28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over parallel state discrimination claims after dismissing the federal claims on the merits.

Noyer v. Viacom, Inc. · filed 1998-11-05(c)

The federal claims of gender and pregnancy discrimination must therefore be dismissed, and the Court, exercising its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs parallel state law claims of gender and pregnancy discrimination, likewise dismisses them on the identical grounds.

Section 1367(c) leaves the district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed on the merits.

Crater Corporation v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. And American Telephone and Telegraph Company, and United States · filed 2001-06-06(c)

Even though Crater’s patent infringement claims were properly dismissed, the district court, still has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claim has been resolved on the merits.

Baker v. Adventist Health, Inc. · filed 2001-08-06(c)(3)

The remaining state law claims were dismissed because the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. There was no abuse of discretion, since the federal claim had been disposed of on the merits.

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

Field v. Michigan · filed 2003-03-28(c)(3)

However, if the federal claims were dismissed on the merits, the question of whether to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claims rests within the Court’s discretion. ... Thus, pursuant to this Section 1367(c), the Court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in this case.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court discretion to decide a supplemental state-law claim on the merits after dismissing the federal claim.

Alcazar v. Corp. of the Catholic Archbishop · filed 2010-03-16(c)

The district court acted within its discretion to dismiss the Washington Minimum Wage Act claim on the merits rather than dismissing the claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Dahl v. Dahl · filed 2014-02-20(c)

Given its ruling on the ERISA claim, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to continue its jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim when its analysis shares no common elements with the federal claim.

Poneman v. Nike, Inc. · filed 2016-02-09(a)

Because the analysis required to evaluate Plaintiffs consumer fraud claim does not share any common elements with his federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the last state claim.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Central Delta Water Agency v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service · filed 2009-09-08(a)

Dismissal of all Federal claims under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction precludes the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Sokolowski v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2012-03-28(c)(3)

Because the plaintiffs federal claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims and dismisses them without reaching the merits.

Section 1367 does not permit a federal court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Trader Joe's Co. v. Hallatt · filed 2013-10-02

When a federal claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a federal court cannot retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

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

Richardson v. Bedford Place Housing Phase I Associates · filed 1994-03-16(c)(3)

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED [6-1]. The court additionally declines to exercise jurisdiction over the pendent state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) does not justify dismissing a supplemental state-law claim when federal claims remain after a motion to dismiss.

Smith v. Copeland · filed 1995-04-25(c)(3)

The final argument of defendants' motion to dismiss is that plaintiff's state law tort claim in Count III should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) in the event that all of plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed. Because several of plaintiff's constitutional claims have not been defeated by the motion to dismiss, this argument must necessarily be rejected.

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

W.C. & A.N. Miller Companies v. United States · filed 1997-05-06(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s ruling with respect to the government’s motion to dismiss the homeowners claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the homeowner’s claims against Miller. ... However, under § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a remaining state-law tort claim after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Sawhney v. Mobil Oil Corp. · filed 1997-07-10(c)(3)

Because this Court will dismiss plaintiffs federal claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining tort-law claim.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiffs fail to state a federal claim.

Steinhardt Group Inc. v. Citicorp · filed 1997-09-12(c)(3)

Inasmuch as the plaintiffs have failed to state a federal claim under rule 12(b)(6), we find that no basis exists for retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim to remain in place when the federal claims survive dismissal.

Mason v. K Mart Corp. · filed 1998-01-30(a)

Plaintiff has alleged a state law battery claim and invoked the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Defendant sought to dismiss this claim if Counts I and II were dismissed. Since the Court has denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II, the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the battery claim remains intact. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count III is therefore denied.

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

Riley v. St. Louis Cty. · filed 1998-08-13(c)(3)

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we affirm the district court's dismissal of count I with prejudice for Riley's failure to state a claim under section 1983. We also affirm the district court's dismissal of counts II and III without prejudice based on the district court's decision not to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Oldham Ex Rel. Young v. Cincinnati Public Schools · filed 2000-10-24(c)(3)

However, now that this Court has concluded that Defendants are entitled to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on Plaintiffs federal claim, the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state law ... claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when there is no affirmative justification to retain them.

White v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2000-10-27(c)(3)

The Court concludes that there is no affirmative justification to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims in this case. Because the Court will grant defendant’s motion to dismiss as to the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law wrongful death and survival actions brought against the Officers in their individual capacities, and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc. · filed 2001-09-10(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court hereby exercises its discretion to DECLINE continuing jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES both the Sixth and the Eleventh Claims for Relief, to the extent they survive the Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice to their re-filing in state court.

