28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Hernandez v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2015-09-01(c)(3)

The Court perceives no circumstances in this case that counsel it to reject the ordinary rule in this circuit and exercise jurisdiction over an action now predicated entirely on state law; therefore, the Court will dismiss the claims arising under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act without prejudice in order to permit Hernandez to pursue them in the courts of New Mexico if he is so inclined.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when all federal claims are eliminated before trial; doing so is ordinarily within its discretion.

Salvani v. Investorshub.Com, Inc. · filed 2015-10-09(c)(3)

We also affirm the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). That dismissal was not an abuse of discretion, because this is “‘the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial,’ [and] ‘the balance of factors ... [thus] point[s] toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.’” Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988)).

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

Viridis Corp. v. TCA Global Credit Master Fund, LP · filed 2015-12-17(c)(3)

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ state law claims (Counts III-X) are DISMISSED as this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over these claims arising under state 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; it generally should do so when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Muniz-Savage v. Addison · filed 2016-05-23(c)(3)

As a general matter, “[i]f federal claims are dismissed before trial, leaving only issues of state law, the federal court should decline the exercise of [supplemental] jurisdiction.” Bauchman ex rel. Bauchman v. W. High Sch., 132 F.3d 542, 549 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may 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) generally favors declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial, absent exceptional circumstances.

B.A. ex rel. M.G. v. City of Schenectady School District · filed 2016-09-19(c)(3)

Where, as here, a plaintiffs federal claims will be dismissed before trial, a district court should generally decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims absent exceptional circumstances.

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

Howe v. Shchekin · filed 2017-03-03(c)(3)

But the Court’s jurisdiction is anchored in Plaintiffs’ federal § 10b-5 claim, and having dismissed that claim, the Court has discretion to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Seeing no reason deviate from this rule, id, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice.

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

Al-Rayes v. Willingham · filed 2018-02-16(c)

Because all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, ...the Court, in its exercise of discretion under § 1367(c), declines to retain jurisdiction over Creditors' remaining state law claims.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

McCarthy v. Barrington, Illinois · filed 2018-05-21(c)(3)

The Court finds no basis to deviate from that presumption here and declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's ZEA claim.

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

Flores v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. · filed 2018-05-31(c)(3)

Having determined that Plaintiff's Title VII and ADA claims should be dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining NYSHRL claims.

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

Pahnke v. ANDERSON MOVING AND STORAGE · filed 2005-04-21(c)(3)

However, because the federal claims have no merit, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state ... law claims and remands the matter to Olmsted County District Court.

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remand them.

Texas First National Bank v. Wu · filed 2004-12-09(c)(3)

As such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when remand would duplicate substantial judicial work.

Johnson v. City of Seattle · filed 2005-03-16(c)(3)

The Court finds that substantial judicial resources have been committed to this dispute and that remanding the matter would cause a duplication of efforts. The Court therefore retains supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claim for negligence.

Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily permits remand of pendent state law claims after dismissal of the federal claim, but it does not permit remand when diversity supplies an independent basis for original jurisdiction over those claims.

Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · filed 2006-12-05(c)(3)

Dismissal of the federal claim would thus, ordinarily, have authorized the district court to remand the pendent state law claims. Id. § 1367(c)(3). But, as defendant pointed out below, the amended complaint pres- ented an independent jurisdictional basis for the state law claims, namely diversity. ... The district court had no discretion to remand these claims to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claim when the advanced stage of litigation, lack of novel or complex state-law issues, and likely delay from remand favor retention.

Raymond v. U.S.A. Healthcare Center-Fort Dodge, L.L.C. · filed 2006-12-22(c)(3)

Although the court has contemplated such a course sua sponte, it has decided not to dismiss or remand the case to state court, because the litigation in this court is advanced to the point of dispositive motions, trial is set to begin in this court on March 26 2007, the remaining state-law claim does not involve any novel or complex issues, and it is unlikely that the parties could obtain as timely a trial date, if required, in state court, were this court to remand this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims; reinstating a federal claim on appeal warrants vacating a remand of those state law claims.

Johnson v. Knorr · filed 2007-02-14(c)(3)

Inasmuch as we are reversing the district court's order for summary judgment with respect to Johnson's section 1983 claim of malicious prosecution, we will vacate the district court's remand of his supplemental state law claims to the state court, and the district court on the remand should reinstate those claims. ... We, however, do not preclude the district court from declining to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims should it again dismiss Johnson's section 1983 claims.

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

Golan v. Puleo · filed 2007-03-30(c)(3)

Furthermore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if.. .the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Consistent with the above, the Court hereby orders REMAND of the remaining claims as to the sole remaining defendant to state court.

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

Dean v. City of Fresno · filed 2008-02-12(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Since all federal claims have been resolved and only state law claims remain, the Court will remand the remaining state law claims to the Fresno County Superior Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and remand them to state court after the federal claims are dismissed.

Johnson v. Ozmint · filed 2008-06-20(c)(3)

However, this Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and remands Plaintiff’s state law claims to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits remand of a remaining state-law claim when the claims supporting federal jurisdiction are dismissed.

Pollitt v. Health Care Service Corp. · filed 2009-03-10(c)(3)

Finally, if the Department directed HCSC to curtail future coverage, but did not direct it to recover past benefits from medical providers, then the claim for precipitate, mistaken recoupment should be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Dismissal of the federal claim can warrant vacating a state-law judgment and remanding for reconsideration of the factors governing supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367.

