28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Ferrara v. United Public Service Employees Union · filed 2020-12-29(c)(3)

The balance of factors here weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The Court finds that principles of comity suggest that Connecticut courts are more suited to determine the viability of Plaintiff‘s breach of duty of fair representation claim, which involves Connecticut law.

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

Jones v. Banks · filed 2021-01-05(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Hoffmann v. St. Bonaventure University · filed 2021-01-05(c)(3)

Absent a federal cause of action for original jurisdiction (as held above regarding the Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims), this Court will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s claims arising from her resignation as Dean and not being appointed Provost under the New York Human Rights Law.

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

Divino Group LLC v. Google LLC · filed 2021-01-06(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... In sum, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a) over plaintiffs’ state law claims and instead dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Belton, M.D. v. Borg & Ide Imaging, P.C. · filed 2021-01-12(c)(3)

But, having found that Belton has not plausibly alleged claims under Title VII or Section 1981, and having accordingly dismissed those claim (as well as Belton’s NYSHRL claims governed by the same standards as the Title VII claims), I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Belton’s remaining state law breach of contract claim, and that claim is dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Estate of Susanne Burgaz, The v. Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County Colorado · filed 2021-01-19(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed the federal law claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court dismisses the state law claims, without prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Anderson v. New York City Department of Finance · filed 2021-01-19(c)(3)

Here, as in its prior decision, the Court has granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to all of Anderson’s federal claims. Therefore, for the reasons stated in its prior opinion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Frantz v. Beshear · filed 2021-01-25(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 “includes an explicit provision permitting the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when that court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Weeks v. Portage County Executive Offices, 235 F.3d 275, 280 (6th Cir. 2000). Because this Court is dismissing Frantz’s federal claims, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state claim and will dismiss it 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Smart v. Annucci · filed 2021-01-26(c)(3)

Having determined that the only 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. See id. (citing 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.

Nall v. Williams · filed 2021-01-27(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Nall’s related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review; court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims once 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 within its original jurisdiction.

Irvin v. Prentiss County, Mississippi · filed 2021-01-27(c)(3)

The Court, however, having dismissed the federal claims and having considered the applicable factors, is inclined to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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.

Chacon-Lozano v. Department of Corrections · filed 2021-01-28(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 Chacon- Lozano’s state law claims.

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

Petrovia v. Prime Care Medical Inc · filed 2021-01-29(c)(3)

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.”).

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.

Shibilski, Kevin v. Moss, James · filed 2021-02-01(c)(3)

Finding there appears no reason for this court to retain supplemental jurisdiction now that the only basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction is gone, the court will decline to consider the remaining state law claims and dismiss the case.

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

Beasley v. McNulty · filed 2021-02-01(c)(3)

The Court will dismiss the educators’ federal and constitutional claims with prejudice. And the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims.

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

HOV Services, Inc. v. ASG Technologies Group, Inc. · filed 2021-02-02(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over HOV’s state law claims and ASG’s state law counterclaims on condition that HOV consents (1) to the right of ASG to assert the existing counterclaims in the state court action, including the tolling of any statute of limitations on the counterclaims during the period that they were pending in this Court and for 30 days thereafter; and (2) HOV’s consent that any discovery conducted in this action may be used in the state court action; accordingly, HOV’s remaining claims and ASG’s counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Lawrence v. Southeast Louisiana Legal Services Corporation · filed 2021-02-04(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendant 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.

Howard v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. · filed 2021-02-04(c)(3)

Following this precedent, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Howard’s NYCHRL claim, thus avoiding needlessly deciding issues of state law and securing for the parties “a surer-footed reading of applicable law” as available in the state courts of New York.

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.

Steinbergin v. City of New York · filed 2021-02-04(c)(3)

But separate and apart from Steinbergin’s silence, the Court concludes that the balance of factors to be considered — judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity — point toward declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction now that all federal claims have been 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.

DARBY v. ELLIS · filed 2021-02-05(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). In exercising its discretion, “the district court should take into account generally accepted principles of ‘judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants.’” Growth Horizons, Inc., 983 F.2d at 1284 (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)). Where the federal claims are dismissed at an early stage in the litigation, courts generally decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. United Mine Workers, 383 U.S. at 726; Growth Horizons, Inc., 983 F.2d at 1284–1285. Having dismissed the federal claims for relief, the Court denies supplemental jurisdiction over any potential 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, especially when the case is in its early stages.