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

Knaust v. City of Kingston · filed 2002-03-26(c)(3)

Having granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ taking claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Lowe v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. · filed 2002-06-03(c)

Plaintiffs fifth and sixth causes of action assert claims under New York law, pursuant to this court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Since plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed for failure to state a claim, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims, and they are dismissed.

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

Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Boyle · filed 2002-05-23(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... Since all of plaintiffs’ federal claims have been dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and since there are no exceptional circumstances here, this Court will not exercise pendent jurisdiction in this case over Counts III-XI.

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.

King v. Riverside Regional Medical Center · filed 2002-07-31(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Defendants’ motion to dismiss has been granted on Count I, the only count over which plaintiff alleged this court had original jurisdiction. Therefore, the court finds it prudent to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in Count II.

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

McKinney v. Carey · filed 2002-12-05(c)(3)

The complaint in No. 01-56627 includes claims based on state law, thus invoking the supplemental jurisdiction of the district court. Having concluded in response to a motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs federal claims had to be dismissed, the district court appropriately declined to exercise its supplementary jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

Tenney v. Iowa Tribe of Kansas · filed 2003-01-07(c)

Even if the court regarded this dismissal as one for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, we would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim.

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

Fields v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. · filed 2004-01-27(c)(3)

Because plaintiff did not file her charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of the last act of discrimination complained of, defendant’s motion to dismiss Count IV of the complaint is granted. Plaintiffs remaining claims for relief are based on state law. This Court declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction over those state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed.

Amato v. UPMC · filed 2005-04-21(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ federal claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The report and recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the court.

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

Schor v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2005-07-12(c)(3)

Because the court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss Count I, it need not reach defendant’s alternative arguments that plaintiff failed to allege market power or that plaintiff lacks standing as an indirect consumer to pursue injunctive relief. In addition, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

McCloskey v. Mueller · filed 2005-09-06(c)(3)

Because I am granting the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss, I will decline to exercise jurisdiction of the Plaintiffs claims against Sampson, all of which arise under Massachusetts 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.

Thiel v. Nelson · filed 2006-03-24(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because I am granting defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to each of plaintiffs’ federal claims, no claims remain within this court’s original jurisdiction. Therefore, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when none of the federal claims survives dismissal.

Catone v. Brink · filed 2007-04-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims because, as set forth above, none of Plaintiffs federal claims survive Defendants’ Motion to dismiss.

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

Russell-Allgood v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. · filed 2007-06-06(c)(3)

However, because the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the two federal claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs sole remaining claim of state law defamation.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when limitations concerns make dismissal likely to foreclose those claims.

Heenan v. Leo · filed 2007-11-30(c)(3)

Moreover, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [a claim that forms part of the same case or controversy] if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Here, plaintiffs constitutional claims will be dismissed and the amount in controversy is insufficient for the Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction. However, the Court is mindful that due to statute of limitation considerations, dismissal of plaintiffs common-law claims in this Court will likely foreclose his ability to pursue these claims at all. Accordingly, although judicial economy and considerations of comity might ordinarily militate in favor of dismissing plaintiffs common-law claims, the Court will DENY defendants’ motion to dismiss these claims at this time.

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

Walters v. Seattle School District No. 1 · filed 2008-09-15(c)

For the foregoing reasons, this court DISMISSES the federal claims against the Seattle Times without prejudice for failure to state a claim and declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing those claims without prejudice.

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

Prescott v. State of Florida · filed 2009-04-21(c)(3)

Furthermore, because the district court correctly dismissed the Appellants’ federal claims for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, ... the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction; dismissal of that federal claim for failure to state a claim ordinarily favors declining jurisdiction.

Kline v. Mortgage Electronic Security Systems · filed 2009-09-21(c)(3)

When a court dismisses a plaintiff's only claim over which it has original jurisdiction (i.e., a federal claim), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it should decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state law claim when it dismisses the federal claim for failure to state a claim.

Voss v. Saint Martin Cooperative · filed 2010-05-25(c)

In these circumstances, the appropriate disposition is to dismiss the federal claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Green ex rel. D.G. v. Nicholas County School District · filed 2010-12-15(c)(3)

Therefore, while Defendant makes arguments invoking governmental immunity under the Kentucky constitution and other arguments relating to Plaintiffs failure to state a claim under Kentucky law, this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), exercises its discretion not to make “[n]eedless decisions of state law,” and shall dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs remaining claims against the Nicholas County School District.

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

Barker v. City of Boston · filed 2011-07-05(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, Boston’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 21, is allowed as to Count I of the Amended Complaint. Out of respect for the courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II, III, and IV, which implicate only issues of Massachusetts law.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Clark v. IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY · filed 2011-07-07(a)

A dismissal for failure to state a claim involves an exercise of original jurisdiction, so the court had authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim derived from a common nucleus of operative fact.