City of La v. County of Kern · filed 2009-09-09(c)(3)

Because our dismissal of the federal constitutional claim may materially alter the district court’s decision to exercise supple- mental jurisdiction over the preemption claim, see, e.g., Gol- den v. CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc., 528 F.3d 681, 684 (9th Cir. 2008), we vacate its judgment and remand the state- law claim for reconsideration of the factors listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims after it dismisses all federal claims.

Pena v. A. Anderson Scott Mortgage Group, Inc. · filed 2010-03-11(c)(3)

As such, the Court no longer has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and may dismiss the case, remand it to D.C. Superior Court, or exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. ... For these reasons, the Court will remand plaintiff’s remaining claims to Superior Court, where Ms. Pena initially filed the case.

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

Beckinger v. TOWNSHIP OF ELIZABETH · filed 2010-03-17(c)(3)

This court declines to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over the state court claims in this action and they will be remanded to the state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, but remanding closely entangled state-law claims can abuse that discretion, especially when federal courts have invested substantially in the litigation.

Nelson v. Welch (In Re Repository Technologies, Inc.) · filed 2010-04-12(c)(3)

Mindful of the district court’s general discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), we nevertheless conclude, based on the entanglement between Nelson’s federal and state-law claims and the federal-court investment in this litigation, that the court “crossed over the line” by remanding this case to the Illinois Circuit Court.

A remand under § 1367(c)(3) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Anderson v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp. · filed 2010-09-13(c)(3)

We review a district court’s decision to remand a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) for abuse of discretion. Lazorko v. Pa. Hosp., 237 F.3d 242, 247 (3d Cir. 2000). In determining whether the district court abused its discretion, we consider “whether the dismissal of the pendent claims best serves the principles of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Annulli v. Panikkar, 200 F.3d 189, 202 (3d Cir. 1999), abrogated on other grounds, Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000). ... We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision to remand this claim, and we need not reach Wachovia’s arguments regarding its merits.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims and either dismiss them without prejudice or remand them.

Moore v. Coffee County, TN · filed 2010-11-17(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any pendent claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court may, in its sound discretion, either dismiss the claims without prejudice, see Dobbs-Weinstein, 185 F.3d at 546, or remand them, see Long v. Bando Mfg. of Am., Inc., 201 F.3d 754, 761 (6th Cir. 2000).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand remaining state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim when comity, fairness, convenience, and judicial economy favor remand.

Fox v. BROWN MEMORIAL HOME, INC. · filed 2011-01-07(c)(3)

Although this case presents a close call, the Court concludes that the factors on balance weigh in favor of remand to the state court. ... Having considered the interests of comity, fairness, convenience, and judicial economy, as guided by the additional factors provided by the Sixth Circuit caselaw discussed above, the Court concludes that this action should be remanded to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remand them after dismissing the only federal claim, especially when proceedings have barely begun.

Baum v. Northern Dutchess Hospital · filed 2011-01-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed Baum’s only federal law claim, leaving only state common law claims to survive, the Court’s jurisdiction has thus been extinguished. Other than the Motion to Dismiss, there has been no other proceeding and discovery has not commenced. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this case and remands it back to New York State Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Section 1367 permits a court to remand supplemental state-law claims when the federal claim is dismissed early and the remaining claims turn on state law.

Wells v. Bottling Group, LLC · filed 2011-06-08(a)

The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) only if the “interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation” outweigh the need to avoid “needlessly deciding state law issues.”

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

Piekosz-Murphy v. Board of Education · filed 2012-03-12(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, Count II will be remanded.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to remand remaining supplemental state-law claims when the federal claim supporting original jurisdiction is dismissed.

Gift v. Travid Sales Associates, Inc. · filed 2012-08-02(c)(3)

In such situations, where federal-question jurisdiction extinguishes after filing of the complaint, the Court has discretion as to whether to remand any remaining supplemental state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the court may allow time to amend a federal claim before remanding.

Borich v. BP, P.L.C. · filed 2012-10-23(c)(3)

A district court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over pendent state law claims if the “court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). A district court’s decision to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction is “the norm, not the exception.” Contreras v. Suncast Corp., 237 F.3d 756, 766 (7th Cir.2001) (quoting Disher v. Information Resources, Inc., 873 F.2d 136, 140 (7th Cir.1989)). Accordingly, the Court will remand Borich’s remaining claims. The Court, however, will not remand the claims unless Borieh fails to file an amended complaint within 28 days.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Farneski v. County of Hunterdon · filed 2013-01-09(c)

In this case, the Court deems it appropriate to retain jurisdiction. The parties have completed discovery on all claims. Further, the state law claims arise out of the same facts as the federal claims, and the analysis of these claims are substantially related. Remanding the claims at this late stage would cut against principles of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when retaining jurisdiction allows it to dispose of frivolous state claims.

Wilmot v. Tracey · filed 2013-03-28(c)(3)

However, in light of the fact that there is no basis to state a claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress against the DCF defendants, this court concludes that this is “an instance in which the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is warranted to dispose of frivolous claims.” Freeman v. Town of Hudson, 849 F.Supp.2d 138, 143 (D.Mass.2012).

Section 1367 permits a court to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after resolving the only federal claim when judicial efficiency favors retaining them.

Buckley v. Slocum Dickson Medical Group, PLLC · filed 2013-04-23(a)

Although the only federal claim is resolved with this Memorandum-Decision and Order, supplemental jurisdiction will continue to be exercised over the four remaining state claims in the interest of judicial efficiency.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain and decide state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the state claims arise from the same case or controversy and are analyzed identically.

