28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Heffernan v. Hunter · filed 1999-08-26(c)(3)

The District Court also acted within its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's remaining state law claim without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. S 1367(c)(3).

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

Heffernan v. Robert W. Hunter, Prisoner Cv9408 Bochetto & Lentz, P.C. George Bochetto, Esq · filed 1999-08-26(c)(3)

The District Court also acted within its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff’s remaining state law claim without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits supplemental state claims to be dismissed without prejudice when the federal claims are dismissed.

Dorothy J. v. Little Rock School District · filed 1992-05-28(c)(3)

Since the Court is dismissing the plaintiff’s section 1983 claims, whatever supplemental tort claims that may have been stated in the original complaint also are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Brown v. LaSalle Northwest National Bank · filed 1993-03-25(c)(3)

The Consumer Fraud Act claim is only before the court on supplemental jurisdiction; there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties. Since the federal claim is being dismissed, Count II will be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

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

Hood v. Itawamba County, Miss. · filed 1993-04-22(c)(3)

Pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim in subsection (a) if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Since this court has dismissed all of the federal questions which gave it original jurisdiction, the state law claims pending before this court will be dismissed without prejudice, and such claims may proceed in the usual manner pursuant to state court practice and procedure.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice when the federal claim supporting jurisdiction has been dismissed.

Keystone Builders, Inc. v. Floor Fashions of Virginia, Inc. · filed 1993-07-29(c)(3)

When supplemental jurisdiction is founded solely upon a federal question and the federal claim is dismissed, this court is free to dismiss the remaining state claims without prejudice to renew them in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Jones v. Chieffo · filed 1993-09-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed plaintiffs’ federal claims, I will decline to exercise my discretion to retain jurisdiction over their state claims and, thus, will dismiss plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice.

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

Young v. Francis · filed 1993-09-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, I will decline to exercise my discretion to retain jurisdiction over their state claims and, thus, will dismiss plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice.

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

Goldberg v. Hankin · filed 1993-09-27(c)(3)

Since this court does not have jurisdiction to decide these state claims, they will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Triomphe Investors v. City of Northwood · filed 1993-10-29(c)(3)

Plaintiffs claim that defendants interfered with a business relationship that plaintiffs had established with a developer is a claim that is based on state law. Because this Opinion has dismissed all of plaintiffs claims brought under federal law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court will dismiss this claim without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after the federal claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Sapp v. Cunningham · filed 1994-03-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), once the federal claims which gave rise to this Court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed, this Court has discretion to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice to the plaintiff.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of a supplemental state-law claim after the federal claim supplying original jurisdiction is dismissed.

Johnston v. Morrison, Inc. · filed 1994-04-20(c)(3)

The Court concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the ADA claim and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; therefore, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED and the ADA claim will be dismissed. Since plaintiff now lacks any independent basis for federal jurisdiction, the state law tort claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Figuly v. City of Douglas · filed 1994-05-24(c)(3)

Because the Court has held that Figuly’s civil rights claim must fail, the Court no longer has jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... [if| the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Accordingly, this Court dismisses Figuly’s remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Levine v. Prudential Bache Properties, Inc. · filed 1994-06-03(c)(3)

With the dismissal of the federal counts, the court also will enter a dismissal of the state counts without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Streck v. Peters · filed 1994-06-07(c)(3)

Thus, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court hereby DECLINES to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Peters’ counterclaim and hereby DISMISSES it without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after disposing of the federal claims, and the claim may be dismissed without prejudice.

Advo, Inc. v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. · filed 1994-06-10(c)(3)

The state law claim for tortious interference is dismissed without prejudice because the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claims have been disposed of at this stage.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when it dismisses the only claim within its original jurisdiction, and to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Accordino v. Langman Construction, Inc. · filed 1994-08-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3), this court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state claims because the only claim over which this court has original jurisdiction is being dismissed. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the state claims listed as claims three through five in the original Complaint and additional claims six and seven in the First Amended Complaint be DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without prejudice.