Archi's Acres, Inc. v. Whole Foods Market California, Inc. · filed 2021-02-08(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claims and because this case is in its early stages, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims against 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.

Doe v. University of Nebraska · filed 2021-02-08(c)(3)

With the dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, and will remand the case 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.

Koller-Gurgigno v. Gurgigno · filed 2021-02-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state-law claims and will thus remand the action back to state court.

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

Dickerson v. Board of Trustees of Metropolitan State University of Denver · filed 2021-02-10(c)(3)

Here, the third option applies because this Court will dismiss Claims 1 and 2, which are the only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

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.

Perry v. John A. Guerrieri, DDS PLLC · filed 2021-02-10(c)(3)

Courts may appropriately decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where, as here, all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed or otherwise removed from the case.

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

Karunakaran v. BMCC/Cuny City University of New York · filed 2021-02-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Karunakaran’s federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over, and dismisses, her state and city law claims.

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

Green v. State of Washington · filed 2021-02-16(c)

A district court’s decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is discretionary.

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

Johnson v. Davis County · filed 2021-02-17(c)(3)

Pursuant to statute and Circuit guidance, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claim. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ third cause of action is dismissed without prejudice.

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

Hamner v. Tuscaloosa County School System · filed 2021-02-17(c)(3)

As there is no remaining claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction that is part of the “same case or controversy” as the battery claim against Henson, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law battery 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.

Daugherty Speedway, Inc. v. Holcomb · filed 2021-02-17(c)(3)

Because the federal claims are being dismissed, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Daugherty’s state law claims.

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

McAteer v. Lexington Fayette Urban County Government · filed 2021-02-17(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed all of the plaintiff's federal claims, the Court concludes that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

East Coast Service Industry Companies, Inc. v. New Hampshire State Liquor Commission · filed 2021-02-17(c)(3)

Because the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction during the early stages of this case, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of contested state law issues and the case’s initial filing in state court.

Ambassador Animal Hospital, Ltd. v. Elanco Animal Health Incorporated · filed 2021-02-18(c)(3)

The 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). In light of this case’s contested state law issues and the fact that the plaintiff originally brought the action in state court, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental 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.

Banks v. Hughes · filed 2021-02-19(c)(3)

Without a viable federal question to decide, the court will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

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

Gutierrez v. The City of New York · filed 2021-02-22(c)(3)

In view of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims for false arrest and imprisonment, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, unreasonable search and seizure, negligence, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and several claims under Article I, §§ 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 of the New York State Constitution.

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

Victor Reyes, Jr. v. Marino · filed 2021-02-23(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Reyes’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

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.

Christensen v. Sergeant Bluff, City of · filed 2021-02-24(c)(3)

Having considered the relevant factors, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, which depend solely on state law.

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 bearing on that choice.

Hamood v. Trinity Health Corporation · filed 2021-02-25(c)(3)

The Court will therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. For one, the Court lacks original jurisdiction over the claims. And two, the interests of judicial economy do not override the presumption against retaining the case because the Court lacks the strong familiarity with the case that it would have ordinarily gained had the undersigned been assigned the case from the beginning.

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

Cain v. Mercy College · filed 2021-02-25(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.

ACADEMY HILL, INC. v. CITY OF LAMBERTVILLE · filed 2021-02-26(c)(3)

In this case, the Court is dismissing each of Plaintiffs’ federal law claims and, therefore, to the extent that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint can be construed as asserting claims under state law, including what the Court constrains as inverse spot zoning, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

HATCHIGIAN v. CARRIER CORPORATION · filed 2021-02-26(c)(3)

As Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim is time-barred, this Court 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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

TECH USA, INC. v. Milligan · filed 2021-03-01(c)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Sepulveda v. Galindo · filed 2021-03-02(c)(3)

Therefore, in the absence of any viable federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court exercises its discretion and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s supplemental state law claim 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 within its original jurisdiction.

Love v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. · filed 2021-03-03(c)(3)

As the Court has dismissed the only federal claim before it, which provided the only basis for its original jurisdiction, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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.