Trane v. Northrop Grumman Corp. · filed 2015-03-10(c)(3)

However, in a case where the state law claims are part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims and are analyzed identically, federal district courts will exercise their jurisdiction over the state law claims and grant summary judgment on those claims as well.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, § 1367(c) ordinarily requires a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify retaining them; retention is proper when the federal analysis necessarily disposes of the state claim.

Simcic v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Autho · filed 2015-03-19(c)

“[W]here the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” ... The district court found such extraordinary circumstances present in this case. The court explained that “the federal question-due process analysis necessarily disposes of the state law breach of contract claim . . . .” ... In light of the above, we will affirm the District Court’s decision substantially for the reasons set forth in the District Court’s Memorandum and Opinion adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge without further elaboration.

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to dismiss state law claims without prejudice when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Cosme-Perez v. Municipality of Juana Diaz · filed 2015-06-26(a)

The Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a case in which there is no cause of action under a federal statute. ... The Court may dismiss the State actions without prejudice should the federal causes of action be dismissed prior to trial.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain related state law claims after dismissing the federal claims early in the litigation; the court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and federal interests when deciding whether to do so.

Salim v. Dahlberg · filed 2016-03-16(c)(3)

Accordingly, even when the federal claims that provide the basis for original jurisdiction are dismissed early in the litigation, a court may, but is not required to, dismiss the pendent state claims.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state law claims when the federal claim supporting jurisdiction is dismissed.

Trujillo v. Rockledge Furniture LLC · filed 2018-01-22(c)(3)

That is because the state law claim is before the Court based on supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Therefore, based on the dismissal of Trujillo’s federal claim, his state claims should be dismissed as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to remand remaining state-law claims or keep them in federal court after resolving the federal claims.

Sha'Va Porter v. Coffman · filed 2006-02-06(c)(3)

Once the district court granted partial summary judgment to Coffman and Torres, it had the discretion either to remand the remaining state-law claims or to keep them in federal court.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain or remand remaining state-law claims after resolving the federal claims.

Porter v. Williams · filed 2006-02-06(c)(3)

Once the district court granted partial summary judgment to Coffman and Torres, it had the discretion either to remand the remaining state-law claims or to keep them in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Lindsey v. Dillard's, Inc., 306 F.3d 596, 598-99 (8th Cir.2002).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts broad discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within their original jurisdiction, including by remanding the state claims.

Noble v. F.A. White, Jr. And Claiborne County Mississippi Board of Election Commissioners, F.A. White, Jr. · filed 1993-08-02(c)(3)

In light of the discretion afforded to district courts in making § 1367(c)(3) determinations, and the well established policy considerations militating' against federal court involvement in state election disputes arising under state law, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding the state law claim to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to remand remaining state law claims after the federal causes of action have been eliminated.

Kreig v. Prairie Island Dakota Sioux · filed 1994-04-12(c)

The district court correctly exercised its discretion to remand the remaining exclusively state law case after eliminating the federal causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand remaining state-law claims when the claim supplying original federal jurisdiction has been dismissed.

Acme Brick Co. v. Agrupacion Exportadora De Maquinaria Ceramica · filed 1994-06-14(c)(3)

Once the original basis for subject matter jurisdiction is eliminated from the case, the district court has discretion to remand the state law claims over which it has only supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Goehring v. Wright · filed 1994-07-20(c)(3)

In view of the foregoing discussion, all that remains to be tried are plaintiffs state-law malicious prosecution and conspiracy causes of action against defendants Wright and Robledo. These claims are before the Court solely on the basis of its statutory supplemental jurisdiction authority. The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will therefore remand these causes to the Santa Clara County Superior Court for all further proceedings.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, though remand is usually proper.

Ronald v. Piper v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., a Corporation Patrick Partridge Jane Doe Partridge Geraldine Carolan Joe Doe C · filed 1994-08-12(c)(3)

Even if the district court finds that the RLA does not preempt the state law claims, it would be within its discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3); Cook, Perkiss & Liehe v. Northern Cal. Collection Serv., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir.1990). However, we do agree that remand is usually the proper approach.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and remand them after dismissing the claims against the federal defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Murphy v. Mayfield · filed 1994-07-25(c)(3)

The court, having dismissed Murphy’s claims against the federal defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Murphy’s claims against the Dallas Housing Authority. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e). Accordingly, these claims are remanded to the 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

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

Chaffin v. Textron, Inc. · filed 1994-08-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction oyer state law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Because the court will dismiss the ADEA claim, Chaffin’s remaining state law causes of action will be remanded to state court.

Section 1367 gives a district court wide discretion to retain or remand a remaining state law claim when all federal claims have been dismissed.

Rebecca T. Hubbard and Jim Hubbard v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association, Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association · filed 1995-01-12(c)(3)

In light of this holding, we remand the advertising claim to the district court so that the court can exercise its discretion either to (1) accept supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim or (2) decline jurisdiction and remand the claim to state court. ... When all federal claims are dismissed, the district court enjoys wide discretion in determining whether to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state claims after the federal claims are dismissed; supplemental jurisdiction remains until the court declines it.

Trans Penn Wax Corporation v. Mccandless · filed 1995-02-28(c)

The court retained supplemental jurisdiction until it declined to exercise that jurisdiction under Sec. 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after the claims supporting federal-question jurisdiction are dismissed.

