Court’s only basis for jurisdiction over them is supplemental jurisdiction. “A district court's decision whether to exercise that jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“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”) (emphasis added)). ... The factors in this case clearly militate in favor of dismissal. Discovery has not commenced, and the case is still in its earliest stages. One Plaintiff, Dr. Kaki, already began litigating Count VI in state court, even reaching the Michigan Court of Appeals. (See Dkt. 30-1). Perhaps most importantly, principles of comity suggest that Michigan courts should adjudicate cases arising entirely from Michigan statutory and common law. The Court will dismiss Counts II-VIII without prejudice so that state courts can determine the arbitrability of the state law causes of action.

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

FLEMING v. SECRETARY OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES · filed 2019-10-10(c)(3)

Absent a federal question, and lacking diversity in a dispute involving at least one Pennsylvania client against Pennsylvania lawyers, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Murphy v. Falcon · filed 2019-10-08(c)

Plaintiff’s state law claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to the Court’s authority 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 dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Samuel v. Lopez · filed 2019-10-15(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 that were not already addressed herein.

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

Novac v. County of Sacramento · filed 2019-10-21(c)(3)

A district court may sua sponte decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

(PC) Smithee v. California Correctional Institution · filed 2019-10-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(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." ... At this juncture—because Plaintiffs failed to state a cognizable claim under federal law—the Court declines to expend limited judicial resources analyzing the merits of the state law claims.

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.

Jefferson v. State of Texas · filed 2019-10-28(c)(3)

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

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

Phazr Inc v. Ramakrishna · filed 2019-10-28(c)(3)

But the Court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if it dismisses the federal claim that gives the Court original jurisdiction.

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

ANDREWS v. GOOD · filed 2019-11-04(c)(3)

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the federal claims in this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and the state claims in this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Lucas v. Henrico County Public School Board · filed 2019-11-06(c)(3)

Having now dismissed these federal claims on alternative grounds, this Court may again decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims as to all Defendants, including Defendants Kregar, Taylor, and Steverson.

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

Chacon v. P&S Select Foods Inc. · filed 2019-11-19(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), if the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any non-federal claims over which it could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction. ... Because no federal claim remains that is subject to a merits determination by this Court, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate Gutierrez’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.

Salahuddin v. Gambella · filed 2019-11-22(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.

Thomas v. University of Tennessee Hospital (PSLC1) · filed 2019-11-22(c)(3)

However, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Nwoga v. Karceski · filed 2019-11-22(c)(3)

Further, because Nwoga’s FDCPA claim will not proceed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

El v. Deprospo · filed 2019-11-22(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 over which it has original jurisdiction.

Baldwin v. Vadella · filed 2019-11-22(c)(3)

In this case, since the plaintiffs’ §1983 claim is being dismissed, there are no other grounds for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... As a result, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to the Pennsylvania Landlord- Tenant Act in this case.

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

Greene v. Rocket Mortgage · filed 2019-11-26(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). That is exactly what happened here—the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Greene’s state law claims after dismissing all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Therefore, the District Court did not err.

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

Pinkerton v. Carroll County Court of Common Pleas · filed 2019-11-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, and there being no other basis for subject matter jurisdiction apparent on the face of the Complaint, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Moore v. Bertie County Board of Education · filed 2019-11-26(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.” ... Since no federal questions remain, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Kallys Albert, Sr. v. GEICO General Insurance Compan · filed 2019-11-26(c)(3)

The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Albert’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction); Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (following dismissal of federal claims, court may dismiss state-law claims without prejudice).

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.

Sherman v. Irwin · filed 2019-12-10(c)(3)

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

Wearing v. Gregory · filed 2019-12-19(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Weaver v. The New York City Housing Authority · filed 2019-12-20(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 Plaintiffs may be asserting.