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

Ruffins v. Department of Correctional Services · filed 2012-11-02(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims given the absence of any federal claims that survive the motion to dismiss and dismisses such state claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the case remains at the pleading stage and little judicial effort has gone into the state claims.

Bianchi v. McQueen · filed 2013-01-11(c)(3)

Dismissal without prejudice of the state law claims also is appropriate here because the case is only at the motion to dismiss stage and substantial judicial resources have not been committed to the eight state law counts in Plaintiffs’ complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local-law claims after dismissing the only federal claim, especially when the case has not progressed beyond a motion to dismiss.

Harris v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority · filed 2013-02-13(c)(3)

Here the factors weigh against retention of the case. This Court is dismissing the only federal claim against Defendant. This case has not progressed in federal court past Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and the Court has developed no familiarity with the issues presented.

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

Wilson v. Isle of Wight County · filed 2013-03-05(c)(3)

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Because Plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to consider the. remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally favors declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed at the pleading stage, with the state-law claims dismissed without prejudice.

Haynes v. Zaporowski · filed 2013-04-02(c)(3)

We conclude that, as all federal claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim, the court should have declined to entertain supplemental jurisdiction over Haynes's state-law claims, and the judgment should have dismissed the latter claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of all federal claims, with a strong presumption against retaining state claims after a pleading-stage dismissal absent unusual circumstances.

Kyrkanides v. University of Kentucky · filed 2019-11-19(c)(3)

Having found the only federal claims deficient under Rule 12, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kyrkanides’s pendent state law claims. ... The Court sees nothing, on this record, to overcome the weighty presumption against exercising supplemental jurisdiction in this scenario. This case is in its infancy.

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

Witte v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough · filed 1992-03-09(c)(3)

I therefore DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Witte’s federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURT her supplemental state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(C)(3).

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

Lake v. State Bd. of Elections of North Carolina · filed 1992-03-31(c)(3)

In Plaintiffs’ final claim for relief, they seek to invoke this court’s supplemental jurisdiction, asking that we review the State Board of Elections’ decision in lieu of the review provided in the Superior Court of Wake County under North Carolina General Statute § 163-181. Since the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims under the Voting Rights Act and § 1983 will leave no other federal claim before the court, Plaintiffs’ state law claims will also be dismissed.

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

Coker on Behalf of Coker v. Henry · filed 1993-02-18(c)(3)

Upon dismissal of the § 1983 claims which form the basis for this Court’s original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Flood v. County of Suffolk · filed 1993-05-14(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the asserted state law claims.

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

Sheppard v. Beerman · filed 1993-05-21(c)(3)

This § 1983 action must be dismissed because plaintiff cannot state a cognizable claim for a First or Fourth Amendment violation under any set of facts as a matter of law. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs pendent state law tort claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).

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

Kruse v. State of Hawaii · filed 1994-07-11(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. All of the remaining claims in this case are based on state law; plaintiffs had invoked this court’s jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because this court has dismissed the § 1983 claims, it remands the action to state court for consideration of the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after the federal claim is dismissed.

Cindy L. Cameron and Lawrence M. Cameron v. James McCauley Seitz, Monroe County Probate Court · filed 1994-10-21(c)(3)

Of course, with the dismissal of the § 1983 claim, original jurisdiction over the state tort claim is lacking, and the district court has discretion as to whether to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without reaching their merits after it disposes of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Shelton v. Wallace · filed 1995-04-19(c)(3)

Having granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the Sheltons’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against defendants, this court dismisses the supplemental State claims without reaching their merits.

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

Staples v. Virginia Department of Corrections · filed 1995-07-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiff’s federal claims brought pursuant to the ADA and § 1983, this court will dismiss plaintiff’s supplemental state claims brought pursuant to the Virginians with Disabilities Act (VDA). 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.

Backlund v. Hessen · filed 1995-11-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s § 1981 and § 1983 claims and finding that there is no other claim over which it has original jurisdiction, ... the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a remaining supplemental claim after all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Kenneth George Morris and Judy Irving Morris v. United States of America, Kenneth George Morris and Judy Irving Morris v · filed 1996-01-18(c)(3)

Because the Morrises' remaining claim was not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, dismissal was justified after the court had dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

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

Rodgers v. Parole Agent SCI-Frackville, Wech · filed 1996-02-26(c)(3)

Finally, I note that, because plaintiff has not presented a viable federal claim under § 1983, plaintiffs second claim can be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs second claim is a state law claim based on the Pennsylvania Constitution, and thus does not present an independent federal question. This court is not bound to entertain such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal claim survives dismissal.