Robinson v. Alaska Properties & Investment, Inc. · filed 1995-03-07(c)(3)

Dismissal of the third party complaint will resolve all claims over which this Court had federal question jurisdiction. The Court therefore deferred ruling on API’s motion against Robinson until the Court determined whether the parties wished a remand to state superior court. ... After hearing from the parties, The Court remanded the case to superior court.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not require remand solely for a district court to identify that subsection as its ground for dismissing supplemental state law claims after properly dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Shannon v. City of Costa Mesa · filed 1995-02-03(c)(3)

Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to remand the dismissal of the state law claims to the district court for a reexamination of the four categories enumerated in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c) in accordance with Executive Software N. Am., Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 24 F.3d 1545 (9th Cir. 1994). First of all, the district court properly dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3). To require a remand for the court to specify subsection 1367(c)(3) as a specific ground for dismissal based on Executive Software (decided after the district court's order in these cases), would elevate form over substance.

Section 1367 permits remand of remaining state law claims after the claims supporting federal jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Pritchett v. Milstid · filed 1995-05-08

Since the plaintiffs’ only remaining claims are state law contract claims, there is no basis of federal jurisdiction and remand is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e), see also In re: Surinam Airways Holding Company, 974 F.2d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir.1992). Therefore, it is recommended that this case be remanded to the Circuit Court for Baldwin County, Alabama for the determination of all remaining claims.

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

Nemeckay v. Rule · filed 1995-07-31(c)(3)

However, given that this Court finds Plaintiffs federal claim to be without merit, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim, and will remand it to state court.

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

Buck Creek Coal, Inc. v. United Workers of America · filed 1995-08-24(c)

Should the RICO charges be found inadequate to state a claim for relief this Court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and remand the state law issues to the state court for further proceedings. ... As further explained below, the Court finds the defendants’ motion to be well taken, and therefore GRANTS dismissal of the RICO count with prejudice, and REMANDS the state law claims to the Sullivan Circuit Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to remand remaining state-law claims after it has disposed of the claims supporting original jurisdiction.

Prevas v. Hopkins · filed 1995-11-15(c)(3)

In determining whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, this Court exercises a broad discretion. ... Accordingly, this Court, in the exercise of its discretion, shall remand Prevas’s claims against Checkmate to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for further proceedings as may be deemed appropriate by that court.

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, and to remand those claims when the case was removed.

Clark v. McMillin · filed 1996-03-28(c)(3)

Section 1367 provides that “[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.” In its discretion, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and will remand those claims to the Hinds County Circuit Court, First Judicial District, from which this case was removed by defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits remand of pendent state claims after the federal claims are dismissed when no special circumstances justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Dolla v. Unicast Co. · filed 1996-06-26(c)(3)

Having determined that Mr. Doha’s federal peonage and involuntary servitude claims must be dismissed, we now conclude that the pendent claims should be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter. ... Moreover, we are aware of no “special circumstances” that would justify the invocation of our supplemental jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court will remand the pendent claims to the court from which they originated.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to remand supplemental state law claims after resolving all federal claims, guided by equitable factors.

Andrews v. Anne Arundel County, Md. · filed 1996-05-31(c)(3)

Remand of removed cases under such circumstances is the general rule. ... In weighing these various factors, this Court finds that remand is the proper course of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Colbert v. City of Philadelphia · filed 1996-06-27(c)(3)

Since no federal claims remain, the court will exercise its discretion to remand this action to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County for disposition of the remaining pendant state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a district court to remand a claim that still presents a federal question.

Gaming Corporation of America Golden Nickel Casinos, Inc. v. Dorsey & Whitney, a Partnership, in Re Dorsey & Whitney, a · filed 1996-06-27(c)(3)

Count IX was properly removed; it stated a federal question, and it could therefore not be remanded 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 and remand it after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Montag v. The Aerospace Corporation J.R. Parsons · filed 1996-08-12(c)(3)

As the federal claims have now been dismissed from the case, it would be appropriate for the district court, in its discretion, to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the public policy claim and to remand the claim to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction are eliminated, with remand available when the balance of judicial economy, comity, convenience, and fairness favors state court.

Tennessee Ex Rel. Pierotti v. a Parcel of Real Property Municipally Known as 777 N. White Station Road · filed 1996-08-19(c)(3)

When a federal district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... In light of these facts, and the conclusion that the other factors weigh heavily in favor of state adjudication, the Court finds the federal court should not retain jurisdiction over this matter. ... For the reasons stated above, the Court REMANDS this matter to state court.

Section 1367(c) gives a court broad discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims against a party after dismissing all federal claims against that party.

ESTATE OF ROSENBAUM BY PLOTKIN v. City of New York · filed 1997-08-22(c)

It is well established that the Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a State cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) after the dismissal of all federal claims against a particular party. ... In this case, the need for the Court to retain jurisdiction over the State causes of action is particularly acute.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after finding the federal claims meritless, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Cantrell v. Paul Terry Stephen D. Finlayson City of Burns, a Political Subdivision of the State of Oregon · filed 1998-02-20(c)(3)

Contrary to Cantrell's contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining jurisdiction over Cantrell's state claims despite the fact that it concluded Cantrell's federal claims were meritless. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits, but does not require, dismissal without prejudice of a supplemental state law claim after the federal claims are resolved.

Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Penn Central Corp. · filed 1999-11-16(c)(3)

Although Judge Thomas could have dismissed the cross-claim once the federal-question claims were resolved, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (authorizing such a dismissal without prejudice), he was, as Musson instructs, not obligated to do so.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same operative facts as a federal claim, even when their legal theories differ.

