28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

PERRELLI v. Burke · filed 2003-12-30(c)(3)

Inasmuch as Perrelli’s false arrest claim was the only claim over which the Court had original jurisdiction, this Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state common law emotional distress claim and it is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after it has dismissed all federal claims.

Addams-More v. Chung San Holdings USA Ltd. · filed 2004-03-08(c)(3)

Because the district court correctly dismissed all of Appellant’s federal claims, the district court also had discretion to dismiss Appellant’s state law claims for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civil Code §§ 51, 52, and 54), intentional infliction of emotional distress, Cal. Civ.Code § 3294, and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Counts 10, 11, 12, 18, respectively). Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1143 n. 7 (9th Cir.2003); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Richards v. Connecticut Department of Corrections · filed 2004-12-10(c)(3)

Finally, the court, having dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, invokes its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismisses the state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress without prejudice to Richards’s refiling the claim in the appropriate forum.

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

Dziekan v. Gaynor · filed 2005-06-13(c)(3)

Plaintiffs remaining counts against defendants for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress are based on state law. Having dismissed all of the federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Golden v. CH2M HILL HANFORD GROUP, INC. · filed 2008-06-11(c)(3)

We therefore vacate the district court’s order dismissing Golden’s emotional distress claim resulting from exposure to nonradioactive materials and Mrs. Golden’s loss of consortium claim, and remand for the district court to determine whether it wishes to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any such claim, now that the federal claims have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline a state-law claim when no federal claim remains.

Bridgeforth v. TD Bank NA · filed 2011-02-14(c)

Because Bridgeforth stated no federal claim, the District Court did not err in declining to consider the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law.

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

Dickerson v. Prison Health Services Inc. · filed 2012-09-07(c)(3)

Having properly dismissed plaintiff’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims for negligent hiring and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

Mackenzie Brown v. Cuyahoga County, Ohio · filed 2013-03-15(c)(3)

With no federal claims remaining, the district court was within its discretion to dismiss Brown’s remaining state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 allows a district judge to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims 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 federal claims.

Karout v. McBride · filed 2014-03-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with business relationships.

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

Sudduth v. CitiMortgage, Inc. · filed 2015-01-28(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims oven which the Court had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim (a claim for emotional distress) and dismisses the 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.

Gohl ex rel. J.G. v. Livonia Public Schools · filed 2015-09-30(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiffs federal claims lack merit, the case does not retain a federal character. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law claims, including any alleged failure to report child abuse, assault, battery, gross negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, and intentional infliction of emotional distress contained in counts VI through IX, and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Sipes Ex Rel. Slaughter v. Russell · filed 2000-01-12(c)(3)

According to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Because the Court has dismissed plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law negligence claim.

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

Vashi v. Charter Township of West Bloomfield · filed 2001-06-28(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ federal claims as alleged in Counts I — III are hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ state claim of gross negligence as alleged in Count IV is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court declines exercising jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

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

O'Brien v. Maui County · filed 2002-06-04(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims once it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ...” As the district court properly dismissed the federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state law negligence claims as well.

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

Thorpe v. New Jersey · filed 2007-09-05(c)(3)

Additionally, the District Court appropriately declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Thorpe’s state law negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

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

Lopez v. Webster Central School District · filed 2010-01-15(c)(3)

When the Federal claims in a complaint have been dismissed, and only State claims remain, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1368 (1990). Such is the situation here. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining State cause of action alleging negligence. ... With regard to the remaining State law negligence claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.

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

Brown v. Beard · filed 2011-09-20(c)(3)

Furthermore, after dismissing the complaint, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider the state-law negligence and medical malpractice claims Brown raised in his “motion to supplement” (his second attempt to amend his complaint).

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.

Byrd v. Shannon · filed 2013-04-25(c)(3)

Because we will affirm the District Court‟s order granting summary judgment, along with its decision to decline reconsideration of its previous order, we will also affirm the District Court‟s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Byrd‟s state law negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . [if] the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (holding that when federal claims are dismissed before trial, federal courts should not separately entertain pendent state claims).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are subject to dismissal.

Tringali v. Attuso · filed 2014-04-24(c)(3)

Because of all the federal claims in this action are subject to dismissal, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state negligence claim after the federal claims are properly dismissed.

Jones v. County Jail CFCF · filed 2015-04-30(c)(3)

As we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed the federal claims, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the District ... Court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel, Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 181 (3d Cir. 1999).

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.

Maher Terminals, LLC v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey · filed 2015-10-01(c)(3)

And because the District Court correctly dismissed all of Maher’s federal claims over which it possessed original jurisdiction, the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Maher’s state-law negligence claim. See Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

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

Park v. Tsiavos · filed 2016-02-29(c)(3)

Now that the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs federal claim, and Plaintiff has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction, all that remains from his complaint are his state law negligence, assault, and battery claims. Pursuant to § 1367, the Court deems it appropriate to DISMISS Plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice to his right to refiling the claims in state court.

When federal claims are dismissed on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction, a district court has discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Walker v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Company · filed 2019-02-20(c)(3)

If the district court dismisses the federal claims on any basis other than for lack of jurisdiction, the court has discretion regarding whether to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Hansen v. Bd. of Tr. of Hamilton Se. Sch. Corp., 551 F.3d 599, 607 (7th Cir. 2008). Here, the district court did not dismiss the federal claims for lack of jurisdiction. And there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to resolve the state law retaliation claims on the merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when substantial judicial resources have been committed or the state-law claims are clear to decide.

