28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Shipp v. Hoffman · filed 2020-07-15(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Andrade v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo · filed 2020-07-15(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claim in Count V, and having conducted the relevant factorial analysis, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Farnsworth v. Davis · filed 2020-07-16(c)(3)

To the extent that Farnsworth’s complaint is intended to assert any state-law claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Heineke v. Santa Clara University · filed 2020-07-20(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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.

Scott v. Southern Health Partners, Inc. · filed 2020-07-20(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the medical malpractice claim as all the federal claims have been dismissed and only one state law claim remains.

When all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, Section 1367(c)(3) permits the court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, ordinarily dismissing them without prejudice unless an exception warrants retention.

Spural-Harris v. Black · filed 2020-07-21(c)(3)

Because that disposition results in the dismissal of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court must address whether to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims for battery and negligent supervision and rule on Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. ... In sum, the Court concludes that none of the exceptions to the “usual practice” applies in this case. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the state law claims without prejudice and dismisses the state law claims with leave to refile in state court.

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

Rutherford v. JC Resorts, LLC · filed 2020-07-23(c)(3)

Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law ... Unruh Act claim, as it has “dismissed ail 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.

The Legion of Christ, Incorporated v. Town of Mount Pleasant · filed 2020-07-27(c)(3)

Having established that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims, 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 remaining claims after it dismisses the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

ROE v. THE ARC MERCER · filed 2020-07-29(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining 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.

Martinez v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2020-07-29(c)(3)

However, Martinez’s federal claims have been dismissed. Thus, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. 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.

Zubair v. Bank of America · filed 2020-07-29(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.

When the claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, and the court generally should do so.

Stuart v. Scottsdale, City of · filed 2020-08-03(c)(3)

But when the Court has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the statute gives the Court discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Under that scenario, the Court should generally decline 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, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing that choice.

Fields v. Candell · filed 2020-08-03(c)(3)

Because that disposition results in the dismissal of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court must address whether to retain jurisdiction over any state law claims asserted by Fields. ... For this reason, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Fields may be asserting as none of the factors identified by the Seventh Circuit for the Court to retain jurisdiction are present here.

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

BARNES v. ERIE COUNTY PRISON ADMINISTRATIVE · filed 2020-08-03(c)(3)

Absent extraordinary circumstances, a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); see Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C. v. Optum Inc., 925 F.3d 129, 135 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 563, 205 L. Ed. 2d 358 (2019).

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

RASHID v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2020-08-04(c)(3)

Plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim; therefore, the Court declines to exercises supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

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

Adams v. Koehn · filed 2020-08-04(c)(3)

I have dismissed the Bivens claims over which I have original jurisdiction, and I would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state tort 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.

Spanierman v. 4 Park Avenue Associates, L.L.C. · filed 2020-08-04(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 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.

Abadir v. Center One, LLC · filed 2020-08-04(c)(3)

Given the disposition of the First and Third Causes of Action and Plaintiff’s federal age discrimination claim alleged in the First, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s parallel Second Cause of Action alleging New York State Human Rights Law age and disability claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (District Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 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.

YOUNG v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPT. · filed 2020-08-04(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed his federal claims, the court will not 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, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Gambrel v. Knox County · filed 2020-08-05(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). ... Given the presumption and these factors, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

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

Furr v. Hazelwood, Missouri, City of · filed 2020-08-05(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the federal claims against Defendant, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Sun v. Saslovsky, Esq. · filed 2020-08-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the claims of 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.

Novo v. Danbury · filed 2020-08-07(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Ms. Novo’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.

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

Harty v. West Point Realty, Inc. · filed 2020-08-07(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 found plaintiff lacks standing to bring his federal ADA claim, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s NYHRL 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.

Courser v. Allard · filed 2020-08-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, including Courser’s claim brought under Michigan’s eavesdropping statute. R. 36 (Final Op. at 3) (Page ID #1937). It was within the district court’s discretion to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if-- . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

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

Herbert v. New Orleans City · filed 2020-08-10(c)(3)

These factors weigh in favor of dismissal without prejudice of the Louisiana state law claims so that the plaintiff may assert those claims in Louisiana state court. The Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

HOWARD v. EINSTEIN HOSPITAL · filed 2020-08-10(c)(3)

Moreover, even assuming that Howard could pursue such a cause of action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) in light of the dismissal of all claims otherwise within the Court’s original jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Beard v. Dismis Charities Inc. · filed 2020-08-11(c)(3)

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring state-law tort claims against these Defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.