Busey v. COUNTY COM'RS, SHAWNEE, KANSAS · filed 2001-09-21(a)

In the present case, all three of plaintiffs claims are derived from the same set of operative facts. ... While the legal theories of recovery may differ, the record indicates that the facts of this case satisfy the “case or controversy” threshold inquiry. ... Therefore, in line with Gibbs and § 1367(a), the court finds it has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to remand remaining state law claims after resolving the federal claims.

Benjamina Nursery Farm, Inc. v. Miami Dade County · filed 2001-09-19(c)(3)

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the case is REMANDED to state court to ... address the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Shapiro v. Haenn · filed 2002-08-26(c)(3)

Because it has entered summary judgment against Plaintiff on his only federal claim, however, the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... In deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction, the Court must consider the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity. ... The Court thus will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and reach the merits of Plaintiffs state law claims.

When dismissed federal claims are revived on appeal, state claims dismissed under § 1367(c)(3) are reinstated.

Theofel v. Farey-Jones · filed 2003-08-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed all the federal claims, the district court declined jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because we reverse dismissal of some of the federal claims, we also reinstate the state claims.

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

Jones v. Sharp Electronics Corp. · filed 2013-03-19(c)(3)

Accordingly, because this Court has entered summary judgment on Jones’s federal claims, this Court, remands the Tennessee Disability Act claim to the Circuit Court of Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Nordwall v. PHC-LAS Cruces, Inc. · filed 2013-07-31(c)(3)

Because the Rehabilitation Act claim fails and no federal law claims remain, the Court will remand the case to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand remaining state-law claims after dismissal of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Landess v. Baton Rouge Marine Contr · filed 2013-12-18(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by remanding the remaining state-law claims to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) after the dismissal of all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction.

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

Power Road-Williams Field LLC v. Gilbert · filed 2014-04-18(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court concludes that this action should be remanded. With dismissal of the § 1983 claim, the basis for this Court’s federal question jurisdiction no longer exists.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to remand remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Knellinger v. York Street Property Development, LP · filed 2014-11-06(c)

We therefore dismiss all of plaintiffs’ federal law claims with prejudice, deny plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the complaint, and exercise our discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to remand the state law claims to the Court of Common Pleas.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally calls for dismissal or remand of supplemental state-law claims after the federal claims they accompany are dismissed.

Bob Deuell v. Texas Right to Life Committee, Inc. · filed 2015-01-14(c)(3)

But under § 1367(c)(3), the general rule in this circuit is to dismiss or remand state- law claims following dismissal of the federal claims they supplement.

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

Tate v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2015-03-24(c)(3)

The remaining claims in this case all arise solely under state law; the Court is thus permitted to remand to state court those claims over which it initially exercised supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

New Mexico Consolidated Construction, LLC v. City Council of City of Santa Fe · filed 2015-03-31(c)(3)

When the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in a case over which its original jurisdiction is federal-question jurisdiction, the Court should generally remand the case to state court— or, if the case was filed in federal court in the first instance, dismiss the case — if the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

When the dismissal of federal claims is vacated, a district court should reconsider its decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims based on the disposition of the federal claims on remand.

Santini v. Fuentes · filed 2015-08-04

The District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Santini’s state law claims based on its dismissal of his federal claims. We instruct the court to reconsider that decision on remand based upon its resolution of Santini’s federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Ullmo v. Ohio Turnpike & Infrastructure Commission · filed 2015-08-25(c)(3)

Here, since the federal claims in this case have been dismissed long before trial, only a single state-law claim remains, and discovery has not yet begun, the Court concludes that the balance of factors weigh strongly in favor of remanding this case to the state court for adjudication.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to remand remaining state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed when no extraordinary circumstances warrant retaining supplemental jurisdiction.

Celec v. Edinboro University · filed 2015-09-18(c)(3)

Remand to state court is also appropriate by virtue of the fact that only state law claims presently remain, and there are no "extraordinary circumstances” warranting an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily favors remanding supplemental state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed, absent countervailing considerations.

Luvert v. Chicago Housing Authority · filed 2015-11-06(c)(3)

With no federal claims’having survived scrutiny, the familiar teaching of United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-27, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) and its progeny (now codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)) is that, as stated earlier fn this opinion, “the usual and preferred course is to remand the state claims unless there are countervailing considerations” (Williams v. Seniff, 342 F.3d at 794). No such considerations are present here as to the state law causes of action advanced in the Complaint’s Counts IV and V.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over common law claims after the federal basis of the action falls away and to remand those claims to state court.

Adams v. American Federation of State · filed 2016-03-01(c)

Further, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the common law claims against Defendants. I will remand the common law claims to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed; judicial economy and comity may favor remand when the federal claims are eliminated before trial.

Watson v. City of Allen, Texas · filed 2016-05-05(c)(3)

State claims substantially predominate over the federal claim, which has been dismissed, and considerations of judicial economy favor remand.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after it resolves all claims within its original jurisdiction and to remand a case that began in state court.

Graham v. Hubbs Machine & Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2016-05-19(c)(3)

This case was initiated in a state court, and resolution, of the remaining claim depends solely on interpretation of state law and public policy. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs pendent state law claim and will exercise its discretion to remand the case to the state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the case has not progressed beyond the motion to dismiss stage.

Tracey Tooker & TT Ltd. v. Whitworth · filed 2016-08-31(c)(3)

However, “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Here, however, Tooker does not object to remand of her state law claims, see Am. Compl. ¶ 8, and the Court has not adjudicated the case beyond the motion to dismiss stage. The Court can see no reason to retain jurisdiction. ... The Court therefore remands the remaining claims to state court.