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

Ingram v. Tennessee Department of Health · filed 2019-09-27(c)(3)

If all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction are dismissed, the Court may, in its discretion, dismiss the supplemental state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Therefore, the Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that the Court exercise its discretion to dismiss Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Ash v. City of N.Y. · filed 2020-01-06(c)(3)

Accordingly, because the Court has dismissed all of Mr. Ash’s claims based on a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and there is no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that the TAC and FAC may be construed to assert.

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

WALKER v. DIXON · filed 2020-01-13(c)(3)

Those federal question claims provided the basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this Court; the only claims remaining are under state law and do not present a federal question. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissal of all claims within original jurisdiction when judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity favor that course.

(PS) Ponthieux v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2020-01-21(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. ... Here, consideration of judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity all point toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, the undersigned will also recommend that the assigned District Judge decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the complaint’s state law claims.

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

Hines v. Kaemingk · filed 2020-01-30(c)(3)

Finally, with regard to. any remaining state claims not expressly dismissed above over which the court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the court exercises its discretion and dismisses those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (authorizing a district court ‘to decline, in its discretion, from exercising supplemental jurisdiction when all of the claims over which the court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed).

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.

Success Systems, Inc. v. Excentus Corporation · filed 2020-02-01(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss any viable federal claim brought against Skupos, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claim against Skupos.

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

Barbour v. Allen · filed 2020-02-21(c)(3)

Where, as here, a district court has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... In light of these guiding principles, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claim and will therefore deny without prejudice Defendant Allen’s motion for summary judgment as to this claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction before trial.

Armstrong v. Barr · filed 2020-03-03(c)(3)

In granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Court dismisses all pending federal-law claims. As a result, there are no remaining claims over which the Court may exercise original jurisdiction. The Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim against Defendant. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss that claim without prejudice.

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

Prude v. Russell · filed 2020-03-05(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed. ... Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, and there being no other basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Smith, Jr. v. Barnes · filed 2020-03-13(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Smith’s claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

After dismissal of all claims within original jurisdiction, Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Burks v. Huntsville City Board of Education · filed 2020-03-13(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and the Court concludes that the Ameritox factors would favor dismissing Ms. Burks’s remaining state-law claims on the basis of fairness because those claims lack merit.

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.

Valencia v. Westchester County · filed 2020-03-13(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 that may be construed from plaintiffs complaint.

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

Salem v. City of Akron · filed 2020-03-23(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Salem v. City of Akron · filed 2020-03-24(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits discretionary relinquishment of remaining state-law claims after all claims supplying original jurisdiction are dismissed, with a presumption favoring relinquishment when dismissal occurs before trial.

Smith v. Village of Downers Grove · filed 2020-03-26(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. ... In light of the usual presumption, and no particular legal or factual expertise on this constructive-discharge claim, the Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim, and Smith may try her hand in state court. The state claim is dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Wooten v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee · filed 2020-03-26(c)(3)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissal all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As all of Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, his state claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Flint v. Ally Financial Inc. · filed 2020-03-27(c)(3)

In light of this Court’s ruling, and because all of Plaintiff’s numerous other remaining claims arise under state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

(PC) Smithee v. California Correctional Institution · filed 2020-03-30(c)(3)

Because the 14 Court grants the motions to dismiss as to the federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise 15 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

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.

SCHER v. SHERMAN · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs FDCPA claim, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining common-law fraud and negligence claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court, in its discretion, to decline supplemental jurisdiction after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Downing v. Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC · filed 2020-04-03(c)(3)

“District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” in which the court has original jurisdiction, if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1188 (2d Cir. 1996). Whether to exercise jurisdiction is within the discretion of the district court.

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.

DIAZ v. RAGUCCI · filed 2020-04-02(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff asserts state law claims against the Defendants in addition to his federal claims, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over those state law claims as this Court 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.

Tuck v. Cascadians, Inc. · filed 2020-04-13(c)(3)

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 the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Minor v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-04-15(c)(3)

“The district court has discretion to dismiss pendent state law claims and may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims where it has dismissed claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” St. Germain v. Howard, 556 F.3d 261, 263-64 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, and they will be dismissed.