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

Wilkes v. Biffs, Inc. · filed 2020-08-11(c)(3)

Under the supplemental-jurisdiction statute, 28 USC § 1367, the Court may dismiss state-law claims when all other claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 28 USC §1367(c)(3). The Court will do so here.

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

Abell v. Graham · filed 2020-08-12(c)(3)

To the extent that Abell also brings medical negligence claims, 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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

EDWARDS v. HILLMAN · filed 2020-08-12(c)(3)

When a court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts 1 and 2.

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

Hall v. Wetzel · filed 2020-08-14(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the 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.

Gomes v. Santa Clara County · filed 2020-08-17(c)(3)

Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity usually favor declining jurisdiction then.

McManemy v. Tierney · filed 2020-08-17(c)(3)

In fact, when a district court has dismissed every federal claim, as here, “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” will usually “point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” ... This case is no exception.

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.

BUKHARI v. PNC BANK, N.A. · filed 2020-08-17(c)(3)

Having now dismissed the RESPA claim, the only claim over which we had original jurisdiction, Congress allows us to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Bukhari’s remaining state law claims for breach of contract and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law violations.

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.

Iraheta v. Thurman & Phillips, P.C.,et al · filed 2020-08-18(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed both of Plaintiff’s federal claims, 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 within its original jurisdiction.

Singleton v. The People of the State of New York · filed 2020-08-20(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 that Plaintiff is 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.

6315 Magazine, LLC v. Flot Nola, LLC · filed 2020-08-21(c)(3)

However, § 1367(c)(3) permits a federal district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... With dismissal of the RICO claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction, this case now contains only state-law claims. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendent state-law claims, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, but that ground falls away when a federal claim survives on appeal.

Spec's Family Partners, Ltd. v. Executive Director · filed 2020-08-25(c)

Finally, the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Spec’s’ state-law malicious prosecution claim must be vacated because the grounds for that decision are no longer applicable.

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.

Lewis v. Birmingham, Alabama, The City of · filed 2020-08-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lewis’ state-law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(3) and remands these claims to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama.

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

Lopez v. City of El Cajon · filed 2020-08-27(c)(3)

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 remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Klein v. Glick · filed 2020-08-28(c)(3)

Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Cotto pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Adams v. Wexford Health Source · filed 2020-08-28(c)

To the extent that Plaintiff also brings medical negligence claims, 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.”). “When, as here, the federal claim is dismissed early in the case, the federal courts are inclined to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice rather than retain supplemental jurisdiction.” Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (citing United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-27 (1966)). These claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Webster v. District of Columbia · filed 2020-08-31(c)(3)

Thus, only claims under D.C. law remain, and the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

STEINHARDT v. BERNARDSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2020-08-31(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for any violation of federal or Constitutional law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state and common 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, upon considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

El v. Chambers · filed 2020-08-31(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 any of Plaintiff’s potential 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Post Office Square LLC v. Village of Spring Valley · filed 2020-08-31(c)(3)

The Court dismisses the remaining state-law claims that Plaintiffs assert under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. A federal 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).

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

Kenn v. Eascare, LLC · filed 2020-09-01(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiff’s claims under federal law must be dismissed for want of standing, the Court exercises its discretion and elects not to consider Plaintiff’s supplemental state-law claims, which arise under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149, §§ 148 and 151B.

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

Orozco v. Sandoval County · filed 2020-09-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims, and having conducted the relevant factorial analysis, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims relating to the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.

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

Hamilton v. Centre County Tax Claim Bureau · filed 2020-09-02(c)(3)

As recommended by Magistrate Judge Mehalchick, to the extent that Hamilton makes any state law claims against Defendants, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these allegations as all of Plaintiff's claims arising under federal law have been dismissed.

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

Call v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2020-09-04(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claim and will remand the case to the state court from whence it was removed.

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

Lahens v. AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2020-09-04(c)(3)

“A district court retains the discretion, however, to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” Marrero–Gutierrez v. Molina, 491 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Having dismissed all federal law claims and their Puerto Rico law counterparts, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Article 1802 and Law 80 claims arising from Puerto Rico law.

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.