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

A. Aiudi & Sons v. Town of Plainville · filed 1994-09-01(c)

Since the sole claim arising under federal law has been dismissed, the bas^ upon which subject-matter jurisdiction rests has been obliterated. The, remaining counts in the complaint therefore should be DISMISSED without prejudice to their pursuit in state court.

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

Bowdoin Construction Corp. v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, N.A · filed 1994-11-16(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), where the supporting federal claims have been dismissed, the Court has discretion to dismiss the pendent state claims as well, without prejudice to a future state court action.

After the federal claims supporting original jurisdiction are resolved, a district court may dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after considering economy, convenience, fairness and comity.

Nielson v. Soltis · filed 1994-10-20(c)(3)

As a result, the district court, in its discretion, may exercise one of three options over the supplemental state law claims: exercise jurisdiction over those claims, remand the claims to state court, or dismiss the supplemental state claims. ... We believe the district court properly considered the Gibbs factors in reaching this determination, and that the Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the supplemental state claims without prejudice upon the resolution of the federal claims on which the Court's jurisdiction was based.

Section 1367 permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Baker v. Clay County Board of Education · filed 1994-12-08(c)(3)

The plaintiffs may have state claims against the defendants. Therefore, the state claims are dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

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

Konefal v. Hollis/Brookline · filed 1995-01-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the court hereby dismisses plaintiff's remaining state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without prejudice to pursuing those claims in the state forum.

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

Deron v. Wilkins · filed 1995-02-02(c)(3)

Because the court has concluded that there exists no viable federal claim against either of the defendants, in the exercise of its discretion, the' court concludes that the remaining state law claim should be dismissed without prejudice. ... See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

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

Gonyo v. Drake University · filed 1995-03-10(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the state law claims asserted in Counts IV-VII .in plaintiffs’ complaint are DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without prejudice.

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

Dominique v. Weld · filed 1995-03-31(c)(3)

Because all of plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed, this Court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to consider those pendent state law claims which are hereby dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Smith v. Reddy · filed 1995-04-06(c)(3)

Finally, all pendent claims against all parties will be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims after the federal claims are resolved.

Renaissance Center Venture v. Lozovoj · filed 1995-05-05

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the supplemental state law claims in Case No. 93-CV-72629-DT and Case No. 94-CV-74841-DT hereby are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss a supplemental state-law claim without prejudice after all federal claims are dismissed, particularly when the case remains at the pleading stage.

Walker v. Johnson · filed 1995-06-30(c)(3)

That claim will be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” over which it has supplemental jurisdiction if the “court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Since all federally based claims have been dismissed, and this case has not gone beyond the pleading stage, we will dismiss plaintiffs remaining state tort claim without prejudice.

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

Skogquist Trucking & Excavating Inc. v. Minnesota Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Plan · filed 1995-07-17(c)(3)

Having resolved the federal issue raised in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the state law issues which were fully briefed and argued, the Court will dismiss the remainder of this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss pendent state claims without prejudice when no federal claims remain.

Cronin v. Town of Amesbury · filed 1995-07-25(c)(3)

There being no other federal claims, this court exercises its prerogative under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, to dismiss all pendent state claims, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Harris v. Mississippi Valley State University · filed 1995-09-22(c)(3)

Although Harris offers little support for these claims, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. Since the Court has dismissed all of the federal claims that gave- it original jurisdiction, the state law claims against these Defendants pending before this Court will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Barney v. City of Greenville, Miss. · filed 1995-09-06(c)(3)

Pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim in subsection (a) if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Since this court has dismissed all of the federal claims that gave it original jurisdiction, the state law claims pending before this court will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Kelley v. City of Manchester · filed 1995-09-29(c)(3)

Having granted defendants' motion for summary judgment with regard to Counts 1 through 18, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state defamation claims (Counts 19 and 20). The court, of course, makes no ruling on the viability of those state claims, which are dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to pursue them in state court. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) .