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

York v. City of Burlington · filed 2016-12-22(c)(3)

Because this court will dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims and there is no other identified basis of subject matter jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their State law claims. Plaintiffs’ remaining State law claims will therefore be remanded to the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, of Alamance County, North Carolina.

After dismissing the federal claims, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remand them to state court.

Moore v. Shelby County · filed 2017-02-09(c)(3)

Without the First Amendment Retaliation or the § 1983 supervisory liability claim, however, there is no longer a basis for supplemental jurisdiction over the Kentucky Open Records Act violations.

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

Weathers v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · filed 2017-06-29(c)

With all of Weathers’s federal claims dismissed, this court will decline to exercise supplemental- jurisdiction over her State-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and those claims will be remanded to State court, See Waybright v. Frederick Cty., MD, 528 F.3d 199, 209 (4th Cir. 2008) (“With all its federal questions gone, there may be the authority to keep [the case] in federal court[,] ... but there is no good reason to do so.”).

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and remand them to state court when the factors favoring remand outweigh those favoring retention.

Talismanic Props., LLC v. Tipp City · filed 2017-12-11(c)(3)

The factors weighing in favor of the Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction do not outweigh the factors favoring remand in light of the strong presumption against exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the presumption favoring remand is not overcome.

Justice v. Justice · filed 2018-03-28(c)

Upon review of these factors, we find that the presumption in favor of remanding state claims has not been overcome here.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed when substantial federal judicial resources have been expended and remand would be inefficient.

Aaron Macgregor & Assocs., LLC v. Zhejiang Jinfei Kaida Wheels Co. · filed 2018-06-20(c)(3)

Nevertheless, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in this action because substantial federal judicial resources have been expended on this case in the last three years and remanding this case would cause unnecessary inefficiencies.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, and to remand those claims when the relevant factors favor doing so.

Anderson v. Dist. of Columbia · filed 2018-07-20(c)

At this early stage of proceedings before discovery has commenced, the Court finds that these factors do in fact weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction and allowing these issues of purely D.C. law to be determined by the body that knows them best-the D.C. courts. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining two claims in Mr. Anderson's complaint and remands the remainder of the case to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remand them after dismissal of all federal claims.

Tagg v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2020-04-02(c)(3)

The Court exercises its discretion under § 1367(c)(3) to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim against Banc of America under Tennessee’s declaratory judgment act. The Court thus DENIES the motion to dismiss as to this claim and, instead, REMANDS it back to state court for further proceedings.

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

Lee-Patterson v. New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. · filed 1997-02-20(c)(3)

As discussed, the claims raised against the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986 have been dismissed. Because no other ground for supplemental jurisdiction is alleged, the remaining claim is dismissed without prejudice.

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

Pokol v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co., Inc. · filed 1997-03-20(c)(3)

Nevertheless, the state law claims that comprise Counts Two through Five are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Section 1367(c)(3) of Title 28, which states, The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state claims without prejudice when no viable federal claim remains.

Austin v. Neal · filed 1996-06-03(c)(3)

In .the absence of a viable federal claim, the court will dismiss plaintiffs state claims without prejudice to pursue them in a state forum.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after resolving all federal claims.

Serrano v. Cigna Ins. Co. · filed 1996-06-14(c)(3)

Accordingly, we GRANT defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all federal claims. We also DISMISS plaintiffs Puerto Rico law claims without prejudice of litigation in the Commonwealth court system. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(1990).

Section 1367 permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after disposing of all federal claims.

Rodriguez v. Mason Technologies, Inc. · filed 1996-06-20(c)(3)

Accordingly, we GRANT defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all federal claims. We DISMISS plaintiffs’ Puerto Rico law claims without prejudice of litigation in the Commonwealth court system. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1990).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gay v. City of Daleville · filed 1996-07-17(c)(3)

In accordance with the foregoing authority, since no claims remain from which the court had original jurisdic ... tion, the court shall dismiss the remaining state claim without prejudice.

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

Ehredt Underground, Inc. v. Commonwealth Edison Co. · filed 1996-07-23(c)(3)

Judge Posner properly dismissed, without prejudice, the state-law claims that are not preempted, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), so the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of remaining state-law claims when the federal claim fails.

Ehredt Underground, Inc. v. Commonwealth Edison Company · filed 1996-07-23(c)(3)

We are confident, however, that Ehredt's antitrust claim is a non-starter. Judge Posner properly dismissed, without prejudice, the state-law claims that are not preempted, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), so the judgment is 10 AFFIRMED.

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

Clark v. Buchko · filed 1996-08-01(c)(3)

For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motions for summary judgment will be granted and plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 will be dismissed. Additionally, plaintiffs state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice on the basis that this court lacks jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after disposing of the federal claim.

People of State of Ill. Ex Rel. Edgar v. Chicago · filed 1996-09-27(c)(3)

The Seventh Circuit has cautioned against deciding supplemental state law claims on their merits where the underlying federal claim has dropped out. ... The standard practice is to dismiss those claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless they are “easily shown to have no possible merit [such that] dismissing [them] on the merits is a time saver for everybody.” ... In this case, the standard practice is best followed. Therefore, plaintiffs’ state law claims in Counts 2 and 3 must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed the federal claim to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim and dismiss that claim without prejudice.