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

DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK v. SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. · filed 2020-04-16(c)(3)

Insofar as the Amended Complaint includes any state law claim—and it is by no means clear that it does—I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

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.

Burlingame v. Galveston County · filed 2020-04-27(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over a state law claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because I am recommending the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, I also suggest that the district court decline to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over any state law claims raised by Plaintiffs.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after it enters judgment on the only claim within its original jurisdiction, and to dismiss the state law claim without prejudice.

Gadsden v. Birmingham, City of · filed 2020-04-28(c)(3)

There is no longer an independent basis for jurisdiction over Mr. Gadsden’s state law respondeat superior claim against the City. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim and DISMISSES Mr. Gadsden’s state law claim against the City WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Yousef v. County Of Westchester · filed 2020-04-28(c)(3)

Having determined that the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law causes of action. See id. (citing 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

MACK v. AVERTEST, LLC · filed 2020-04-28(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of all federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Avertest.

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

Alvarez v. Martinez · filed 2020-04-29(c)(3)

Here, the federal claims have been dismissed at the pleading stage, no discovery has been commenced and there is no compelling reason why this court should continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over purely 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.

Mir v. Zucker · filed 2020-04-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction – Plaintiff’s claims under federal law – the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any claims under state law 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.

Naimoli v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2020-04-29(c)(3)

In this case, the Court has dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Upon consideration of all relevant 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 dismissal of the federal claim providing original jurisdiction.

Simonyan v. BMW Financial Services, NA, LLC · filed 2020-04-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claim without prejudice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS OF ST. CLARE'S, LLC v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD NEW JERSEY · filed 2020-04-30(c)(3)

As the ERISA claim is the sole basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter, the Court will not reach Plaintiffs’ additional state law claims in this Opinion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 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.

Hamza v. Yandik · filed 2020-05-01(c)(3)

The Court 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Knight v. The City of New York · filed 2020-05-01(c)(3)

Here, subsection (3) applies because the Court has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court may exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any 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.

Kelly v. City of New Philadelphia, Ohio · filed 2020-05-05(c)(3)

To the extent that Kelly is asserting any state law claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over those claims. A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if that court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Yawn v. Dorchester County · filed 2020-05-05(c)

However, because Plaintiffs are not entitled to federal compensation, the court will remand Plaintiffs’ state law claims for further consideration. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(providing that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health and Safety v. City of Santa Fe · filed 2020-05-06(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because Plaintiffs’ federal claims have been dismissed with prejudice, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Falzon v. Ford · filed 2020-05-06(c)(3)

As discussed above, plaintiffs have failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim against Brian Ford. Furthermore, it is not apparent that plaintiffs’ Section 1983 and state law claims—a violation of the New York State Constitution, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, private nuisance, aiding and abetting private nuisance, intentional misrepresentation, and negligence—arise from a common nucleus of operative fact, as required for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. See 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, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Burnes v. Chavez · filed 2020-05-08(c)(3)

Here, as discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to plead a viable federal cause of action. The factors of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity support dismissal of Plaintiff's remaining state law claims. ... Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims and GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.

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

Weedman v. Twin Lakes Regional Medical Center · filed 2020-05-11(c)(3)

To the extent he may be asserting state-law claims against that Defendant, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), because the 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 the sole claim within its original jurisdiction.

Tortorello v. Laconia Police Dep’t, et al. · filed 2020-05-12(c)(3)

Because I am dismissing with prejudice the sole claim over which I have original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Tortorello’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Stoller v. Fumo · filed 2020-05-12(c)(3)

Indeed, the presumption is statutorily expressed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides for the discretionary relinquishment of state claims when the claims providing original jurisdiction (here, federal question jurisdiction) have been dismissed. With no discovery having been taken in this case, it is sensible to allow the presumption to kick in and relinquish the state law claims to state court.

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.

Brooks v. Stanley · filed 2020-05-12(c)(3)

Where the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims. Plaintiff's state law claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter 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, and to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Ervin v. Corizon Health · filed 2020-05-13(c)(3)

However, pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, Mr. Ervin’s claims under Maryland law shall be dismissed, without prejudice.