Jackson v. Doe · filed 2020-09-08(c)(3)

Relevant here, it is appropriate for a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction as to Plaintiff’s state law claim and Count 2 will also be 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.

Delacruz v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc. · filed 2020-09-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s ADA claims, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.

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

Williams v. Corizon · filed 2020-09-09(c)(3)

To the extent that Williams also brings medical negligence claims, 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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Sanchez v. NM Corrections Department · filed 2020-09-09(c)

Under § 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. ... This Court is dismissing all federal claims in this case. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Sanchez’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.

Marraccini v. Belmont · filed 2020-09-10(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ 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.

Wilson v. Montgomery County · filed 2020-09-15(c)

Because this Court has dismissed Count I, the only remaining claims involve violations of Maryland law: Counts II and III, related to Defendants Nesselt and Washington. This Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims.

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

Yates v. Washington Federation of State Employees, AFSCME Council 28, AFL-CIO · filed 2020-09-16(c)(3)

Based on the foregoing, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); see also MTD Order at 12. ... As such, the Court finds it appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Rice v. City & County of San Francisco · filed 2020-09-16(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rice’s related state law claims.

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.

MediGrow LLC v. Natalie M LaPrade Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission · filed 2020-09-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims set forth in Counts I, II, and III with prejudice, this Court exercises its discretion to dismiss the pending 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.

Tambedou v. Fundamental Clinical & Operational Services, LLC · filed 2020-09-16(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court has discretion to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Tambedou’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.

Selmani v. Village of Bartlett · filed 2020-09-17(c)(3)

Having determined that Mr. Selmani fails to state a federal claim, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Phillips v. D.R. Horton, Inc. · filed 2020-09-18(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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.

Shine v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2020-09-18(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Shine’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. ... 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Perard v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center · filed 2020-09-20(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s NYCHRL discrimination and hostile work environment claims, and dismisses those claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Griffin v. Zuckerberg · filed 2020-09-21(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.

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

Ooh! Media LLC v. Spokane Transit Authority · filed 2020-09-22(c)(3)

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

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

Stith v. Hennings Jr. · filed 2020-09-22(c)(3)

After considering the Carnegie-Mellon factors, 484 U.S. at 350, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in the Complaint.

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

McDaniel v. The City of New York · filed 2020-09-22(c)(3)

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

Hughley v. Matthews · filed 2020-09-23(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff also brings medical negligence claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Milord-Francois v. The New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General · filed 2020-09-23(c)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, as well as the NYSHRL claims which are governed by the same standards as the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYCHRL claims for the following reasons. 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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Grandpa Bud LLC v. Chelan County Washington · filed 2020-09-25(c)

If a district court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining claims.

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

WILSON v. UNC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM · filed 2020-09-28(c)(3)

Since this matter has not progressed past the motion-to- dismiss stage and only a state claim remains, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s breach of contract 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.

Mayfield v. Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2020-09-28(c)(3)

Having determined all federal claims are barred-on-arrival, the Court will follow the general rule and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mayfield’s 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.

Sanchez v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2020-09-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims pursuant to ...28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hilton v. City of Brownsville, Tennessee · filed 2020-09-28(c)(3)

In fact, section 1367 spells out several circumstances in which a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim: (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (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. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In this case, paragraph (3) applies.

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.

Tapia v. Moughamian · filed 2020-09-22(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims and the action shall be REMANDED to state court.

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.

Ogbechie v. Covarrubias · filed 2020-10-02(c)(3)

Because the Court has now dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court has discretion to decline jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim. In accordance with the weight of Ninth Circuit precedent, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise that discretion here, and to dismiss the remaining state law claim for lack of 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 doing so ordinarily is not an abuse of discretion.

Signs for Jesus v. Pembroke, NH · filed 2020-10-07(c)(3)

Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Church's state statutory claims once the federal claims were 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.

Littlejohn v. New Orleans City · filed 2020-10-08(c)(3)

These factors weigh in favor of dismissal of the Louisiana state law claims without prejudice so that plaintiff may assert those claims in Louisiana state court. The Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

McNaughton v. de Blasio · filed 2020-10-08(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 over which it has original jurisdiction.

Strain v. Regalado · filed 2020-10-09(c)(3)

The doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction is “a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). “Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). As a result, the district court, upon dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims, did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.