FRANKLIN v. RANDOLPH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS · filed 2019-07-11(c)(3)

As such, the Court sees fit to retain jurisdiction under both the second and third prongs of the test set forth in RJW over the Franklins’ state law claims against the City of Winchester and against the Commissioners.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice when the federal claims fail at summary judgment.

Hatten v. Warden Bryan Bledsoe · filed 2019-08-07(c)(3)

Because Hatten’s federal Bivens and FTCA claims could not survive summary judgment, the District Court was well within its discretion to dismiss without prejudice the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when no federal claims remain.

Morgan-Buechner v. Buechner · filed 2019-08-22(c)(3)

Fourth, this Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 where there are no prevailing federal claims.

When all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of remaining state law claims without prejudice; retaining them requires a reason to depart from the usual practice.

Ploski v. City Of Chicago · filed 2019-08-26(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment on the sole claim (Count I) over which it has original jurisdiction, it must now address whether to retain jurisdiction over any remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Finding no justification for departing from that “usual practice” in this case,2 the Court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff’s asserted state law claim for indemnification (Count III), as well as his ... unasserted yet viable state law battery claim.

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor doing so.

KELLER v. PORTER · filed 2019-09-27(c)(3)

In Mr. Keller’s case, the relevant factors clearly weigh in favor of the Court accepting supplemental jurisdiction. Because there is no evidence to support any of the state law claims, it would be a waste of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, to the defendants and the state courts to have to address legal claims with no evidentiary support.

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court has discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

Norman v. City of Big Sandy · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

The district court, after dismissing all federal claims, retains discretion over whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any pendent state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 allows dismissal of state law claims against defendants whose federal claims are dismissed, while state law claims against defendants with surviving federal claims may proceed.

(PC) Lipsey v. Norum · filed 2019-10-10

Typically, federal courts will not exercise jurisdiction over pendent state law claims where the federal claims have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... To the extent plaintiff brings state law claims against those defendants, this court agrees that the state law claims against those ... defendants should be dismissed as well. However, defendants provide no basis to dismiss the state law claims against defendants remaining in this action.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claims and tolls the applicable state limitations periods during the federal action and for 30 days after dismissal.

Franck v. Bannock County · filed 2019-10-24(c), (d)

Because the Court will grant the motion to dismiss as to the federal claims it will dismiss the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), any applicable statutes of limitations on Franck's state law claims were tolled while this action was pending, and for an additional 30 days after this order of dismissal.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims.

Acosta, Reinaldo v. Maki · filed 2019-11-20(c)(3)

Because I am granting summary judgment for defendants on all of the federal claims, I will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Acosta’s state-law negligence claims under § 1367.

Section 1367(c) permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claim when the court is familiar with the complex facts and the litigation is at an advanced stage.

Doe v. The Grand Company, LLC · filed 2020-02-18(c)

Although the remaining claims are all matters of Michigan state law, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction on these claims because this Court is well versed ... in the complex facts of this case, which has proceeded to an advanced stage of litigation.

Section 1367 permits retaining a related state-law claim after dismissal of the federal claim when discovery is complete, dispositive motions have been filed, and the remaining claim presents no novel or close question of state law.

Bergantino v. City of Cranston · filed 2020-03-16(c)(3)

The Court finds that it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case. ... Furthermore, this case is not in the carly stages of litigation, as the parties have undertaken all discovery and filed the instant dispositive motions. Moreover, upon reviewing the applicable caselaw both parties have ably presented and the particular facts of this case at the well-developed summary judgment stage, the Court does not find that this case presents such a novel or close question of state law such that this Court cannot retain jurisdiction over the remaining assault claim against Mr. Valletta.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the federal claims for reasons of judicial efficiency.

Hall v. State of Maryland · filed 2020-09-22

Although Plaintiffs’ federal claims are dismissed, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows dismissal of remaining state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed.

Segar v. Barnett · filed 2020-11-09(c)(3)

Here, dismissal of the federal claims triggers the general rule in favor of dismissal of any remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily permits a district court to dismiss remaining state claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Stewart v. City of Euclid · filed 2020-12-15(c)(3)

Where all of Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed before trial, district courts are ordinarily justified in dismissing the remaining state claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain closely intertwined state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, weighing judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Casiano v. Ashley · filed 2021-01-28(c)(3)

The statute governing federal courts’ supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, “permits the district court to weigh and balance several factors, including considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants.” ... Because plaintiff’s federal and state claims are so closely intertwined, both legally and factually, in my discretion I grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to her claims of assault and battery.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss related state law claims after it dismisses all federal claims supporting original jurisdiction.

Cooper v. Edgewood Management Corporation · filed 2021-03-10(c)(3)

However, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss Plaintiff’s related state claims, rather than to proceed to adjudicate state law claims which do not independently qualify for the exercise of federal jurisdiction. Id. §1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 allows a district court to retain state law claims after dismissing the federal claim; clear state law and the delay from dismissal can support that choice.