Espinosa v. Nassau County Correctional Center · filed 2021-03-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims—the only federal cause of action —the Court finds that concerns for judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity weigh against retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law negligence claim.

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

Forbes v. Macchione, FACHE · filed 2021-03-04(c)(3)

However, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to reach this state law claim.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, especially when litigation is at an early stage.

Vega v. City of New York · filed 2021-03-04(c)(3)

The present case is in the early stages of litigation. The parties are a long way off from trial, which would occur only after fur- ther discovery and, in all likelihood, the briefing and adjudication of a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court de- clines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL 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.

Calcano v. Cole Haan LLC · filed 2021-03-05(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Calcano’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims because his ADA claims have been dismissed.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when it does so early in litigation.

Williams v. New York City Department Of Correction · filed 2021-03-05(c)(3)

Although 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,” 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. ... For this reason, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’s claims under state and local law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the claim within its original jurisdiction, absent an affirmative justification based on judicial economy, convenience, or fairness.

City of Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System v. Hamrock · filed 2021-03-09(c)(3)

While the Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (applying to “claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy”), the Court declines to do so, see id. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Seina v. Oahu Community Correctional Center · filed 2021-03-09(c)(3)

Because Seina fails to state a threat-to-safety claim based on his pretrial detention at the OCCC, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim based on that detention.

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-law claims without prejudice.

Walker v. Park County Sheriff's Office · filed 2021-03-10(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 his federal claims are dismissed, and the Court does not find any compelling reason to do so. Accordingly, plaintiff’s third, fourth, and fifth claims for relief 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.

Berrios v. Mennonite General Hospital, Inc. · filed 2021-03-10(c)(3)

A District Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Based on the foregoing, and in an exercise of its discretion, the Court hereby declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction to the remaining Puerto Rico 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 account of judicial economy and convenience.

Farwell v. City of Jacksonville · filed 2021-03-11(c)(3)

Upon consideration of the § 1367 factors and the “traditional rationales for pendent jurisdiction, including judicial economy and convenience,” see Palmer, 22 F.3d at 1569, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Farwell’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. City of New York Comptroller Office · filed 2021-03-15(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 it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Westchester Medical Center · filed 2021-03-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise 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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Weaver v. Gregory · filed 2021-03-16(c)(3)

The Court finds that the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the litigation has not progressed beyond the motion to dismiss stage.

Bertrand v. Cloud · filed 2021-03-17(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. This litigation has not progressed beyond the motion to dismiss stage, no hearings have been held, and the Court has not invested a significant amount of resources in the litigation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bertrand’s state law claims against Cloud.

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.

Holmes v. Reddoch · filed 2021-03-18(c)(3)

These factors weigh in favor of dismissing Holmes’s state law claims without prejudice so that he may assert those claims in 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 and local law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the case is at an early stage.

Valvo v. Department of Education of the City of New York · filed 2021-03-18(c)(3)

The Court need not address their specific arguments, as a court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” state claims on various grounds, including that “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” — here, the federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (“[I]n the usual case in which 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.”). This case is at an early stage of litigation, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs State and City 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.

Love v. Office of Children And Family Services · filed 2021-03-18(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Alexander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-03-18(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff's federal law claims over which I had original jurisdiction,8 the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims unless Plaintiff can properly allege a Section 1981 claim in an 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.

Regan v. Village of Pelham · filed 2021-03-19(c)(3)

Since Plaintiff has failed to state a due process claim against Defendants, the Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Wood v. 36th District Court · filed 2021-03-22(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff's First Amendment Retaliation claim and the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction, the Court will no longer 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 the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Tang v. Grossman · filed 2021-03-22(c)(3)

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim against Defendant Grossman is dismissed for failure to state a claim, and because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claim against ... Defendant Grossman, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims against Grossman.

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 a presumption favoring relinquishment when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Petropoulos v. City of Chicago · filed 2021-03-23(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that the district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state-law claims if the Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The best place to resolve these state-law claims is state court. Counts III through VIII 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.