Hawley v. Nelson · filed 1997-04-04(a)

This Court having determined that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against any of the defendants, and there being no federal law claim which survives the defendants' motions to dismiss, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over any claim under Missouri state law.

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

Brownson v. Bogenschutz · filed 1997-06-05(c)(3)

Accordingly, the plaintiffs do not present an arguable basis for relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or § 1983. ... Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3), this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

M&F SUPERMARKET, INC. v. Owens · filed 1997-12-31(c)(3)

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED as a matter of law. The Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Smith v. City of Chicago · filed 1998-02-06(c)

Even assuming Smith had relied on supplemental jurisdiction, nonetheless, the court would have declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state defamation claim once it dismissed the § 1983 claim.

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

Cronin v. West Whiteland Township · filed 1998-02-19(c)

Having dismissed plaintiffs § 1983 claims, the Court will exercise its discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and will decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Jaouad v. City of New York · filed 1998-05-11(c)(3)

Because the court is dismissing the federal cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 it hereby declines to adjudicate this state law claim.

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

Elam May, Jr. v. Jackson · filed 1999-07-26(c)(3)

Because the district court had discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over May&s remaining state law claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), we affirm the dismissal with prejudice of the federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but we modify the dismissal of his state law claims to be without prejudice, see 28 U.S.C. § 2106; see also, e.g., Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d 783, 784-86 (8th Cir. 1998).

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

Vigilante v. Village of Wilmette · filed 2000-03-09(c)

Because I have disposed of Ms. Vigilante’s constitutional claims, her § 1983 claim also must be dismissed. I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Nannay v. Rowan College · filed 2000-06-30(c)(3)

Now that the claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have been dismissed, the Court, in keeping with section 1367, has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the instant claim asserted against The Sports Authority. It will, however, decline to do so based on the consideration set forth in section 1367(c)(3), namely, the dismissal of all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) makes supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims discretionary after the federal claims are dismissed.

Lopez-Buric v. Notch · filed 2001-04-25(c)(3)

With the dismissal of the § 1983 cause of action, only state law claims remain. As a result, supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining assault and battery claims becomes discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents · filed 2001-06-20(c)(3)

In the instant case, the district court dismissed all of the § 1983 claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Section 1367 thus expressly grants the court discretion to dismiss the supplemental state law claims as well.

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

Covell Ex Rel. Johnson v. County of Oswego · filed 2001-09-05(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims are the sole basis for federal jurisdiction over this case. Because all of these claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Kepner v. Houstoun · filed 2001-09-26(c)(3)

The motion of state defendants to dismiss plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims will be granted. Because we are dismissing all federal claims, we need not decide the issue of qualified immunity. In addition, we will exercise our discretion and decline jurisdiction over the supplemental state claims as to the moving defendants.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after it has dismissed the federal claims.

Fridman v. City of New York · filed 2002-01-28(c)

As the Court has dismissed the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against HSS and Salon, and noted Plaintiffs abandonment of his other federal claims, there is no longer any basis for supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the remainder of Fridman’s complaint.

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

Loeks v. Reynolds · filed 2002-04-12(c)

Appellant asserts that her § 1983 action against Reynolds was wrongly dismissed and that the district court should have exercised supplemental jurisdiction of tort claims against him. We reject appellant’s position on the first issue and, accordingly, affirm the district court’s exercise of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) not to retain jurisdiction of state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after it dismisses the federal claims.

Good v. Board of County Commissioners of Shawnee County · filed 2002-04-17(c)

The court shall award summary judgment to defendant Gordy and against the plaintiff on the claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court shall not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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.

Pickens v. Miller · filed 2002-07-10(c)(3)

Because this Court is granting Summary Judgment on the § 1983 claim, the Court declines to address Plaintiffs remaining state law claim against Officer Faulk. “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to State Court.

Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims can continue on appeal when the federal claims are not appealed, if the federal claims initially had enough substance to support federal jurisdiction.

Hatch v. Town of Middletown · filed 2002-11-19

When Hatch originally sought redress in the district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his federal right to privacy, the district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over appellant's pendent state law privacy claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1993). We retain jurisdiction over Hatch's state law claims on appeal even though Hatch has not appealed his federal privacy claims.

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

Kennerly v. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners · filed 2003-03-17(c)(3)

As a final matter, the Court notes that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(8) grants this Court the discretion to refuse to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental claims arising under state law where the federal claim, over which the Court had original jurisdiction, has been dismissed. Because the Court finds that the § 1983 claim (Count I), over which it has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is no longer viable, it finds that retaining jurisdiction over the supplemental state claims would not be appropriate.

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

Neuburger v. Thompson · filed 2004-02-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to that statute, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, inter alia, it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... In light of our dismissal of Plaintiffs § 1983 claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs related state law claims.