Foss v. Marvic · filed 2021-04-12(c)(3)

There was no abuse of discretion in retaining the state law claims here given the clarity of state law, the district court's sound basis for disposing of the claims, and the additional time it would have taken to resolve the case if the court were to dismiss Foss's pendent claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when retention avoids substantial duplication of judicial effort and the claims can clearly be resolved.

Fountain v. Zimmer Inc. · filed 2021-05-20(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state-law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Requiring the state court to address these claims would cause a substantial duplication of effort. ... Lastly, the Court finds it is clear how the pendent claim can be decided. For these reasons, the Court elects to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Fountain’s state law claim.

Section 1367(a) supports dismissing state negligence claims without prejudice against a defendant when the federal claims against that defendant are dismissed.

Davis v. Furtick · filed 2021-07-06(a)

Because the court dismisses any federal claim against Prompt Care, the court will also dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s state law claims of negligence against Prompt Care. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; those state-law claims should be dismissed without prejudice.

Leonard v. Nokel LLC · filed 2021-07-19(c)(3)

When, as in the present case, the Court disposes of the federal claims and it has only supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, the Court should dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); Brown v. Cassens Transp. Co., 546 F.3d 347, 363 (6th Cir. 2008). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy and fairness favor retaining it.

Davis v. New Penn Financial LLC · filed 2021-07-22(c)(3)

In this case, however, the court concludes that judicial economy and fairness require the court to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims when the balance of relevant factors favors exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

ROSS v. FEDEX FREIGHT · filed 2021-09-21(c)

Because the Court has granted FedEx's Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Mr. Ross's federal claims, it must determine whether it will exercise jurisdiction over his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. ... The Court finds that the balance of factors weighs in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claim.

Oasis Foot & Ankle LLC v. HonorHealth · filed 2021-09-23(c)(3)

With no remaining federal claim to justify the exercise of supplemental 8 || jurisdiction over Oasis’ state law claims, the Court will dismiss the remaining claims.

Section 1367 allows a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after it has dismissed all federal claims.

Vargas-Santos v. Walmart, Inc. · filed 2021-10-12(c)(3)

When all federal claims have been dismissed by the Court, all state claims are to be dismissed as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims when comity, efficiency, and fairness favor retention.

West, Rufus v. Carr, Kevin · filed 2021-10-26(c)(3)

Here, principles of comity and efficiency, as well as the fairness to the parties, are all served by this court retaining jurisdiction over plaintiff’s breach of contract claim for purposes of entering non-monetary relief.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Herron v. Thomas · filed 2021-12-29(c)(3)

Herron’s federal claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. To the extent that Herron may assert state law claims, those claims are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Acebey v. Shearson Lehman Brothers · filed 1995-08-08(c)(3)

Given the court dismissed the federal claims on which its original jurisdiction rested, its decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law fraud claim is not an abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claim supplying original jurisdiction is dismissed.

Interbrew S.A. v. Edperbrascan Corp. · filed 1998-10-20(c)(3)

Because subject matter jurisdiction is based on Plaintiffs Exchange Act claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation 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.

Ehlert v. Singer · filed 1999-12-16(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law fraud claim and dismisses it as well.

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

Ruiz v. Kinsella · filed 2011-03-14(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims. Without a corresponding federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Illinois state law claims in Counts IV, V, VI, and VII for civil conspiracy, common law fraud, a violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and negligent misrepresentation.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that dismissed the claims within its original jurisdiction to defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims while the plaintiff has leave to amend the federal claims.

Mission Fitness Center, LLC v. Newsom · filed 2021-05-10(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In this case, the Court had original jurisdiction over claims one and two, which arose under the United States Constitution. Having dismissed those claims, the Court is disinclined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (holding that “when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice”). However, because plaintiffs have been granted leave to amend their federal claims, the Court will defer addressing the state-law claims until such time as plaintiffs file or decline to file 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; when granting leave to replead federal claims, the court may also grant leave to replead state-law claims.

Walker v. Brooklyn Public Defenders Office · filed 2021-05-07(c)(3)

“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(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.” Liverpool, 2019 WL 3745734, at *3 n.2 (internal quotations omitted). Because the Court grants Plaintiff leave to replead his federal claims, Plaintiff is also granted leave to replead his state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims when leave to amend may restore those claims and judicial economy favors keeping the claims together.

Tillman v. The New York City Department of Human Resources Administration · filed 2021-03-22(c)(3)

As an initial matter,at this stage, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city law claims despite dismissing her federal claims. ... Indeed, because the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend below,see infra at20-21,the Court expects that some or all Plaintiff’s claims will be repleaded in a further amended complaint. In light of that, judicial economy weighs in favor ofkeeping all of the claim together for now.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the federal claims fail and amendment would be futile.

Henry v. Department of Corrections · filed 2005-05-19

For the reasons given, Henry’s complaint did not state viable due-process or Eighth Amendment claims. We are also satisfied that it would be futile to remand for amendment of the complaint. Accordingly, we will affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint, including its decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Henry’s state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including claims a plaintiff seeks to add by amendment.

Eisenberg v. Wall · filed 2009-03-12(c)(3)

Because this Court concludes that all of Eisenberg’s federal claims must be dismissed, permitting Eisenberg to amend his complaint to add state law claims and thus remain in federal court is ill-advised. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to amend to add Litchfield as a defendant will be denied.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims without leave to amend.