SANKO v. LANIGAN · filed 2021-03-24(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff’s Complaint may adequately allege state or common law medical malpractice, negligence, or other claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

AZCONA v. ELLIS · filed 2021-03-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims for relief, the Court denies supplemental jurisdiction over any potential 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, and to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

Tsinberg v. City of New York · filed 2021-03-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction before meaningful discovery has taken place, and far before trial, the Court dismisses Tsinberg’s state-law claims, too, without prejudice to his pursuit of those claims in state court.

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

Guy v. Board of Education Rock Hill Local Schools · filed 2021-03-25(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims asserted against Defendants should be dismissed, the Court no longer has original jurisdiction and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendant state-law claims asserted against them. See 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.

Roscoe v. Curry · filed 2021-03-26(c)(3)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, supplemental jurisdiction will be declined.

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

Blanch v. Schiff · filed 2021-03-26(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has failed to state any claims under Section 1983, there remain no claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint may liberally be construed to present, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and dismisses any such claims without prejudice.

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

Weston J. Stow v. P Robert P. McGrath, et al. · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

Since there are no longer claims in this action over which the court has original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stow’s related state- law claims. The court elects to do so.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims; judicial economy, convenience, and fairness guide that decision.

HARRISON v. THE CITY OF LANCASTER · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, a district court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims. ... Where, such as here, the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness require the court to hear the state law claims. ... None of these extenuating circumstances are present in this case, and therefore an extension of supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claims is unwarranted.

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.

Beseau v. Cooper · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims against NatCore for negligence and gross negligence.

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

Minion v. Lindsey · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

Moreover, as will be set forth below, the Court will grant the summary judgment motion as to the remaining federal claims against these Defendants, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. Consequently, the Court will not allow amendment of this 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, and to dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Aery v. Cremens · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

If a federal district court has dismissed all the federal claims over which the court has original jurisdiction, as is the case here, then the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims. ... The Court will follow normal practice and, accordingly, will dismiss the state law claims asserted against Cremens in his official capacity without prejudice.

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

Li v. Village of Saddle Rock · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

Therefore, to the extent any state law causes of action remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and they are dismissed without prejudice to renew in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); e.g., Manbeck, 640 F. Supp. 2d at 385.

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.

Arnoff v. Lorain County Jail · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of the federal claim at this early stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, which are better resolved by the Ohio state courts.

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.

Flannery v. Riverside Research Institute · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

Given that the Court has dismissed her only federal claim, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claim.

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

Doe v. Ohio Attorney General · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiff lacks standing to assert her First Amendment claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her parallel claims brought under the Ohio Constitution.

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

TYLER v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

Finally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Petitioners may have under the Pennsylvania Crime Victims Act given the dismissal of all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

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

Ahmadi v. Downey · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

The statutory provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) specifically grant a district court the discretion to retain or decline supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, such as plaintiff's section 1983 claims here. ... For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims in this case.

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

Nunes v. Fusion GPS · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

The Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendent state-law claim for tortious interference because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s RICO counts, the only claims arising under this Court’s 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.

Liu v. American Chemical Society · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

Because the federal claims in this case have been dismissed, the Court no longer has original jurisdiction over the case and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the DCHRA and D.C. Leave Act 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, including at the pleadings stage.

Callais Capital Management, LLC v. Wilhite · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

Here, this matter is dismissed at the pleadings stage, and only limited jurisdictional discovery was conducted. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over CCM’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; the court may weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Velazquez v. Westwego City · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

These factors, as well as the statutory factors set out in § 1367(c), weigh in favor of dismissing the Louisiana state law claim, without prejudice, so that Velazquez may assert this claim in a state court.

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

Eickenroth v. Roosen, Varchetti & Oliver, PLLC · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

Where, as here, the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly advised that the district courts should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. See e.g., Brown v. Cassens Transport Co., 546 F.3d 347, 363 (6th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with early dismissal before discovery and the state courts’ familiarity with state law favoring that choice.

Knight v. Standard Chartered Bank · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

All factors favor declining jurisdiction here. The Court here has dismissed the federal claims early in this action, on the pleadings, before discovery. The Court therefore has not acquired familiarity with the facts and evidence and parties in the case. And the surviving claims arise under a state law, the NYFCA, with which the state courts are presumed to have greater familiarity. ... The Court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here over plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

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

Aiello v. Brown · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, the Court has dismissed all federal law causes of action. When such 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.” Valencia ex rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 305 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). The Court finds no reason to deviate from this general principle here.