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

ACC Chemical Co. v. Halliburton Co. · filed 1995-10-04(c)(3)

IT IS ORDERED that the state law claim in count IV of plaintiffs’ complaint and defendant’s state law counterclaims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, and the state law claims may be dismissed without prejudice.

D.R. Ex Rel. Robinson v. Phyfer · filed 1995-12-06(c)(3)

Accordingly, because no claims subject to the court’s original jurisdiction remain, the court will dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

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; when that happens before trial, the court ordinarily should dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

DeHarder Investment Corp. v. Indiana Housing Finance Authority · filed 1995-12-08(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that a district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims if the court has dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Having found no exceptions to this general rule that are applicable in this case, we therefore dismiss plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Bradshaw v. Igloo Products Corp. · filed 1996-01-05(c)(3)

Since all the federal claims are being dismissed, plaintiffs’ state law trademark claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss a remaining state claim without prejudice after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Douglas v. Evans · filed 1996-01-25(c)(3)

The court stresses that the Act makes supplemental jurisdiction mandatory unless there is a specific statutory exception. ... In accordance with the foregoing authority, since no claims remain from which the court had original jurisdiction, the court shall dismiss the remaining state claim without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss a remaining state claim without prejudice after it disposes of all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy favors doing so when the state claim has not been briefed or supported with evidence at an early stage.

State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group · filed 1996-03-26(c)(3)

Section 1367 provides that 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)(3). ... At this early stage in the proceedings, when neither party has briefed or presented evidence on this state claim, considerations of judicial economy dictate that the counter-claim be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims when the court dismisses the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Parker v. Wiser · filed 1996-03-29(c)(3)

This court finds nothing in the plaintiffs’ complaint which would support a § 1983 claim. Therefore, dismissal of the plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice is proper under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gilday v. Mecosta County · filed 1996-03-28(c)(3)

These are the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction. The remaining claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and (d).

When a district court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), the state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Castellanos v. Love · filed 1997-11-21(c)

Since the district court, in its discretion, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Castellanos’s state-law tort claims, those state claims are dismissed without ... prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (1993), and the judgment below as to the state law claims is hereby modified to so reflect.

When a district court declines supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), it must dismiss the state law claims without prejudice so they may be brought in state court.

Martinez v. Local 7 United Food · filed 1998-11-03(c)

The proper course of conduct when declining supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice, in order to permit them to be brought in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of pendent state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when state law questions would substantially predominate.

Rosendale v. Iuliano · filed 2003-05-20(c)(3)

Third, the district court properly dismissed Rosendale’s pendent state law nuisance claims without prejudice on the ground that questions of New York state law would substantially predominate in their resolution.

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

Wyninger v. New Venture Gear, Inc. · filed 2003-02-05(c)(3)

We decline an opportunity to order additional briefing since we have already ruled on the federal claims to which the state claims are supplemental. Accordingly, we DISMISS the state claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

After all federal claims are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) leaves the district court discretion to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice or exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Scott v. Clay County, Tennessee Chinn Anderson Billy Pierce Michael Thompson · filed 2000-03-01(c)(3)

Finally, following remand, the district court shall initially determine, in its sound discretion, whether to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining state law claims without prejudice, or to exercise supplemental federal jurisdiction over them.

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

Evans v. Davis Memorial Goodwill Industries · filed 2000-05-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed the plaintiffs federal ADA claim, the Court has discretion whether or not to hear the pendant claims under the DCHRA and District of Columbia contract law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these claims that are purely a matter of D.C. law. These claims are more properly heard in District of Columbia Superior Court and therefore are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367 permits a court that has dismissed the federal claim to decline supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Dumas v. Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. · filed 2000-06-21(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiffs’ RICO cause of action, now also lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over these cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and dismisses them herewith without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims after dismissing the federal claim and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Rodriquez v. Topps Co., Inc. · filed 2000-06-21(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiffs’ RICO cause of action, now also lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over these cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state claims under 28 U-S.C. § 1367 and dismisses them herewith without prejudice.