Lane v. Stausboll · filed 2012-11-29(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lane’s state law claims after dismissing his federal claims without leave to amend. 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 the federal claims without leave to amend.

Shepard v. Munoz · filed 2014-07-03(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Shepard’s state law claims after dismissing his federal claims without leave to amend. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to consider remaining state-law claims after disposing of all federal claims when an anticipated amended federal claim makes immediate dismissal inefficient.

Debose v. University of South Florida · filed 2016-04-05(c)

Having disposed of all of the Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court would ordinarily dismiss the remainder of the Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). However, since the Plaintiff has indicated she intends to file a second amended complaint asserting claims under Title VII, the Court will analyze the Plaintiff’s state law claims to avoid future duplication of efforts.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to hear state claims after dismissing existing federal claims when an allowed amendment will add a federal claim.

Gallegos v. Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners · filed 2017-09-30(c)(3)

In this situation, the Court would not normally exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)(stating that district courts may consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). The Court has, however, entered an Order allowing Gallegos to amend his Complaint to add claims against to BCMDC guards, For this reason, the Court will decide the state law claims against Bernalillo County, because it still has federal-question jurisdiction over an about-to-be-filed § 1983 claim against new Defendants.

Section 1367(a) does not authorize supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when an amended complaint removes all federal claims, including in a removed case.

Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger · filed 2025-01-15(a)

Once the plaintiff has ditched all claims involving federal questions, the leftover state claims are supplemental to nothing—and §1367(a) does not authorize a federal court to resolve them.

Section 1367(a) does not preserve supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when an amended complaint deletes all federal claims, whether the case began in federal court or was removed there.

Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger · filed 2025-01-15(a)

Under that provision—as under Rockwell—an amendment excising all federal claims divests a court of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims in an original case. And if in an original case, then also in a removed case—because, again, § 1367(a) draws no distinction between the two.

Section 1367 does not preserve supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when dismissal of the sole federal claim effectively amends the complaint to remove the basis for federal jurisdiction.

Baldwin v. Kalispell School District 5 · filed 2025-01-24

Thus, in accepting Baldwin’s unopposed dismissal of her Title LX claim under Rule 41, the Court effectively permitted her to amend her complaint to remove the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction and, pursuant to Royal Canin, supplemental jurisdiction.

When an amended complaint in a removed action eliminates all federal claims, § 1367 does not sustain jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim, which must be remanded.

Whitley v. Nassau County Sheriff's Office · filed 2025-06-03(a)

In other words, any federal claims Whitley originally brought are no longer before the Court and the Court cannot adjudicate them. ... Because this action is being remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will deny the Motion to Dismiss as moot.

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

Parsons v. Pond · filed 2000-10-24(c)(3)

Because the court has granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ground of qualified immunity on all of Parsons’s federal constitutional claims and has dismissed Parsons’s section 1982 claim, the court will exercise its discretion to decline to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over Parsons’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims when no federal claims remain.

Herrera v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2008-12-19(c)(3)

Because there are no federal claims remaining after finding qualified immunity for Officer O’Brien, the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Young v. Akal · filed 2013-12-02(c)(3)

In the instant case, this Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, concluding the defendants in this matter are entitled to qualified immunity on all of the federal claims alleged. Considering the foregoing, this Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the Louisiana state law claims of the plaintiffs alleging negligence on the part of Sheriff Ackal and Sgt. Garcia, and the foregoing claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed, particularly when a new trial is required.

Bak v. Metro-North Railroad · filed 2016-05-24(c)(3)

Now, however, with all federal claims dismissed and new proceedings required, it is most appropriate for this case to be retried in a state court.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed when the state-law claims form part of the same case or controversy as surviving federal claims against other defendants.

Taylor, George v. Litscher, Jon · filed 2019-10-31(a)

Although I am granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding Taylor’s federal-law claims against these defendants, I can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims against these defendants if those claims “form part of the same case or controversy” as any surviving federal-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Because some of Taylor’s federal-law claims against Litscher and Dittmann may survive summary judgment, I will reserve ruling on these claims for now.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain related state claims against a defendant after dismissing the federal claim against that defendant when federal claims remain against other defendants.

VERMONT MOBILE HOME OWNERS'ASS'N v. LaPIERRE · filed 1997-11-12(c)(3)

Where a federal claim is dismissed as to a single defendant on statute of limitation grounds, a district court may retain subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims pertaining to that defendant if the state law claims are sufficiently related to federal claims against the remaining defendants. ... Accordingly, in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against RHI.

Section 1367 does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on the dismissal of federal claims against some defendants while federal claims against other defendants remain.

Busch v. City of Anthon, Iowa · filed 2001-11-09(c)(3)

However, the court could not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over common-law claims in this case, even if it had granted the City Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety. This is so, because “constitutional” claims upon which, federal jurisdiction is also premised have been asserted against the County Defendants, and those defendants have not moved for summary judgment.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims against a defendant even after the federal claims against that defendant are dismissed, when related federal claims remain against other defendants.