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. PSA Airlines, Inc. · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)

Given that the Court has dismissed all federal claims asserted in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims asserted against Defendant William “Billi” Mayfield.

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

Pinkston-Shay v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2021-04-01(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).

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

Dubose v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · filed 2021-04-02(c)(3)

Thus, having found that Dubose has failed to state a claim under federal law, and because Dubose has not alleged diversity jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Dubose’s state law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Frazier v. Jessen · filed 2021-04-02(c)(3)

Without a viable federal question to decide, the court will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that when a district court has disposed of all federal claims that conferred original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims). Usually, the dismissal of the federal claims “will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims,” Wilson v. Miller, 821 F.3d 963, 971 (8th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and the court finds no reason to make an exception here.

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

Stuart v. County of Nassau · filed 2021-04-05(c)(3)

Here, given the Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's §1983 claim, no circumstances counsel in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claim under the New York State Constitution for special damages arising out of his May 1, 1997 strip search.

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.

Johnson v. Summit Food Service · filed 2021-04-06(c)(3)

Because Johnson’s constitutional claims against Defendants have been dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), this Court denies to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s state-law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no claims within its original jurisdiction remain.

Ibsen v. Diaz · filed 2021-04-07(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the absence of any remaining claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ibsen’s state law claims.

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

Malley v. San Jose Midtown Development LLC · filed 2021-04-08(c)(3)

Having now dismissed the federal claims alleged against Defendants without leave to amend and given the early stage of this litigation, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Clendening v. Stillman, P.C. · filed 2021-04-08(c)(3)

Where, as here, the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly advised that the district courts should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. See e.g., Brown v. Cassens Transport Co., 546 F.3d 347, 363 (6th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Clendening’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

BARNES v. GEORGIA · filed 2021-04-09(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to all of Plaintiff’s federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise pendant or supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under § 1367(c)(3).

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

Myers v. Campbell County Detention Center · filed 2021-04-12(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed all of the plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court concludes that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) generally permits supplemental jurisdiction after the claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, but dismissal of all federal claims for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) bars supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

De La Rosa v. Aspenly Co. LLC · filed 2021-04-13(a)

Ordinarily, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) permits a district court to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissal of all claims within its original jurisdiction. However, the Second Circuit has held that dismissal of all federal claims for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) bars the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims. ... Nonetheless, Cohen is clear, and this Court must follow it. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over De La Rosa’s sole federal claim, it must dismiss the state-law claims too.

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

Alejandre v. County of San Joaquin · filed 2021-04-20(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims 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.

King v. City of Beacon Police Department · filed 2021-04-20(c)(3)

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

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

RICARD v. GEO GROUP, INC. · filed 2021-04-23(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Ricard's state tort and RFRA claims.

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

Boyer v. Williams · filed 2021-04-23(c)(3)

Because I am dismissing all the federal claims here, I will not exercise 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 federal claims within its original jurisdiction.

Davis v. Port Jervis Community Development · filed 2021-04-23(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff fails to state any federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law breach of contract and negligence claims Plaintiff seeks to raise in the complaint.

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

Murray v. Williamsville Central School District · filed 2021-04-26(c)(3)

Upon the dismissal of the First and Second Causes of Action, the only alleging original jurisdiction in this Court, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law Third Cause of Action, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and those claims are dismissed without prejudice, see 13D Federal Practice and Procedure, supra, § 3567.3, at 410 & n.46 (citing cases); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) (toll of statute of limitations during pendency of federal action); see 13 D Federal Practice and Procedure, supra, § 3567.3, at 410-11, § 3567.4, at 458.

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.

Harvey v. Cline · filed 2021-04-27(c)(3)

When a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, as is the case in the above-captioned action, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims. ... Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Defendants 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

(PC) McRae v. Dikran · filed 2021-04-28(c)(3)

The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 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.

Franklin v. Gomez · filed 2021-04-28(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Gilliam v. Porter McGuire Kiakona & Chow, LLP · filed 2021-04-28(c)(3)

If Plaintiff does not file a supplemental memorandum, the court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to § 1367(c) and will DISMISS them without prejudice to refiling 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.