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

Thurmond v. Compaq Computer Corp. · filed 2001-03-15(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, and DISMISSES those claims pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) without prejudice for refiling in the appropriate forum.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim, and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Zapach v. Dismuke · filed 2001-03-26(c)(3)

In the absence of a federal claim, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and therefore we will dismiss them without prejudice.

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

Nowell v. Acadian Ambulance Service · filed 2001-04-13(c)(3)

Thus, the undersigned declines supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims asserted against Acadian, Fuselier, Savoy, Scott and Clay. Those claims shall be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Smith v. Wilson County · filed 2001-05-15(c)(3)

Although we express no opinion as to the merit of Plaintiff’s state law claims of wrongful death and assault and battery, we modify the district court’s order to reflect a dismissal without prejudice of those claims, which may be pursued in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (1994); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-27 (1966); Revene v. Charles County Comm’rs, 882 F.2d 870, 875 (4th Cir. 1989).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain a state-law claim or dismiss it without prejudice after the federal claim is dismissed.

Tanner v. LSU Frmn Training · filed 2001-05-18(c)

Because we affirm the district court’s judgment as to Tanner’s federal claim, the district court may exercise its discretion in determining whether to retain Tanner’s state-law claim or to dismiss it without prejudice so that Tanner may file it in state court.

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

Tanaka v. University of Southern California Michael Garrett Daryl Gross Pacific-10 Conference National Collegia · filed 2001-06-07(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Tanaka's state breach of contract claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides that “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss local claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims.

American Towers, Inc. v. Williams · filed 2001-06-14(c)(3)

Since all of plaintiffs federal claims fail as a matter of law, they will be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs non-federal claims are quintessentially local in nature; they therefore will be dismissed without prejudice to their being refiled in a more appropriate forum. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice when it dismisses the federal claim early in the proceedings.

Serrano v. Sanchez-Bermudez · filed 2001-11-26(c)(3)

Any remaining state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because should the federal cause of action be dismissed early in the proceedings, the Court should dismiss without prejudice the state law claims.

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

Cordero v. Autonomous Municipality of Ponce · filed 2002-01-22(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Ponce’s motion to dismiss the federal claims in Rivera Cordero’s Complaint. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims, and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Cabrera v. Trataros Construction Inc. · filed 2002-01-31(c)(3)

Alvarez Title VII claim is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Alvarez’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and they are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Jefferson v. Jefferson County Board of Education · filed 2002-02-11(c)(3)

Insofar as the defendants’ motion seeks summary judgment on the plaintiffs federal claims, it is granted; otherwise, it is denied. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs state law claims for defamation, abuse of teacher, tortious interference with employment, and arbitrariness are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to this court’s power under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims after the federal claims to which they were supplemental are dismissed.

Ysasi v. Nucentrix Broadband Networks, Inc. · filed 2002-04-16(c)(3)

Finding that Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action under either the CLA or the TILA, this Court also dismisses the supplemental state law claims against Nucentrix, DirecTV, and Does 1-40, without prejudice. These state claims were here solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction; in the absence of a federal claim, this Court is without power to hear them.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state claims when no federal claims remain to support jurisdiction.

Toledo v. Puerto Rico Labor & Human Resources Dept. · filed 2002-04-29(c)(3)

Supplemental state claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), since no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining local claims after the federal claim is dismissed, leaving those claims to be dismissed without prejudice.

Corcino v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico · filed 2002-04-25(c)(3)

Moreover, in the absence of a federal claim, there is no reason to exercise this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear the remainder of plaintiffs purely local claims against defendant and they will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) calls for dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state claims when no federal claims remain to support jurisdiction.

Garcia-Figueroa v. Rico · filed 2002-05-14(c)(3)

Supplemental state claims must be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), inasmuch as no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state claims without prejudice when no federal claims remain to support jurisdiction.