Miller v. Conway · filed 2002-09-03(c)

Parenthetically, the court notes that it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Miller's state law claims against Haycock, since they arise out of the same core of operative facts that give rise to Miller's federal claims. ... This is particularly true in this case, since some federal claims, arising out of the same operative facts, still remain against other defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction only after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction, including claims against other defendants.

Hansen v. Board of Trustees of Hamilton Southeastern School Corp. · filed 2008-12-23(c)(3)

Therefore, the district court’s discretion to relinquish jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) was never triggered, because the court did not dismiss “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(a) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed when federal claims against other defendants remain.

Carrillos v. Incorporated Village · filed 2015-02-20(a)

This ruling disposes of the federal claims against the Non-Village Defendants, but the Court shall retain supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims asserted against them, because it retains federal question jurisdiction over the Village’Defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims against some defendants while federal claims against other defendants remain pending.

Rice v. City of New York · filed 2017-07-26(c)(3)

Specifically, that claim is also asserted, and remains pending, against the City of New York, thé NYPD, several NYPD officers, and the Willoughby Defendants, as none of them has made a motion to dismiss it. As such, this Court has not dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim against an individual when federal claims remain against a corporate defendant.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Sharp · filed 2012-08-14(c)(3)

The problem, however, is that federal claims remain in this case — namely, those against Sharp Properties — even with the dismissal of the federal claims against Sharp individually. Accordingly, the “default” rule of declining supplemental jurisdiction is inapplicable, and the Court will not dismiss the conversion claim against Sharp.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against one defendant when related federal claims against other defendants remain pending.

J.L. v. Eastern Suffolk Boces · filed 2015-06-29(c)(3)

As noted above, the federal law claims against BOCES and the individual Defendants are still pending before this Court and are part of the same nucleus of operative facts as the remaining state law claims against the District. Under these circumstances, the Court sees no reason, nor does the District offer any, as to why the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against the District under Subsection 1367(c) and the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Section 1367 provides supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims supporting that jurisdiction remain in the case.

Bolyard v. Village of Sherman · filed 2020-11-24

Since the Court has not dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against a defendant whose federal claims were dismissed when a federal claim remains against other defendants.

GUERRIER v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE · filed 2021-08-05(a)

Even if the PPA were not to benefit from governmental immunity and all federal claims against them are dismissed, this Court would still have jurisdiction to hear the state law claims. Count 4 against Commonwealth Defendants, a Fourth Amendment claim, has not been dismissed. Therefore, under supplemental jurisdiction, this Court could still hear the state law claims if the PPA were not immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

A court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against one defendant when dismissal of the other defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction leaves no federal claims.

Theodorakis v. Stiftung · filed 2024-04-30

Because the Court concludes that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Williams or Bochsler, there are no remaining federal claims, and the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over DFINITY.

Section 1367 permits a court to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a related state claim against one defendant when federal claims against other defendants remain.

Woodson v. Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County · filed 2025-07-03(c)

Although the Court is adopting Judge Erwin’s recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claim against the Board, Plaintiff’s federal claim against the other Defendants currently remains, and that claim relies upon common issues of fact with Plaintiff’s state law claim against the Board.3 The Court, therefore, cannot say that there is an appropriate reason to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim against the Board at this juncture.

Section 1367(c) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that all federal claims were dismissed when a federal claim remains against another defendant.

Mau v. City and County of Honolulu · filed 2025-04-04(c)

Therefore, even by ... dismissing the first cause of action against MAI or McDonald, the Court still retains subject matter jurisdiction because the § 1983 claim remains against Defendants Prosecutor Kaneshiro, Deputy ... Prosecutor Delaplane, Investigator Branco, and Otani.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to retain state-law claims after disposing of the federal claims when discovery is complete and the case is ready for trial.

Tsetseranos v. Tech Prototype, Inc. · filed 1995-04-10(c)(3)

Having granted defendant's motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's two federal claims, the court notes that it has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law claims. ... However, in light of the fact that discovery has been completed and this case stands ready for trial, the court will retain jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when discovery is complete and the state-law issues are ready for timely disposition.

Mutual Medical Plans, Inc. v. County of Peoria · filed 2004-03-16(c)(3)

Although the Court would normally preserve the Plaintiffs’ state claims for review in state court, because all the issues were included in the summary judgment briefs after the close of discovery and they are capable of timely disposition, the Court will exercise its discretion to address them.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after all federal claims are dismissed, particularly when little judicial time has been invested.

McCoy v. Chevron USA Production, Inc. · filed 1999-02-03(c)

In light of the foregoing principles, the Court finds that the balance of factors weigh in favor of the Court declining to exercise its jurisdiction. The complete dismissal of all federal claims by agreement of the parties leaves the case dominated by the state law claim at issue. Further, the parties have briefed the summary judgment motion within the last several months, but the judicial time investment overall has been minimal, involving mainly scheduling and extensions.

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, especially when it has devoted little attention to the state law claims.

Anderson v. Marshall County, Mississippi, e · filed 2016-01-12(c)(3)

Section 1367 explicitly authorizes a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Here, the district court had dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Further, the district court had not devoted significant judicial resources to the state law claims or become “intimately familiar” with Anderson’s state law arguments. See Batiste v. Island Records Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 228 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

After all federal claims are eliminated before trial, minimal prior judicial effort does not overcome the presumption that supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims should be relinquished.