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

Dempsey v. City of Baldwin City, Kan. · filed 2004-08-17(c)

However, the court need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction and may decline to do so under § 1367(c) if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, the court has dismissed plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, over which it had original jurisdiction. Consequently, this court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over -defendant’s state law defamation claim and hereby dismisses it without prejudice.

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

Willhite v. Collins · filed 2005-08-25(c)(3)

Supplemental jurisdiction grants federal courts having original jurisdiction over a matter the power to exercise jurisdiction over all claims which are a part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). At the time of this hearing, the only remaining federal claim was to have been heard under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That claim has been dismissed. With that dismissal, this Court no longer has original jurisdiction over any remaining claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and dismisses both plaintiffs’ and Leech Lake Realty’s state claims without prejudice. 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Pierce v. Gilchrist · filed 2006-02-10(c)(3)

The district court was within its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the indemnification application after the § 1983 claims were dismissed.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against a defendant after dismissing the federal claims against that defendant.

Murphy v. Goord · filed 2006-08-08

Having dismissed plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Goord, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Wallin v. Arapahoe County · filed 2007-07-27(c)(3)

Even if he had asserted a state-law malpractice claim, or one could be read into his complaint, it would not have been an abuse of discretion for the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim in view of the court’s dismissal of M r. W allin’s § 1983 claims under Heck.

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

Walsifer v. Borough of Belmar · filed 2008-01-23(c)(3)

Finally, we agree with the District Court that Defendants’ apparent violation of the stipulation of settlement cannot serve as the basis of a § 1983 claim, and find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction under 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.

Hall v. Witteman · filed 2008-08-06(c)(3)

Because no viable federal claim has been presented under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1985 or RICO, the court lacks any basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The court declines to invoke its supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law.

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

Felgar v. Burkett · filed 2009-05-27(c)(3)

To the extent that Felgar alleged that certain defendants committed various torts against him, (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 95-103), the District Court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims once it dismissed the § 1983 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.

Casella v. Borders · filed 2009-09-02(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because Casella’s § 1983 claims will be dismissed, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law intentional infliction of emotional distress 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.

Luciano v. City of New York · filed 2010-02-16(c)(3)

With the dismissal of plaintiffs federal § 1983 claims, there remains no independent jurisdictional basis for the state law claims. ... Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims and dismiss them as well.

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

Emerson v. City of New York · filed 2010-07-19(c)(3)

Accordingly, because the Court has dismissed all of Emerson’s federal claims brought under § 1983, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pleaded in the Complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, even when the parties have completed briefing and discovery.

D.J.M. v. Hannibal Public School District 60 · filed 2011-08-01(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding D.J.M.'s state law claim to Missouri state court. After the district court entered summary judgment on D.J.M.'s § 1983 claim, it had effectively "dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). That it did so after the issues had been briefed and discovery completed does not affect our conclusion.

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.

Thomas ex rel. D.T. v. City of New Orleans · filed 2012-08-02(c)(3)

Because this Court has determined that dismissal of the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims is warranted, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims; any such claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Grapentine v. Pawtucket Credit Union · filed 2013-06-17(c)(3)

Having denied Ms. Grapentine's claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under §§ 1983 and 1331, this Court "declinéis] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims under § 1367(c)(3), which allows such a course if the court 'has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.' ” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 635, 129 S.Ct. 1862, 173 L.Ed.2d 843 (2009).

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

Frost v. Catholic University of America · filed 2013-08-15(c)(3)

However, this Court “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). Accordingly, as Frost’s § 1983 claim has been dismissed, the Court declines jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Tolbert v. Briggs and Stratton Corp. · filed 2007-02-08(c)(3)

Because summary judgment is due to be granted on Tolbert’s Title VII claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claim against B & S for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

Thomas v. Krueger Ringier, Inc. · filed 1994-02-07(c)(3)

Having disposed of Plaintiffs Title VII claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims. See 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 all original-jurisdiction claims against that defendant.

Ajaz v. Continental Airlines · filed 1994-07-05(c)(3)

Moreover, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if all claims against the defendant over which the court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... In this instance, if Ajaz had asserted a viable negligent supervision claim against Wauters, the court would nonetheless decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it, as Ajaz' Title VII claim against Wauters, the only claim over which the court had original jurisdiction, has been dismissed.

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

Chester v. Northwest Iowa Youth Emergency Services Center · filed 1994-10-04(c)(3)

In the present case, the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction — the Title VII claims. Furthermore, the state law claims that remain, although not particularly unusual or complex, do require the application of case law that has grown up around specific state statutes, Iowa Code Ch. 216 and Iowa Code § 79.29. This federal court does not believe it is appropriate or necessary for the federal court to adjudicate matters that are plainly within the purview and expertise of the state court where there is no independent federal jurisdiction. This matter will therefore be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a remaining state-law claim after the claim supplying federal jurisdiction has been dismissed.