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

THE BONDHOLDER COMMITTEE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS OF QUAD CITIES REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FIRST MORTGAGE R · filed 2020-10-09(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)}-5 claim against BMOC, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining non-federal law claims against BMOC, including those alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, violation of the New Jersey Uniform Securities Act, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promise causing detrimental] reliance, unjust enrichment, piercing the corporate veil, civil conspiracy, and the NJCFA 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.

Laird v. Elliott · filed 2020-10-13(c)(3)

And, the Court may appropriately decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when, as here, the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction as to Plaintiff’s state law claims (Counts 3, 5, 6, and 7), and they too will be 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.

Giangrieco v. Susquehanna County · filed 2020-10-13(c)(3)

Third and finally, even if Plaintiff could overcome this pleading deficiency, we would nonetheless decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this remaining claim against the Individual Defendants.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, based on judicial economy and comity.

Doe v. Board of Visitors of Virginia Military Institute · filed 2020-10-14(c)

The Court finds that for judicial economy and comity purposes, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any State law claims asserted in the Amended Complaint.

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

Harvey v. Neusantz · filed 2020-10-14(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) permits a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Here, I find that those interests are best served by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims against Neusantz, and those claims are accordingly 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.

Ombe v. Cook · filed 2020-10-15(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed all of the federal law claims, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses 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.

The James Streibich Revocable Trust of 2002 v. Flagstad · filed 2020-10-19(c)(3)

There is no federal interest in this remaining state-law dispute, so I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

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

Smith v. City of Youngstown · filed 2020-10-19(c)(3)

This Court, having dismissed all federal claims asserted in this case, 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.

Bell v. Frosh · filed 2020-10-22(c)(3)

Having determined that it will dismiss the federal claims raised in the Complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bell’s state law perjury and slander 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, considering the stage of litigation and judicial economy.

Compo v. River Real Estate Development, LLC · filed 2020-10-22(c)(3)

Having found that Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief under the ADA, which formed the basis for the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, is moot, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law negligence and NYHRL 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.

Komatsu v. The City of New York · filed 2020-10-22(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 that Plaintiff is asserting.

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

Vallier v. Davila · filed 2020-10-23(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

SEI GLOBAL SERVICES, INC. v. SS&C ADVENT · filed 2020-10-23(c)(3)

Having found that SEI failed to assert a cognizable antitrust claim, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over SEI’s state law claims because there is neither diversity among the parties nor any special circumstances justifying our exercise of supplemental diversity.

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.

Duncan v. Wayne County of Detroit · filed 2020-10-26(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim against Defendants and it will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Ash v. Karnes · filed 2020-10-26(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Group, Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 174 (3d Cir. 2009). Because the Court is entering summary judgment on Ash’s sole federal claim, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims of assault and battery, and these claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

DeMunn v. Sheepdog Warrior, LLC · filed 2020-10-28(c)(3)

But because the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim with respect to any federal claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against LLC 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.

Holder v. AT&T Services, Inc. · filed 2020-10-28(c)(3)

As explained above, Plaintiff fails to state a claim under federal law. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims.

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

Parks v. Saltsman · filed 2020-10-29(c)(3)

If Plaintiff elects not to file an amended complaint, the Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action, which assert federal claims against the State Supervisory Defendants, will be dismissed with prejudice; and the Sixth Cause of Action, which asserts a state law negligence claim against the State Supervisory Defendants, will be dismissed without prejudice. See Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[A] district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

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

Zielinski v. Service Employees International Union Local 503 · filed 2020-11-02(c)(3)

The Court finds that the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Neither the Court nor the parties have invested significant time and resources sufficient to justify retaining jurisdiction. State court is a convenient forum for the parties and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction respects the values of federalism and comity. For these reasons, 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.

Wilson v. City of Walnut Creek · filed 2020-11-03(c)(3)

In this case, because plaintiff fails to state a claim for any violation of federal law, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims.

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

Franklin v. City of Buffalo · filed 2020-11-03(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, since this Court is granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Franklin’s federal claims, there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over her state law claims. ... This Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Franklin’s claims arising under the New York Constitution.

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

Murphy v. The Home Depot, Inc. · filed 2020-11-05(c)(3)

In any event, having determined that Murphy has no standing to press his federal claim, this Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state and city claims.