L.M. v. Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

The minimal judicial resources that have been expended so far are nothing to what resolving L.M.’s state law claims may require in the future. And the Court does not see how the state court will be forced to duplicate the efforts spent thus far here in federal court. ... For these reasons, the Court DECLINES to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over L.M.’s remaining claims, GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. 55), and REMANDS this action to the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the federal claims at the pleadings stage, particularly in a politically sensitive case.

Gordon v. Griffith · filed 2000-03-16(c)(3)

Dismissal of the federal claims at the pleadings stage makes exercise of pendent jurisdiction in this politically sensitive case undesirable.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows dismissal of supplemental state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed at the pleading stage.

Mahon v. Staff Line, Inc. · filed 2004-06-10(c)(3)

... First, as the district court found, the dismissal of her federal claims at the pleading stage entails the dismissal of her pendant state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims when federal claims are dismissed at the pleading stage and comity favors resolution in state court.

Devaney v. Kilmartin · filed 2015-02-12(c)(3)

In this instance, with the federal questions disposed of at the pleading stage, principles of comity auger strongly in favor of dismissal without prejudice, leaving Mr. Devaney free to bring his nuisance claims in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed at the pleadings stage.

Parham v. Seattle Service Bureau, Inc. · filed 2016-02-02(c)(3)

Applying the foregoing principles to this case, it is clear that the Court should refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs remaining state law claim. This case has not yet progressed beyond the pleadings’ stage, and given that there are no pending federal claims, a state tribunal is better equipped to resolve any remaining issues between the parties. Accordingly, to the extent that the Plaintiff fails to plead a basis for federal jurisdiction in his amended complaint, the Court will dismiss the Plaintiffs remaining state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(a) makes dismissal of related state claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction premature when an individual federal claim remains within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Geanta v. Compass Health, Inc. · filed 2017-01-17(a)

Because the district court erroneously premised its dismissal of Geanta’s individual claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over Geanta’s class claims, dismissal of Geanta’s related state claims was premature.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain jurisdiction over related state claims after considering its statutory factors and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Cooper v. City of Dallas, Texas · filed 2017-01-26(c)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand because it properly considered the factors in § 1367(c) along with the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in determining that it would retain jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same case or controversy as federal claims and allows the court to retain those claims in its discretion.

Zubko-Valva v. The County of Suffolk · filed 2022-06-17(a), (c)

Those claims arise from the “same case or controversy” as the state law claims against Ms. McCabe, Ms. Curti, Mr. Halpern, and their respective legal organizations: the actions of public and private officials that allowed the abuse of Mrs. Valva’s children by Mr. Valva and Ms. Pollina to continue, eventually resulting in Tommy’s death. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). I thus have supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and decline to exercise my discretion to dismiss them. See id. § 1367(a), (c).

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state assault and battery claims when related federal excessive force claims pass initial review.

Goodman v. Moose · filed 2023-08-29

Because the excessive force claims have passed initial review, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s North Carolina assault and battery claims at this time.

Section 1367(a) allows a district court hearing federal claims to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state tort claims.

Graziano v. Miller · filed 2025-09-18(a)

When a plaintiff alleges federal law claims that fall within this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law causes of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Considering some of the First Amendment retaliation claims and the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims will survive the court’s screening of the amended complaint, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction and allow the state tort law claims to proceed.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims when the court exercises federal question jurisdiction over a federal claim.

Henry · filed 2026-01-07(a)

Defendants’ jurisdictional challenges are denied because federal question jurisdiction is properly exercised over plaintiffs’ federal claim and supplemental jurisdiction is properly exercised over the remaining state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional claim after the federal claims are dismissed.

Maschmeier v. Scott · filed 2007-06-28(c)

In the exercise of its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Florida Constitutional claim and this portion of the case will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state constitutional claim after dismissing the federal claims, especially when the state court is better equipped to interpret its constitution.

Doran v. Contoocook Valley School District · filed 2009-03-25(c)

Plaintiffs deserve a full and fair hearing on this issue, and because the state court is better equipped to interpret the distinctive contours of the state constitution’s analog to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, this court, pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional claim after dismissing the federal claims, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Burgess v. Town of Wallingford · filed 2014-06-12(c)

The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on this claim after dismissing his causes of action brought under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). We detect no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of these claims without prejudice.

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

Byrd v. District of Columbia · filed 2003-12-29(c)(3)

These federal civil rights claims provided the Court with subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common law claims, but instead will dismiss them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

Section 1367 supports dismissal of remaining state and common law claims for lack of jurisdiction after the federal claims are disposed of.

Jacobsohn v. Marks · filed 1993-04-01

Plaintiffs federal claims being thus disposed, her common and state law claims should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a common law claim when it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Forbes v. Reno · filed 1995-06-27(c)(3)

To the extent that Forbes is attempting to state a common law fraud claim against the individual defendants, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Delaney v. Town of Carmel · filed 1999-06-29(c)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims against Carmel, I decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state common law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over common law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Harris v. U.S. Dep't of Justice · filed 2009-03-05(c)(3)

Even if Harris had stated, or could state, a common law tort claim against Barber, because all the federal claims and federal defendants in this action will be dismissed for reasons that will be explained below, this Court would decline supplemental jurisdiction of the common law claims alleged against Barber.