Gibson v. Tanks Inc. · filed 1996-05-14(c)(3)

Because federal jurisdiction over Gibson’s Complaint was based on his Title VII claim, Gibson’s remaining negligent retention claim, a claim based on state .law, is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissal of the federal claims, in its discretion.

Holman v. Binns · filed 1997-07-07(c)(3)

Although Binns correctly argues that Holman could not hold him liable in his individual capacity under Title VII following the court's dismissal of the Union defendants, see Smith v. St. Bernards Reg'l Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994), we conclude it was within the district court's discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Holman's battery claim against Binns. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)(3); Baker v. Farmers Elec. Coop., Inc., 94 F.3d 274, 283 (5th Cir. 1994).

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissal of the federal claims.

Holman v. National Postal Mail Handlers Union · filed 1997-07-07(a), (c)(3)

Although Binns correctly argues that Holman could not hold him liable in his individual capacity under Title VII following the court's dismissal of the Union defendants, see Smith v. St. Bernards Reg'l Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th Cir.1994), we conclude it was within the district court's discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Holman's battery claim against Binns. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)(3); Baker v. Farmers Elec. Coop., Inc., 94 F.3d 274, 283 (5th Cir.1994).

Section 1367 provides no jurisdictional basis to retain a state-law discrimination claim after dismissal of the federal Title VII claim.

Elger v. Martin Memorial Health Systems, Inc. · filed 1998-05-07

As the Court is dismissing the Title VII claim, the Court has no jurisdictional basis for retaining the state claim of discrimination. Accordingly, Count II of the Complaint will be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to dismiss remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been resolved, taking account of prejudice to the parties.

Jones v. USA Petroleum Corp. · filed 1998-09-21(c)

Because USAP is entitled to summary judgment on all Title VII claims, however, plaintiffs’ federal claims drop out of the case. ... Because neither plaintiff will suffer prejudice, the Court will dismiss their remaining State law claims.

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

Kohn v. AT & T CORP. · filed 1999-06-21(c)(3)

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... As discussed, the Title VII, ADA and ADEA claims raised against the Defendants have been dismissed. Because no other ground for Federal jurisdiction is alleged, ... the remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) no longer supports dismissal of supplemental state law claims when the federal claim is reinstated.

Bollard v. The California Province Of The Society Of Jesus · filed 1999-12-01(c)(3)

When the district court dismissed Bollard's claim under Title VII, it dismissed those claims under the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. S 1367(c). Because we hold that Bollard has stated a claim under Title VII, the dismissal of his state law claims is no longer warranted.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the federal claims remain pending.

Gardner v. Honest Weight Food Cooperative, Inc. · filed 2000-05-02(c)(3)

Because the Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs Title VII claims, ... Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs state claims under N.Y.Exec.Law § 296 on jurisdictional grounds is denied.

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

Peck v. Democrat and Chronicle/Gannett Newspapers · filed 2000-08-15(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state common law causes of action, but may decline to exercise that jurisdiction after dismissing the federal question cause of action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Now that the Court has granted the defendant judgment on the only cause of action under Title VII, the Court will exercise its discretion and decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining causes of action.

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

Reed v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. · filed 2001-11-19(c)

The court can adjudicate this state law claim by the exercise of its supplemental authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (2001). Thus, the court will retain jurisdiction over this claim, despite having dismissed the Title VII claim over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court, after dismissing the federal claim, to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a closely related territorial claim while declining jurisdiction over a different territorial claim.

Harley v. Caneel Bay, Inc. · filed 2002-03-22(c)(3)

I have exercised this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction to consider the local wrongful discharge act claim, even in the absence of a federal claim, because of the similarity between plaintiffs WDA and Title VII claims. There is no such reason to exercise this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining territorial claim, and it will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Cameron v. Mid-Continent Livestock Supplements · filed 2002-06-27(c)(3)

As discussed above, Plaintiff's Title VII claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court believes it is appropriate to decline subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and decide them on the merits after dismissing all federal-question claims.

Ogden v. Keystone Residence · filed 2002-10-10(c)(3)

We note that in the event of the dismissal of all claims over which we have federal question jurisdiction (which in this case consist of the Title VII and § 1981 claims), we have the option to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims (which in this case consist of the PHRA claims and the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress). ... In this case, though, because each claim is so clearly baseless, we will exercise jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them on the merits.

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

Scott v. Lee County Youth Development Center · filed 2002-11-14(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Having dismissed both of the Plaintiffs Title VII claims, the court chooses to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining defamation claim.