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

Wu v. Bitfloor, Inc. · filed 2020-05-15(c)(3)

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). ... The Court finds that such factors counsel in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims in this case.

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.

Dorce v. City of New York · filed 2020-05-17(c)(3)

Having established that the Court does not have jurisdiction over some of the plaintiffs’ claims under Rooker- Feldman and over all of the plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under the TIA, and would decline to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ claims under the comity doctrine if it did have jurisdiction, to the extent there are any state law claims remaining, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

McAdoo v. Vici Community Development Corp · filed 2020-05-18(c)(3)

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims filed pursuant to the ORLTA and the ODHA.

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.

SOTO v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2020-05-19(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. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 983 F.2d 1277, 1284–1285 (3d Cir. 1993). ... Here, the Court grants the motion to dismiss as to the federal claims for relief, declines supplemental jurisdiction, and remands the matter to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer 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.

Brooks v. Rothgery · filed 2020-05-19(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if that court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, and there being no basis for original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim he may have.

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

Cox v. Callaway County, Missouri · filed 2020-05-21(c)(3)

Because the Court has found in favor of the Defendants on all federal claims in this lawsuit and wishes to avoid unnecessary decisions of state law, the Court elects not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and they are dismissed 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.

Snyder v. Rowe · filed 2020-05-22(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation claim.

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

Steed v. Missouri State Highway Patrol · filed 2020-05-22(c)(3)

Based on the factors outlined above, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Said claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Ortiz v. Annucci · filed 2020-05-22(c)(3)

Having determined that the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law causes of action.

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

MAUTHE v. MILLENNIUM HEALTH LLC · filed 2020-05-29(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) contemplates and permits the court to exercise its discretion when only a state law claim remains in a 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.

Lang v. Doe · filed 2020-06-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Lang’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims which may have been intended.

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

Ash v. City of N.Y. · filed 2020-06-01(c)(3)

Here, subsection (3) applies because the Court has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Thus, the Court may exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

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

Rochester v. Carter · filed 2020-06-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any claims under state law 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.

Zubair v. ConEdison Company of NY · filed 2020-06-01(c)(3)

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

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

Dipasquale v. Hawkins · filed 2020-06-03(c)(3)

Although the surviving state law claims were properly asserted in this Court by means of the supplemental jurisdiction provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a court may decline such supplemental jurisdiction where the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over this matter and DISMISSES the Herres’s counterclaims for replevin, conversion and fraud without prejudice.

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

Ferreira v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2020-06-05(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bies v. County of Nassau · filed 2020-06-08(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of any viable federal claims, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity point the Court toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 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.

McMichael v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · filed 2020-06-10(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss the only claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Claim C, which arises under state law.

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

Bleaken v. Apostolic Nunciature in the United States · filed 2020-06-10(c)(3)

The 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). ... Even if he did, the court would not continue to exercise jurisdiction.

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

E.E. v. RIDGEFIELD PARK BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2020-06-11(c)(3)

Pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), therefore, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NJLAD claim and accordingly, will not address the parties’ arguments as to the NJLAD claim.

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

Strojnik v. Village 1017 Coronado, Inc. · filed 2020-06-16(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

REID v. LAWSON · filed 2020-06-16(c)(3)

The Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation claims, which, as pled, do not demonstrate “defamation ‘plus’ the violation of some more tangible interest” which is required “before the plaintiff is entitled to invoke the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause.”

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

Banks v. Gates Hudson & Associates, Inc. · filed 2020-06-23(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain in this case and because plaintiffs’ federal claims have been dismissed at this early, pre-discovery stage of the litigation, the state law claims in Counts I-XIV of the FAC will be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs’ ability to raise those state law claims in state court.

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, and to dismiss those state claims without prejudice.