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

Jarvois v. Ferrara · filed 2020-11-09(c)(3)

However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims is within the Court’s discretion 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 remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Alston v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Company · filed 2020-11-12(c)(3)

With respect to Alston’s two true state law claims in Counts IV and V, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Rodriguez-Wilson v. Rico · filed 2020-11-12(c)(3)

The Court possesses discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction and may decline to do so if “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” are dismissed. ... Because the RESPA cause of action is time-barred, the Court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction regarding the breach of contract 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.

Mortimer v. Grodsky · filed 2020-11-13(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the claim supporting original jurisdiction has been dismissed and the statutory and discretionary factors favor doing so.

Martin v. Hyundai Translead Inc · filed 2020-11-13(c)

In the event the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction creates a procedural, rather than jurisdictional, defect and the Court did have original jurisdiction upon removal, the Court alternatively declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case now that AAFES has been dismissed.

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.

Lundy v. Shelby County Healthcare Corporation · filed 2020-11-17(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim against SCHCC. That claim is governed by Tennessee law, and Tennessee courts are better able to address it.

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.

Miller v. City of Leland · filed 2020-11-19(c)(3)

Only state claims remain in this action and these claims would be better addressed by the state court. This Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when they predominate over the federal claim and the court has dismissed the only claim within its original jurisdiction, particularly while litigation is in its preliminary stages.

V. v. PieRanch · filed 2020-11-20(c)

Here, the state law claims predominate over the Title VI claim because the case at bar concerns Mr. Macias’s conduct and Pie Ranch’s responsibility for that conduct (i.e., whether Pie Ranch had actual knowledge that Mr. Macias had a propensity to engage in sexually inappropriate conduct with minors before hiring him). These are quintessential claims under tort law, which arises here under the laws of California. Further, the Court has dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction (i.e., the Title VI claim) and the litigation is still in its preliminary stages (such that the parties have not yet expended significant resources and a remand is in keeping with judicial economy).

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

Clark v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Northern New England, Inc. · filed 2020-11-20(c)(3)

Finally, having found that all of Plaintiff's federal claims are subject to summary judgment, the Court declines to exercise 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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Nieves v. Andrew F. Plasse & Associates, LLC · filed 2020-11-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, 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 remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with its investment of judicial resources informing that decision.

TOMEI v. OFFICE OF THE 32ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT DELAWARE COUNTY · filed 2020-11-20(c)(3)

In any event, federal law gives a district court discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under state law if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court has not spent time managing this case or otherwise invested judicial resources to justify the Court maintaining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims here. The Court will exercise its discretion and decline to consider those 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.

Pethtel v. State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services (TV2) · filed 2020-11-20(c)(3)

While a district court has supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims forming “part of the same case or controversy” as claims over which the court exercises original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701, 709 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Because the Court in this opinion will dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims arising under federal law, it will also DISMISS without prejudice plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Kalia v. City University of New York · filed 2020-11-23(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. A district court “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.” 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.

Key West Golf Club Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. Singh · filed 2020-11-24(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed the sole federal claim raised in the Amended Complaint, 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Gomes v. County of Kauai · filed 2020-11-24(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” ... The factors of “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” City of Chicago, 522 U.S. at 173, weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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.

Nottage v. Sevier County, Tennessee · filed 2020-11-24(c)(3)

Because all federal claims will be dismissed by virtue of the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Nottage’s state-law tort claims.

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

Barnes v. The City of New York · filed 2020-11-25(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege a claim for relief under federal law, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his 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.

Coronado v. Paralta · filed 2020-11-30(c)

This Court is dismissing all federal claims in this case. To the extent the Amended Complaint alleges any claims under New Mexico law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Coronado’s remaining state-law claims.

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

Glenn v. Mataloni · filed 2020-11-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims against Defendants Stanishefski, Stanish, and Wexford pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Schmehl v. Spokane County · filed 2020-12-02(c)(3)

Here, the Court determined that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s only federal claim over which the Court had original jurisdiction; this triggers the discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Yagman v. Garcetti · filed 2020-12-03(c)(3)

Without an independent ground of federal jurisdiction, the Court has only supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, inter alia, the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Because that is the case here, the Court declines to address the state law claims until Plaintiff has adequately pled a federal claim.

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

HATCHIGIAN v. CARRIER CORPORATION · filed 2020-12-03(c)(3)

As the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. “A district court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in several circumstances, including a situation where ‘the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,’ as in this case.” Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 735 F.3d 131, 135 (3d Cir.2013) (quoting 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.