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

Bruno-Ponthier v. United Parcel Service · filed 2008-07-23(c)(3)

The district court clearly had the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bruno-Ponthier’s state law claims because it dismissed all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, viz., her Title VII claims.

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

Laredo v. CRST MALONE, INC. · filed 2011-09-26(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs federal claim under Title VII has been dismissed, the Court will in its discretion decline to hear the remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a federal court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Hunter v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2012-09-13(c)(3)

As noted above, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s federal Title VII claims be dismissed, leaving only the state law claims. A federal court has discretion to dismiss the case, exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, or decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor resolving them.

Vuona v. Merrill Lynch & Co. · filed 2013-01-24(c)(3)

Because Plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination, and Vuona’s claim of retaliation, under Title VII have been dismissed, the Court must decide whether to retain jurisdiction over the remaining claims, under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. ... Accordingly, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because the “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” favor resolving them now.

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

Arya v. Calpers · filed 2013-05-02(c)(3)

Having found that plaintiffs Title VII claims should be dismissed, the court recommends against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over any state law claims (e.g., negligence and breach of contract) the complaint may allege when liberally construed.

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

Daoud v. City of Wilmington · filed 2013-05-23(c)(3)

Finally, Daoud proffers no reason for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims except an argument, which the court has rejected, that his Title VII and ADA claims should be revived. He offers no exceptional circumstances that should compel the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, nor does he offer any reasons of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, or comity. Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Daoud’s state law claims.

Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over related territorial law claims to continue after the federal claims are dismissed; declining that jurisdiction is discretionary.

Marrero v. Brin · filed 2013-07-01(c)

Accordingly, the court had supplemental jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over Marrero‟s territorial law claims, even after it granted judgment as a matter of law on the Title VII claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a local law claim after dismissing the sole federal claim, leaving the local claim dismissed without prejudice.

Briscoe v. City of New Haven · filed 2013-09-09(c)(3)

The Court having dismissed Briscoe’s sole federal Title VII claim, supplemental jurisdiction will be declined and his local law claim dismissed without prejudice.

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

Giner v. All Stars Insurance Partners, Inc. · filed 2019-11-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed the Title VII claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental □ jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc. · filed 1993-11-09(c)

Scrivner’s Motion For Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Bolton’s federal claims under the ADA and ADEA. The Court declines to entertain jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to include a complaint of retaliatory discharge, and they 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.

Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 1997-09-24(c)(3)

The district court may, however, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it [had] original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, since this court grants the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the two federal claims, the ADA and FMLA, the ten remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to their re-filing in state court.

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

Pellack v. Thorek Hospital & Medical Center · filed 1998-07-10(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. Because the court has granted judgment as a matter of law on all the ADA claims over which the court has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Illinois state law claim of retaliatory discharge.

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

Haga v. Heatcraft Inc. · filed 1998-07-22(c)(3)

By granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs ADA claim (count I), this court has dismissed the only count supporting federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claim (count II).

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

Jankey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. · filed 1998-08-06(c)(3)

On this basis, summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Fox on all of plaintiffs ADA claims. Plaintiff alleges no other federal claims against Fox. On this basis, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Jankey’s state claims against Fox, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and DISMISSES the remaining claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims dependent on federal claims once those federal claims have been resolved.

Walthall v. Fulton County School District · filed 1998-09-23(c)(3)

The Plaintiffs state law claims are dependent upon her federal claims for violation of the FMLA, ADEA, and ADA. Rather than dismiss the state law claims on the merits, the Court declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and the 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.

Roberts v. New York State Department of Correctional Services · filed 1999-06-02(c)(3)

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As the court is recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of Plaintiffs ADA claim be granted, no independent basis of jurisdiction exists over Plaintiffs state law claim pursuant to the New York Human Rights Law, and such claim should be DISMISSED.

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

McQuain v. Ebner Furnaces, Inc. · filed 1999-06-17(c)(3)

Under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, district courts are permitted to dismiss pendent state law claims if all federal claims have been dismissed. ... As the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs federal law claims, as well as Plaintiffs Ohio Rev.Code § 4112 claim (which was entwined with Plaintiffs ADA claim), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claim of workers’ compensation retaliation under Ohio Rev.Code § 4123.90.

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

Fotos v. Internet Commerce Express · filed 2001-07-25(c)(3)

Because Fotos cannot maintain her federal ADA claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Fotos' state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims against defendants after all federal claims against those defendants have been dismissed.

Glozman v. Retail, Wholesale & Chain Store Food Employees Union, Local 338 · filed 2002-04-23(c)(3)

Once all ADA claims have been dismissed against Zabar’s and Saul Zabar, no federal claims remain with respect to these defendants and the court has discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to decline to invoke supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state claims against them.