Lopez-Hernandez v. Municipality of San Juan · filed 2002-05-14(c)(3)

The supplemental state claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), inasmuch as no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case.

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

In Transit Sales, Inc. v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2002-05-20(c)(3)

Judgment shall enter dismissing all federal claims in the Complaint. The state law claims shall be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Victoria W. v. Larpenter · filed 2002-05-21(c)(3)

Consequently, all of Plaintiffs federal claims are dismissed with prejudice. Further, the Court dismisses all of Plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice, ... declining to retain jurisdiction over those claims absent an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Pubill-Rivera v. Curet · filed 2002-05-31(c)(3)

In light of the foregoing, the Court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket Nos. 57, 70, 90) and dismisses all federal claims against co-defendants Dr. Curet and Dr. Madera with prejudice. The supplemental state claims against them are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims and dismiss them without prejudice when no federal claims remain.

Negroni v. Associates Corp. of North America · filed 2002-05-28(c)(3)

The supplemental state claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), inasmuch as no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss state law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claim.

Perez v. Rodriguez · filed 2002-06-21

The Court dismisses plaintiffs’s state law claims without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Vives v. Fajardo · filed 2002-07-10(c)(3)

Since no federal claims remain, the Court dismisses the supplemental state claims without prejudice pursuant to 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 against the same defendants, even when federal claims against other defendants remain.

Gausvik v. Perez · filed 2002-07-13(c)(3)

Because the court is granting judgment for defendants Chelan County, Barker & Howard, Jeffrey Barker and Keith Howard on the federal claims asserted against them, it chooses to dismiss without prejudice the common law tort claims asserted against those defendants. Those claims can be reasserted in state court if plaintiff wishes to pursue them. Retaining and trying the common law tort claims against these defendants could lead to speculation and confusion by the jury in the event that federal claims against the other defendants (City of Wenatchee, Perez, Badgley and/or Tilley) were tried at the same time.

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

Berrios v. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education · filed 2002-07-17(c)(3)

Since no federal claims remain, the court dismisses all supplemental state claims without prejudice 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 against the relevant defendants have been dismissed.

Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico Institute of Culture · filed 2002-08-09(c)(3)

Since no federal claims remain, the court will dismiss all supplemental state claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), except as to the defendants Héctor Cazul, Manuel Ve-lázquez, and Orlando González Aviles given their failure to oppose plaintiffs’ federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state claims when no federal claims remain to support jurisdiction.

Eastern Food Services, Inc. v. Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico Service Ass'n · filed 2002-08-30(c)(3)

EFS’s supplemental state claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), inasmuch as no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed and no independent basis for federal jurisdiction remains.

Loeb Industries, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp. · filed 2002-09-20(c)(3)

Since the Scrap Dealers have asserted no independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, it is entirely appropriate to dismiss the state law claims, though without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Oates v. Discovery Zone, 116 F.3d 1161, 1173 n.12 (7th Cir. 1997).

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

Benton v. Cousins Properties, Inc. · filed 2002-09-27(c)(3)

This section provides that “[t]he 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). ... The Court concludes that dismissal is appropriate in this case because plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed. ... Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

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

Reyes v. Erickson · filed 2003-01-03(c)

The remaining claims for relief in plaintiffs’ complaint are New York state law claims over which this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... The remaining state law claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice when no federal claims remain.

Gray v. Seaboard Securities, Inc. · filed 2003-01-29(c)(3)

Finally, because no federal claims remain, the Court dismisses the remaining state law causes of action that are not preempted by SLUSA without prejudice pursuant to 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 only federal claim; when that happens early in the suit, the state law claims are generally dismissed without prejudice.