Overton v. Tar Heel Farm Credit, ACA · filed 1996-09-30(c)(3)

Although both parties have spent considerable- time briefing the viability of plaintiffs state common law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of state public policy as set forth in N.C.Gen.Stat. 143-422.2, the court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Therefore, plaintiffs state common law claim set forth in Count Two is DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Hinch v. Duncan · filed 1996-10-04(c)(3)

Plaintiffs pendent state law claim under the VDA is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

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

Andrews v. Crump · filed 1996-10-16(c)(3)

Since summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, which are the only claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, it is appropriate to dismiss Plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss pendent state law claims without prejudice after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Gasner v. Board of Supervisors · filed 1997-01-07(c)(3)

We are further satisfied that the district court acted within its discre- tion in dismissing without prejudice the pendent state law claims asserted in Counts 4 through 16 of the amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of pendent state claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Jones v. Dr. Stephen L. Purcell Kenneth L. McGinnis Gary Gabry · filed 1997-02-07(c)(3)

Having correctly dismissed plaintiff's federal claims, the district judge properly dismissed without prejudice plaintiff's pendent state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Marshall v. Walker · filed 1997-02-27(c)(3)

Since the federal claims are being dismissed, the supplemental state law malicious prosecution claim will be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court that has dismissed all federal claims to dismiss the remaining state-law claim without prejudice.

Bennett-Beil v. Village of Hartland · filed 1997-04-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, the court no longer has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim and dismisses it without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Owens v. Swan · filed 1997-04-25(c)(3)

The court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ first and second causes of action leaves two remaining state law claims: (1) violation of the State Constitution of Utah; and (2) trespass. The court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after resolving all claims within its original jurisdiction, and to dismiss that claim without prejudice.

Rheams v. Marquette University · filed 1997-05-09(c)(3)

Accordingly, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs breach of contract claim and such claim is DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, to be refiled in Wisconsin state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of state-law claims without prejudice when the federal claim has been dismissed.

University Professionals of Illinois, Local 4100 v. Edgar · filed 1997-06-11(c)(3)

With no cognizable federal claim, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3). Similarly, because we dismiss appellants’ federal claim, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of their state claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of state claims when the federal claim is dismissed.

University Professionals of Illinois, Local 4100, IFT-AFT, AFL-CIO v. Edgar · filed 1997-06-11(c)(3)

With no cognizable federal claim, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Similarly, because we dismiss appellants' federal claim, we affirm the district court's dismissal of their state claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice after all claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Simmons v. Miller · filed 1997-07-07(c)(3)

However, because the court will grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants, thus dismissing Counts I through V, original jurisdiction is now lacking. Consequently, the court properly chooses to exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and hereby DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Counts VI and VII.

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

Sweaney v. Ada County · filed 1997-07-15(c)

Having dismissed all of Sweaney’s federal claims, the district court had the discretion to dismiss the supplemental state law claims without prejudice to Sweaney’s right to refile them in state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after it has dismissed all federal claims.

No. 96-35156 · filed 1997-07-15(c)

Having dismissed all of Sweaney's federal claims, the district court had the discretion to dismiss the supplemental state law claims without prejudice to Sweaney's right to refile them in state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Hawara v. MTC Distributing · filed 1997-09-15(c)

Having dismissed the Hawaras's federal claims, the district court had the discretion to dismiss the supplemental state law claims without prejudice to the Hawaras's right to refile them in state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims.

Lucas v. Department of Corrections California Men's Colony, Defendats-Appellees · filed 1997-09-24(c)

Having dismissed Lucas's federal claims, the district court had the discretion to dismiss the supplemental state law claims without prejudice to Lucas's right to refile them in state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed early in the case.

Willis-Knighton Medical Center v. City of Bossier · filed 1997-10-15(c)(3)

Given the recommended dismissal of all federal claims at this early stage of the proceedings, and the absence of a basis for diversity jurisdiction, the appropriate disposition of plaintiffs claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Law, La. R.S. 51:1401, et seq., is dismissal without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Union Pacific Railroad v. Reilly Industries, Inc. · filed 1997-11-03(c)(3)

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1367 affirmatively grants the court authority to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims, a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because summary judgment is appropriate on the federal claims, the court will exercise its discretion and dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed the federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Press v. Chemical Investment Services Corp. · filed 1997-12-22(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Press’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and therefore dismisses those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Violissi v. City of Middletown · filed 1998-01-12(c)(4)

Having dismissed all of plaintiff’s federal claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, which we dismiss without prejudice.

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

New Jersey Freedom Organization v. City of New Brunswick · filed 1997-12-15(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, summary judgment has been granted to Plaintiffs on the claims raised under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Because no other ground for supplemental jurisdiction is alleged, the Third Cause of Action is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) supports dismissal without prejudice of remaining state law claims after the federal cause of action is dismissed.

Salle v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co. · filed 1998-03-12(c)(3)

Since only state law claims remain and the court cannot maintain supplemental jurisdiction over them absent a federal cause, the court dismisses the entire case.

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

Jackson v. Sanford · filed 1998-03-18(c)(3)

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal with prejudice of the federal claims. As to the Jacksons& state law claims, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3), 1367(d); Labickas v. Arkansas State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 395 (1996).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows dismissal without prejudice of state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed.

Madsen v. Park City · filed 1998-04-29(c)(3)

To the extent plaintiff also intended to raise claims under state law, those claims will be dismissed without prejudice,for lack of subject matter jurisdiction since all federal claims are being dismissed.

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

Minnesota Ass'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Unity Hospital · filed 1998-05-07(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if: “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, .... ” ... Upon a review of all the factors, the Court concludes it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ remaining claims will be dismissed without prejudice, so that they may be considered in an appropriate state forum.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy does not justify retaining them.