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.

Munck v. New Haven Savings Bank · filed 2003-03-17(c)(3)

Because this court has granted summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs ADA claims, it will decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over all of the plaintiffs remaining state law claim.

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

Dávila-Rivera v. Caribbean Refrescos, Inc. · filed 2005-09-16(c)(3)

Thus, because the district court properly granted summary judgment on the ADA claim and the dismissal of the other federal claims has not been appealed, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Commonwealth 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.

Soto-Rivera v. University of Puerto Rico · filed 2005-09-22(c)(3)

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the defendants’ Motion (Docket No. 15), and DISMISSES all claims brought under the purview of Title II of the ADA, without prejudice to any state law claim that plaintiffs could assert in a state court or administrative forum of competent jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)(the district 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).

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

Lancaster v. Phillips Investments, LLC · filed 2007-04-16(c)

The Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Court has concluded that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs ADA claim, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Searcy v. Ada County · filed 2007-06-15(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed Searcy’s federal claims, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Pitchford v. General Motors Corp. · filed 2003-01-22(c)

Having determined that Pitch-ford’s federal ERISA claims should be dismissed, the Court finds' it appropriate to dismiss Pitchford’s remaining state law claim for conversion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss pendent state claims after it dismisses the federal claim.

Morcelo-Martinez v. Welfare Fund Ila-Prssa · filed 1992-08-11(c)(3)

The trial court also properly dismissed Mrs. Morcelo's pendent state claims for various tort remedies. Once the court dismissed the federal ERISA claim, it had the discretion also to dismiss the pendent state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

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

Lafian v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. · filed 1994-06-24(c)(3)

Because of this holding, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs ERISA counts for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As for the state law claims for breach of contract and misrepresentation, the Court chooses not to maintain pendent jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Fludgate v. Management Technologies, Inc. · filed 1995-05-18(c)(3)

This Court, however, having dismissed plaintiff’s ERISA claims, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of the claims for which it did not have original jurisdiction.

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

Wiesenberg v. Paul Revere Life Insurance · filed 1995-05-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed the ERISA-preempted claims, the Court declines to exercise supple...mental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the remaining state law claim.

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

Ambrose v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Virginia, Inc. · filed 1995-06-27(c)(3)

With the dismissal of the RICO claim and the previous dismissal of the ERISA claims (Counts One and Two), this court lacks original jurisdiction over the remaining claims and, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain a related state-law claim after the federal claim is dismissed, while subsection (c) gives the court discretion to decline jurisdiction.

Bannister v. Sorenson · filed 1996-12-23(c)

If MPEHA is determined to have been an ERISA entity at relevant times, we note that the remaining claim would appear to fall within the trial court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, even though MPEHA has now been dismissed. Thus, under such circumstances, the court is free to use its discretion to exercise jurisdiction or dismiss the case as permitted by section 1367(c).

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claim supporting that jurisdiction is dismissed.

Livers v. Wu · filed 1998-01-30

Plaintiffs assert two alternative bases for jurisdiction over the state law claims contained in Counts II and III: supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Since the Count I ERISA claim will be dismissed, no supplemental jurisdiction exists in respect of the state law claims contained in Counts II and III.

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

Potter v. ICI Americas, Inc. · filed 1999-10-04(c)(3)

Since we have dismissed all three of Potter’s ERISA claims, the better course is for us to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the sole claim supporting federal jurisdiction when retaining them preserves time and judicial resources.

Donato v. Bankboston, N.A. · filed 2000-08-21(c)(3)

In addition, since the malpractice claim, the only claim which involved the ERISA profit-sharing plan, was the only basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court noted that it could exercise its discretion to remand the remaining state issues back to state court or it could continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those issues. ... The Court then concluded that it would exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the remaining two claims against defendants as co-executors and the remaining two claims against defendants as co-trustees, in the interest of preserving time and judicial resources.

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

Urological Surgery v. Fecteau Benefit · filed 2005-03-02(c)(3)

Because USPA’s ERISA claims, which are the basis of subject matter jurisdiction in this case, are dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim.

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

Bunt v. Texas General Land Office · filed 1999-11-17(c)(3)

As this Court has dismissed plaintiffs federal FLSA claim, her remaining claims are purely matters of state law. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the pendent 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.

Hill v. Manning · filed 2002-12-12(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Having dismissed both the procedural due process and FLSA retaliation claims, the court chooses to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining assault claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) ceases to provide a ground for declining supplemental jurisdiction when the claims within original jurisdiction are reinstated.

Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co. · filed 2003-12-30(c)(3)

Because the FLSA claims are now reinstated, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) no longer provides a basis for declining to exercise jurisdiction over the § 345-a claim.