Medina v. The City of New York · filed 2021-04-29(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Here, the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal law claims and declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Love v. CCMH Fisherman's Wharf LLC · filed 2021-05-03(c)

Under subsection (c) of that statute, however, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if,” among other reasons, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Love’s Unruh Act claim after dismissing his ADA claim.

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.

Powell v. Nash Edgecombe Economic Development, Inc. · filed 2021-05-03(c)(3)

As the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff Blue’s remaining state law claim.

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

Cho v. Osaka Zen Spa · filed 2021-05-03(c)(3)

However, when none of the claims providing the Court with original jurisdiction remain before the Court, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the surviving 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.

JACKSON v. TYNER · filed 2021-05-04(c)(3)

The Court will dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment malicious prosecution without prejudice, and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims of defamation and infliction of emotional distress.

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

Chompupong v. City of Schenectady · filed 2021-05-04(c)(3)

Here, all of the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed and this matter now involves only state law. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Burke v. Oates III · filed 2021-05-05(c)(3)

For these reasons, having determined that plaintiff's federal claims will be dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law gross negligence claims.

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

Adeyemi v. State of MD · filed 2021-05-05(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and the factors set forth in Carnegie–Mellon, 484 U.S. at 350, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to plaintiff’s defamation 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.

Allen v. Cole · filed 2021-05-07(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). ... Here, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims. Although it appears that Plaintiff may be able to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in order to assert his state law claims, the Court declines to do so for the reasons set forth in its prior order, see Allen v. Patton, ECF 1:21-CV-3434, 6.

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

Mercer v. Westchester Medical Center · filed 2021-05-07(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).

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

Jallow v. Department of Social Sevices of the City of New York · filed 2021-05-07(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal district court is authorized to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims once it has dismissed all of the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Smith v. Puget Sound Allergy, Asthma & Immunology · filed 2021-05-10(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In the absence of any viable federal claim, 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.

Pearson v. Apria Healthcare Group, Inc. · filed 2021-05-11(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claims in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Levine v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2021-05-11(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 the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Murphy v. City of Farmington · filed 2021-05-12(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment to the officers and dismisses the only federal claim at issue and the remaining claims are based entirely on state law, dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for wrongful death and loss of consortium is proper.

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.

Apel v. Pike County, Missouri · filed 2021-05-13(c)(3)

Having determined that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Apel’s other claims, the Court declines, in the interest of justice and judicial economy, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Apel’s remaining state law negligence claim.

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

Gallagher v. KT Lakeland Inc. · filed 2021-05-18(c)(3)

After the dismissal of Gallagher’s ADA claim—the claim over which the Court had original jurisdiction—the Court may now decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party 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.

Shwachman v. Town of Hopedale · filed 2021-05-19(c)(3)

Having concluded that Plaintiffs’ federal claims must be dismissed, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state law claims.

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

Norton v. ISD 197 · filed 2021-05-19(c)(3)

The Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Norton’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, upon consideration of the relevant factors.

Yang v. Eastman School of Music · filed 2021-05-19(c)(3)

In this case, the Court has dismissed all federal claims, and diversity jurisdiction does not exist. 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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Kasilus v. Astor Crowne Plaza, LLC · filed 2021-05-20(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when all the claims over which it had original Jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... Considering that all federal claims herein have been dismissed, the court in its discretion 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Pacific Steel Group v. Commercial Metals Company · filed 2021-05-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the federal 26 claims, the Court, in its discretion, declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining 27 state law claims unless and until PSG can state a valid federal 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 and fairness informing that choice.

MCINTOSH v. ATLANTIC CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2021-05-25(c)(3)

“[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if … (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c)(3). As discussed above, this Court will grant summary judgment to Defendants on all federal claims in the amended complaint and dismiss those claims with prejudice, leaving only state law claims. This Court is operating under a judicial emergency due to unfilled judicial vacancies,3 causing delay in adjudicating matters before the Court. Thus, for reasons of judicial economy and fairness to the litigants, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Vorobyev v. Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania · filed 2021-05-25(c)(3)

Here, we have found that Vorobyev’s federal claims are subject to dismissal at the outset of this litigation. Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion in this district, we should decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over potential ancillary state law claims in this case where all potential federal claims brought before us failed as a matter of law.