Martelli v. Knight · filed 2020-06-23(c)(3)

But, if a district court “has dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. ... Finding no reason why the remaining state law claims should proceed in this forum, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The state law claims (Counts III and IV) are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Mestayer v. New Orleans City · filed 2020-06-23(c)(3)

Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) states that the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Such is the case in this matter, as all federal law claims have been dismissed at an early stage of the litigation. Accordingly, the Court grants the City’s motion and dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiffs’ state law unjust enrichment and fraud claims.

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

Raya v. Barka · filed 2020-06-25(c)(3)

Raya’s federal claims have been dismissed. The Court declines to exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction over Raya’s state law claims.

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

Meisel v. Westchester County · filed 2020-06-25(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 Plaintiffs’ remaining state law causes of action. See id. (citing 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.

Ward v. Griffin · filed 2020-06-29(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 that may be construed from plaintiff’s amended complaint.

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

Barnes v. Correct Care Solutions · filed 2020-06-29(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); Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006). 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 that may be construed from plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and municipal claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with an early dismissal favoring that choice.

Thorne v. Boston Market Corporation · filed 2020-06-29(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the ADA claim in this action, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state and municipal claims. Federal district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal law claims “that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). But a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” once it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c)(3).

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 and comity.

Atwood v. Strickler · filed 2020-06-29(c)(3)

This case has not yet proceeded beyond the pleadings and few judicial resources are wasted by dismissing the remaining claims. Dismissal also promotes comity by allowing the Oregon courts to interpret the state law claims. ... This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims and dismisses all claims against Defendant Lamar without prejudice.

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

Kennedy v. Borough of Frackville Pennsylvania · filed 2020-06-29(c)(3)

Accordingly, because we conclude that the complaint fails to state any federal claims upon which relief can be granted, we will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kennedy’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.

Sullivan v. Davidson Trucking Inc · filed 2020-06-30(c)(3)

Thus, this court will follow the instruction of the Eleventh Circuit and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims in this case.

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.

Tibbs v. The Wexford UM · filed 2020-06-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

JEFFERSON v. OFFICER GEORGE LIAS · filed 2020-06-30(c)(3)

In my discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’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.

Arrington v. Levi · filed 2020-07-01(c)(3)

Because plaintiff’s federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims. 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”).

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

Kumaran v. National Futures Association · filed 2020-07-02(c)(3)

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

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

Hello I am Elliot, Inc. v. Sine · filed 2020-07-02(c)(3)

Here, no circumstances counsel in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the AC’s state law claims, given the Court’s dismissal at the threshold of all federal law claims. The Court has not invested the judicial resources necessary to resolve these non-federal claims or even determine if the AC has pled sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case for either. Nor do convenience, fairness, or comity require the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Finally, dismissing the state law claims now, at the motion to dismiss stage, would not cause substantial delay because the parties have not yet engaged in discovery. The Court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the AC’s remaining defamation and tortious interference 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.

Simmons v. Detroit, City of · filed 2020-07-07(c)(3)

A district court is within its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim if all federal claims have been properly dismissed. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Simmons’ state claims.

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

(PS) Strojnik v. Wickstrom Hospitality, LLC · filed 2020-07-08(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Because plaintiff’s lack of standing defeats federal subject matter jurisdiction over his ADA claim, the court need not entertain any of the other claims that plaintiff raises. If plaintiff fails to cure the pleading defect and establish his standing on the ADA claim, this court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and negligence 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.

Morelli v. Hyman · filed 2020-07-08(c)(3)

Thus, pursuant to § 1367(c), the court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims and DISMISSES them without prejudice.

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

Holcomb v. Russell Collection Agency, Inc. · filed 2020-07-09(c)(3)

Once all claims over which a federal court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... In sum, the balance of considerations in this case weighs in favor of dismissing the remaining state law claim.

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

Morrison v. Jones · filed 2020-07-13(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of plaintiff’s federal claims, as well as the NYSHRL claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s NYCHRL claims. 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 state-law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Liverpool v. The City of New York · filed 2020-07-13(c)(3)

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