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

Harris v. United States of America · filed 2009-03-09(c)(3)

Even if Harris had stated, or could state, a common law tort claim against Barber, because all the federal claims and federal defendants in this action will be dismissed for reasons that will be explained below, this Court would decline supplemental jurisdiction of the common law claims alleged against Barber. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over common law claims after dismissing the federal claim.

Edwards v. Inglehart · filed 2009-09-01(a)

Finding no facts to support a claim that the individually named defendants violated the Constitution or federal law, the Court dismisses the federal claim and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any common law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state common law claims when the claims supporting original federal jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Quail Cruises Ship Management Ltd. v. Agencia De Viagens CVC Tur Limitada · filed 2010-08-06(c)(3)

2. Quail’s pendent state common law claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Davis v. District of Columbia · filed 2011-07-21(c)(3)

Because the remaining common law claims against the District were before the Court pursuant to its supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), the court may decline to entertain those claims if the claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

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

Johnson v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-08-25(c)(3)

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any common law claims.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain a state law claim when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor doing so.

O'Connor v. Spain · filed 2015-02-05(c)(3)

Nonetheless, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after all claims within its original federal jurisdiction have been dismissed or resolved against the plaintiff.

Lamar Advertising of South Dakota, Inc. v. City of Rapid City · filed 2015-09-29(c)(3)

“Under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, - a court may dismiss state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original federal question jurisdiction.” ... Therefore, the court dismisses plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to dismiss remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Jones v. Lockheed Martin Corporation · filed 2016-01-07(c)(3)

The district court also properly dismissed Jones’s remaining state-law claims when it dismissed his ADA claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy justifies resolving the state-law claims in federal court.

Sarpolis Ex Rel. Estate of Milller v. Tereshko · filed 2016-01-07(c)(3)

Because the District Court already had before it the statute-of-limitations issue, remand would merely have wasted judicial resources by requiring the defendants to make substantially the same arguments in state court. The interest of judicial economy thus justified the District Court’s retaining jurisdiction over the fraudulent inducement claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Harris v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority · filed 2016-03-28(c)(3)

As the Court can conceive of no undue inconvenience or unfairness to the litigants that would result from its adjudication of the claims arising under the laws of the District, it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs non-federal causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after all federal claims have been resolved.

Gray v. Royal · filed 2016-03-31(c)(3)

Because no federal cause of action remains in this suit, Plaintiffs’ state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims when no federal claims remain.

Kentucky Mist Moonshine, Inc. v. University of Kentucky · filed 2016-06-23(c)(3)

To the extent KM makes state law claims, they will be dismissed because there are no remaining federal claims.

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

Rivero v. Montgomery County · filed 2017-05-03(c)(3)

In other words, dismissal of related state-law claims is not mandatory when a court dismisses all of the federal claims in a complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the court discretion to retain state law claims after dismissing the federal claim.

Wiedis v. Dreambuilder Investments, LLC · filed 2017-07-18(c)(3)

As to Defendants’ request that the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction over the. remaining state law claims, the request is declined. The ability to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the claims is discretionary. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). There is no novel issue of state law present. And, most importantly, diversity jurisdiction exists as to the. remaining claims: there is complete diversity of parties and the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction is proper.

Section 1367 permits a district court to resolve state-law claims even after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Patel v. Portfolio Diversification Grou · filed 2017-08-09

District judges can use the supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §1367, to resolve state-law claims even after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims before trial.

Roldan v. Cicero · filed 2018-03-26(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court also dismisses Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining local law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Canady v. Providence Hospital · filed 1995-10-11(c)(3)

For the reasons stated below, I have concluded that plaintiff has failed to state a claim arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining local law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a supplemental local-law claim after the federal claim supporting jurisdiction is dismissed.

Neal, James H. v. DC · filed 1997-12-16(c)(3)

Although it is unclear on what basis the district court originally dismissed this claim, Neal concedes that, if the district court's dismissal of his section 1983 claim was proper, it would also have been proper for the district court to dismiss his claim under D.C. law for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. s 1367(c)(3).5 We thus affirm the district court's dismissal of this claim.

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

Becker v. Gallaudet University · filed 1999-07-21(c)

In light of this determination, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ local law claims in Counts V-VIII. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may dismiss local law claims that are within its supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and municipal law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Adler v. Kent Village Housing Co., Inc. · filed 2000-11-21(c)

With no federal claims remaining, the Court, in the exercise of discretion, declines to entertain plaintiffs’ state and municipal law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a supplemental local-law claim after the federal claims are dismissed.

Gelabert-Ladenheim v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 2001-06-12(c)(3)

The dismissal of Gelabert's pendant local law claim was proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); Figueroa-Ruiz v. Alegria, 896 F.2d 645, 650 (1st Cir. 1990).

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.

Bernstein v. the MONY Group, Inc. · filed 2002-10-17(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state and local law claims in light of the dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs federal causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; minimal discovery and judicial investment favor dismissal.

Ord v. District of Columbia · filed 2008-08-29(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that a district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over related non-federal claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” ... Because there has been no discovery in this case and the investment of judicial resources has been minimal, the Court concludes that the dismissal of Ord’s common law claims is warranted.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Menes v. City University of New York Hunter College · filed 2008-09-25(c)

The Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal claims, leaving only claims asserted under New York State and New York City law. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court may decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over these claims. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ remaining state and city law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Fernandez v. Jones · filed 2009-09-02(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... That being the case here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining local law claims.