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

Beaulieu v. Stockwell · filed 2019-01-02(c)(3)

After more than two years of jurisdiction over this action, the Court finds that with respect to judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity, it is in the best interest of all concerned to retain jurisdiction over all claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when retaining the state claims would not serve judicial economy.

Lu v. Trustees of Tufts College · filed 2019-02-13(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Rivera Díaz v. Humana Ins. of P.R., Inc., 748 F.3d 387, 392 (1st Cir. 2014). Accordingly, because Lu’s federal claims are subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), and because there is no judicial economy in retaining jurisdiction, the state law claims are subject to dismissal as well.

After dismissal of all claims within original jurisdiction, § 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, but the court may retain them in the interest of judicial economy.

Talamo v. Fresenius Medical Care Management, AG · filed 2019-07-03(c)

Following the dismissal of all federal claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In the interest of judicial economy, the Court chooses to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Foster v. Jeter · filed 2019-07-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court has discretion as to whether to dismiss Plaintiffs’ state-law claims after dismissing the claims constituting the original basis for supplemental jurisdiction. Here, the Court chooses to continue exercising jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the absence of a novel or complex state-law issue is not itself a compelling reason to retain the remaining claims.

Detroit Street Partners Inc. v. Lustig · filed 2019-07-25(c)(3)

But the absence of a novel or complex issue of state law is not a “compelling reason[],” Brooks, 614 F.3d at 1230, to continue adjudicating state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and calls for declining them absent judicial economy, convenience, or fairness reasons to retain them.

Watters v. Board of School Directors of the City of Scranton · filed 2019-08-22(c)(3)

Here, the Court finds that there are no “considerations of judicial economy, convenience, [or] fairness to the parties” which merit this Court retaining jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, given that this Court has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, absent an affirmative justification to retain them based on judicial economy, convenience, or fairness.

ESTATE OF CLAYTON SMITH v. CITY OF WILDWOOD · filed 2019-08-30(c)(3)

In this case, there is no affirmative justification for retaining supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of this case, shall dismiss the remaining state law claims, and shall dismiss this portion of Defendants’ present motion as moot.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not justify retaining them.

Thompson v. State of Delaware Department of Services for Children Youth and Families · filed 2019-09-05(c)

Here, the Complaint fails to state a claim with respect to the federal claims in Counts I through VI, and no other considerations of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness have been raised. The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Thompson’s state law contract claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain related state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Raines v. American Federation of Teachers - Maryland Professional Employees Council, AFL-CIO Local 6197 · filed 2019-09-18(c)(3)

Accordingly, if the Court were to dismiss Counts I and II, it would not be automatically required to also dismiss the remaining Counts.

After all claims invoking original jurisdiction are dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims must be declined unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide an affirmative justification for retaining it.

KELLY v. BRISTOL TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2019-12-06(c)(3)

On the record here, there is no affirmative justification supporting the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. This case is at an early stage, the parties are all Pennsylvania citizens, and the remaining issues are strictly ones of state law.

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 when judicial economy supplies no significant reason to retain them.

Tryko Holdings, LLC v. City of Harrisburg · filed 2019-12-16(c)(3)

Rather, because we shall dismiss Counts I and II for failure to state a claim and because Plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment in Count II involves only state law, ... we shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction thereover. 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.”). Judicial economy dictates that there is no significant interest served by adjudicating these claims in federal court at this time and, because the Court lacks an independent basis to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, we shall dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety.

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

United States v. Western Surety Company · filed 2020-02-07(a), (c)(3)

Under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, however, the Court retains jurisdiction over state-law claims even after the dismissal of all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed, when no extraordinary circumstances favor retaining them.

INNOVATIVE METAL CRAFT, LLC v. WHALEY · filed 2020-04-29(c)(3)

Because no extraordinary circumstances are present in this case that would counsel in favor of this Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice to the parties’ right to pursue those claims in state court.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, in its discretion.

Mejia v. Wallace · filed 2020-05-30(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may still, in its discretion, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state- and local-law claims for which there otherwise would be no jurisdictional basis. See Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir. 1996); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367.