Jones v. Intuition, Inc. · filed 1998-05-29(c)(3)

In the instant action, the court finds that plaintiffs state law claims against defendants InTuition and TSAC are best resolved by a Tennessee state court. The court finds no “overwhelming interests” of judicial economy sufficient to justify retention of federal jurisdiction. The court, therefore, has no jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims after resolving the federal claim and dismiss them without prejudice.

Struhar v. City of Cleveland · filed 1998-05-29(c)(3)

Because pendent jurisdiction is principally associated with federal question jurisdiction, where the existence of a federal claim supports jurisdiction of a pendent state claim, disposition of the federal claim allows a district court to exercise its discretion to allow any unresolved state claims to be heard in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Therefore, having resolved Struhar’s federal claim, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs Struhar’s remaining state claims without prejudice so that he may pursue them in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed, leaving those state claims to be dismissed without prejudice.

Finnegan v. University of Rochester Medical Center · filed 1998-08-07(c)(3)

Accordingly, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims against defendant Hospital pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and these claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Dakota Ridge v. City of Boulder · filed 1998-08-21(c)(3)

Having concluded that Dakota Ridge’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is premature and subject to dismissal, the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of Dakota Ridge’s state claims was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that dismisses all federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Doe v. Sabine Parish School Board · filed 1998-10-27(c)(3)

IT IS ORDERED that the (1) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doe. 18) be GRANTED by dismissing WITH PREJUDICE all federal law claims asserted by Jane Doe, individually or on behalf of her child, and dismissing WITHOUT PREJUDICE all state law claims asserted by Jane Doe, individually or on behalf of her child, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all federal claims have been eliminated and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

White v. Martin · filed 1998-10-19(c)(3)

As to the remaining state claims, because all federal claims have been eliminated from this lawsuit, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of the remaining state claims against the CHRO defendants and dismiss these without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims, especially when the state law issues are best resolved in state court.

Piazza v. Mayne · filed 1998-10-29(c)(3)

Because the Court concludes that Mayne is immune from suit under section 1983, the Court finds that a state court should resolve Piazza’s remaining state law claims. These claims, involving construction of a state regulatory statute and state constitutional provisions, and the duties of state officials, are best resolved by a state tribunal. Thus, the Court dismisses the state law claims without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of remaining state-law claims when no federal question remains for decision.

E-Z Implements, Inc. v. Marv Haugen Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1998-11-17(c)(3)

Because no federal question remains for decision, the court finds that plaintiffs remaining claims should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits dismissal without prejudice of a supplemental state law claim after the federal claim supporting original jurisdiction is dismissed.

Village of Thornton v. United States Army Corps of Engineers · filed 1998-12-23(c)(3)

Because the NEPA claim must be dismissed, there is no longer any independent federal jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law nuisance claim against the Water District. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (e); ... Accordingly, that claim is dismissed without prejudice.

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

Temple v. Inhabitants of the City of Belfast · filed 1998-12-04(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court dismisses without prejudice these supplemental state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claim is dismissed, with dismissal of the state claims without prejudice.

Coleman v. State Farm Fire & · filed 1999-01-19(c)(3)

Additionally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Coleman’s state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), although the dismissal of these claims should be without prejudice, see Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir. 1998).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after disposing of the federal claims, dismissing the state claims without prejudice.

Perkins v. Londonderry Basketball · filed 1999-02-18(c)(3)

Having disposed of the federal claims, I decline to exercise my discretion to retain supplemental discretion over Perkins' remaining state claims ... (Counts III and IV). Counts III and IV of Perkins' complaint are dismissed without prejudice to her right to pursue them in state court. See 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 and dismiss them without prejudice after all federal claims are dismissed.

Reynolds v. Golden Corral Corp. · filed 1999-03-11(c)(3)

Plaintiff has no remaining federal claims. The court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after it dismisses the federal claims.

Myers v. PENN TP. BD. OF COM'RS · filed 1999-06-03(c)(3)

Since we have decided that the plaintiff's federal claims lack substance, we will dismiss the supplemental state-law claims without prejudice to filing them in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Myers v. Penn Township Board of Commissioners · filed 1999-06-03(c)(3)

Since we have decided that the plaintiffs federal claims lack substance, we will dismiss the supplemental state-law claims without prejudice to filing them in state court.

When all federal claims are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court discretion to hear the remaining state law claims or dismiss them without prejudice.

Bass v. Parkwood Hospital · filed 1999-07-01(c)(3)

However, this fact does not divest the court of jurisdiction: instead, the court must exercise its discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bass’s state law claims.

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

Fillion v. Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians · filed 1999-06-16(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the one claim over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court dismisses without prejudice these supplemental state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state claims when the federal claims supporting jurisdiction are dismissed.

Crown Heights Jewish Community Council, Inc. v. Fischer · filed 1999-08-10(c)(3)

Accordingly, if summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ RICO claims is granted, plaintiffs’ remaining claims should be dismissed without prejudice to further proceedings in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed, with those claims dismissed without prejudice.

Francis v. Chemical Banking Corp. · filed 1999-08-11(c)(3)

As all of plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, ... and these claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Davis v. Township of Hillside · filed 1999-08-24(c)

Having dismissed all of plaintiff 's federal claims, the district court dismissed without prejudice the state law claims against the owners of the civilian cars involved in the accident pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1367(c). The district court had discretion to do so and we find no error.