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

POWERS-BUNCE v. District of Columbia · filed 2009-10-05(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... That being the case here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining local law claims.

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

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2741 v. District of Columbia · filed 2009-10-26(c)(3)

In light of the insubstantial nature of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, the Court sees no reason to retain jurisdiction over the remaining claims under D.C. law (Counts II and III).

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

Cohen v. District of Columbia · filed 2011-01-13(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss the only claim under federal law, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining local law claims. Those local law claims will be remanded to Superior Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining local-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not favor retaining them.

Henry v. NYC Health & Hospital Corp. · filed 2014-03-10(c)(3)

As noted, the standard of liability is materially different under the NYCHRL from that under Title VII and the NYSHRL; thus, the Court has not invested the judicial resources necessary to resolve those claims. Moreover, dismissing the city-law claims now, at the motion to dismiss stage, would not cause substantial delay, because the parties have not yet engaged in discovery. The Court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYCHRL claims. These claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Bowen-Hooks v. City of New York · filed 2014-03-31(c)(3)

“District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to address Plaintiffs claims under the NYCHRL.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local-law claims when it dismisses all federal claims early, before substantial discovery or trial preparation.

Rivera-Díaz v. Humana Insurance of Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2014-04-11(c)(3)

Consequently, its decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's local-law claims was well within the encincture of its discretion.

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

Castro v. City of New York · filed 2014-06-05(c)(3)

I therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state and local law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy favors deciding them.

Carmichael v. City of Cleveland · filed 2014-07-07(c)(3)

In the interest of judicial economy, the district court properly ruled on both the federal and state-law claims. The re-filing of Plaintiff’s complaint in state court would have in all likelihood meant the re-filing of Defendants’ motions, which would then require a state court to repeat much of the same process. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim after dismissing the federal claims.

Sack v. St. Francis Hosp. · filed 1993-03-01

On appeal, Mr. Sack has also raised several miscellaneous claims concerning the district court's refusal to consider the pendent state claim of negligent medical treatment and the failure of the district court to consolidate this case with the prior action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma or alternatively to reopen the prior case. After carefully reviewing the record, we must conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing jurisdiction over the negligence claim and that Mr. Sack's other allegations are meritless.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state tort claims when the federal claims are without merit.

Ruh v. Samerjan · filed 1994-08-01(c)(3)

Because Ruh's federal claims are without merit, the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing the pendent state tort claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law tort claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Nikko Asset Management Co. v. UBS AG, UBS Warburg (Japan), Ltd. · filed 2004-02-11(c)(3)

Further, Nik-ko’s tort claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation are also dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state tort claim after dismissing all federal claims.

Scott v. Martin · filed 2004-09-16(c)(3)

Finally, the magistrate judge was correct in concluding that Scott could not state a claim of a Fourth Amendment violation due to the search and seizure of items in his prison cell, Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525-26, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), as well as in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Scott’s state tort claim following the dismissal of all federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Williams v. Riley · filed 2007-03-09(c)(3)

However, since the plaintiffs federal claims should be dismissed with prejudice, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the claims against that defendant within the court’s original jurisdiction are dismissed with prejudice.

Weinstein v. City of North Bay Village · filed 2013-09-26(c)(3)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law battery claim (Count VIII) if all of the claims against McVay in which the Court has original jurisdiction are dismissed ultimately with prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice and allow refiling in local court when it dismisses the federal claims against that defendant.

Avilés v. Figueroa · filed 2016-07-16

For the above state reasons, the Court orders the following with respect to the motion to dismiss at Docket No. 12: (1) the motion to dismiss both direct and supervisory liability 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims brought against Co-Defendant Estrada Figueroa is GRANTED and dismissed with prejudice; (2) accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, supplemental state law claims against Estrada Figueroa are dismissed without prejudice and Plaintiff has leave to refile his claims in local court; and (3) the motion to dismiss with respect to all claims against Co-Defendant Martinez-Ortiz is DENIED.

Section 1367(d)’s voluntary-dismissal language does not extend tolling when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses only claims asserted under supplemental jurisdiction.

Buchan, J. v. The Milton Hershey School · filed 2019-03-27(d)

Thus, because Appellant did not voluntarily dismiss any claims other than those she asserted in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction, the “voluntarily dismissed” language of Section 1367(d) does not apply to Appellant’s claims. Accordingly, Appellant cannot rely on Section 1367(d) to render her otherwise untimely state Complaint timely.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims against the same defendants.

Hunter 242663 v. Custin · filed 2020-09-28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Meagher, Rykse, Thoma, and Barnett are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction when resolving the state claim on the merits would be expeditious.

Newsom Ex Rel. Newsom v. Stanciel · filed 1994-05-02(c)(3)

The statutory grant of jurisdiction is discretionary, even after the court no longer has original jurisdiction. ... The court recognizes the tremendous time and expense incurred by the parties to date, but since sovereign immunity bars plaintiffs state law claim of wrongful death, it is appropriate to maintain supplemental jurisdiction in order to dispose of the plaintiffs state law claim on the merits in an expeditious manner.