BE v. Shelby County Board of Education · filed 2020-12-04(c)(3)

The 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). ... Accordingly, 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 state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Baker v. Prescott, City of · filed 2020-12-04(c)(3)

Because summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant Prescott Valley as to Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental 6 | jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims asserted against the Town of Prescott Valley.

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.

Harris v. Warden · filed 2020-12-04(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3). ... The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harris’s remaining state law claims and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits, but does not require, a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Shea v. Koehler · filed 2020-12-08(c)(3)

Although a district court may relinquish supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims have been dismissed, “it is not required to do so.” Bailey v. City of Chicago, 779 F.3d 689, 696 (7th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits, but does not require, a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Shea v. Koehler · filed 2020-12-08(c)(3)

In any event, a court’s decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims is “purely discretionary.”

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

Everitt v. Jarvis Airfoil, Inc · filed 2020-12-08(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if-- the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” ... Both of the Court’s rulings addressed the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s pleadings and the Court has not weighed the substance of his claims. There are no extenuating or exceptional circumstances that would suggest that this case must remain in federal court. As a matter of comity, whether Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a viable CFEPA claim is a question of Connecticut law, appropriate for disposition in the state court. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim at this early stage in the litigation and dismisses Count two without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Bradford v. Voong · filed 2020-12-09(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Taylor v. Enterprise Holding Group, LLC · filed 2020-12-09(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 remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bradford v. Voong · filed 2020-12-10(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Alvarez v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2020-12-10(c)(3)

Under § 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. ... This Court is dismissing all federal claims in this case. To the extent the Complaint alleges any claim under New Mexico law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff ‘s remaining state-law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) provides no basis to decline supplemental jurisdiction merely because the court might later dismiss all claims within its original jurisdiction.

KOSHA, LLC v. ALFORD · filed 2020-12-14(c)(3)

Thus, there is presently no basis for the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3).

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

Mitchell v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2020-12-14(c)(3)

Count I of the Complaint alleges fraudulent inducement, a state law claim. This Count was brought under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, as it arises from the same case or controversy as the federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Having disposed of the federal claims in the previous two sections, we dismiss Count I without prejudice for lack of subject matter 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.

American Transit Insurance Company v. Bilyk · filed 2020-12-14(c)(3)

After dismissing plaintiff’s RICO claims, the only remaining claims are those asserted under state law pursuant to the court’s supplemental jurisdiction. A federal district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3); see Castellano v. Bd. of Trs., 937 F.2d 752, 758 (2d Cir.1991) (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)). ... Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Yadav v. Frost Bank · filed 2020-12-16(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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Rhyne v. Henderson Cty., 973 F.2d 386, 395 (5th Cir. 1992). Here, the Court should exercise that discretion and remand Plaintiff’s surviving state law claim of assault and this case to 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.

(PC) Garcia v. Diaz · filed 2020-12-16(c)(3)

Due to the Court’s determination that plaintiff fails to state a federal claim against any defendant, the Court concludes, in its discretion, that the exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining claim for violation of state law should be declined.

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.

(PS) Strojnik v. Wickstrom Hospitality, LLC · filed 2020-12-18(c)(3)

This court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state claims.

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.

SCHER v. SHERMAN · filed 2020-12-18(c)(3)

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

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

Ventillo v. Falco · filed 2020-12-18(c)(3)

As the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s action, no basis of federal jurisdiction remains, and the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Lynch’s crossclaims and dismisses them 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.

Trujillo v. Central New Mexico Correctional Facility · filed 2020-12-22(c)(3)

Nonetheless, the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

White v. City of Cleveland · filed 2020-12-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once they have dismissed all claims over which they 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.

Ragas v. Schexnayder · filed 2020-12-28(c)(3)

To the extent that Mr. Ragas is asking this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consider the merits of his state law claims, the court declines the invitation in light of the fact that he has no cognizable federal claim.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims in the interest of justice and judicial economy.

Johns v. City of Florissant · filed 2020-12-28(c)(3)

Since the Court has determined that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s other claims, the Court finds that in the interest of justice and judicial economy, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any and all state-law tort claims as contained in the plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

TAYLOR F. v. LAWRENCE COUNTY · filed 2020-12-28(c)(3)

Therefore, Counts IV and V will be dismissed pursuant to § 1367(c)(3) without prejudice to refiling them in state court.