Adams v. Town of Burrillville Ex Rel. Mainville · filed 2003-03-03(c)

In most instances, dismissal of a plaintiffs federal claim at an early stage of a lawsuit triggers dismissal of any supplemental state law claims. ... In this case, there is no reason to depart from the general rule warranting such a dismissal. Accordingly, this. Court declines to address the Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the contract-related claims and orders those claims dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 allows a court, after dismissing the federal claim, to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice, or to retain jurisdiction and decide them on the merits.

Payne v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. · filed 2003-08-14(c)(3)

We thus vacate the dis- trict court’s remand order and remand for the district court to decide (1) as to the federal case, whether (a) to decline supplemental jurisdic- tion over the Paynes’ state law claims and dismiss the claims without prejudice or (b) to consider the claims on the merits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367; and (2) as to the removed case, whether to remand to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice when no federal claims remain to support jurisdiction.

Rivera v. Fagundo · filed 2004-01-29(c)(3)

Because no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case, plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims are hereby dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims, especially early in the case.

Moseley v. Price · filed 2004-01-22(c)(3)

It is therefore appropriate, especially given the early stage of this case, to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice so they may be pursued in state court, if plaintiff so desires.

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

Caron v. City of Pawtucket · filed 2004-02-27(c)(3)

This Court sees no reason to retain the supplemental claims in the Caron Action. Those claims involve the Rhode Island Tort Claims Act and sundry theories of common law negligence that, by themselves, have no business in federal court. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Caron Action is dismissed without prejudice to refiling, should the Carons wish it, in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state claims when no federal claims remain to support jurisdiction.

Soto v. Rodriguez · filed 2004-03-04(c)(3)

Because no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case, the supplemental state claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Gourdine v. Cabrini Medical Center · filed 2004-03-09(c)(3)

For the reasons discussed below, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gourdine’s forgery and fraud claims and consider these claims on the merits, but will exercise its discretion under § 1367(c) and dismiss her breach of contract claim 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, and to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Munjak v. Signator Investors, Inc. · filed 2004-03-29(c)(3)

Therefore, in the absence of another basis for original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims and dismisses the claims without prejudice.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) and dismiss the remaining state-law claims without prejudice.

GF Gaming Corp. v. Black Hawk Casino Owners Ass'n. · filed 2004-03-25(c)(3)

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims arising under COLO. REV. STAT. §§ 6-4-104 and 6 — 4—105, over which the Court elected not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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.

Sanders v. City of Montgomery · filed 2004-04-30(c)(3)

Because the federal claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction have now been resolved against Sanders, the Court will dismiss the state-law claims, albeit without prejudice, which dismissal should not work to Sanders’ disadvantage.

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

Quiñones v. Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2004-05-04(c)(3)

Supplemental state law claims against Banco Popular and Sierra-Burgos are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), since no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state-law claims when no federal claims remain to support original jurisdiction.

Torres-Rivera v. Calderón-Serra · filed 2004-08-05(c)(3)

Supplemental state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), since no federal claims to ground original jurisdiction remain in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims when no federal claims remain to support jurisdiction.

Celta Construction v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 2004-09-23(c)(3)

Because no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case, supplemental state law claims against PRPHA are hereby dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Lorens v. Catholic Health Care Partners · filed 2005-01-13(c)(3)

This standard has been codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion to dismiss these remaining claims against CHP, without prejudice pursuant to that provision.

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, and to dismiss those state claims without prejudice.

Sizer v. County of Hennepin · filed 2005-01-14(c)(3)

Here, the Court has granted summary judgment on Sizer’s federal claim, and only Sizer’s state law claims remain. As such, the Court determines that it will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this instance and that the remaining claims stated in the Complaint are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing the claims supporting original jurisdiction.

López-Sánchez v. Vergara-Agostini · filed 2005-02-23(c)(3)

Having jettisoned the claim upon which López anchored federal jurisdiction, I also dismiss her state law cause of action. ... Dismissal of said cause of action is without prejudice.

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

MacK v. Augusta-Richmond County, Ga. · filed 2005-04-18(c)(3)

Absent Plaintiffs showing that he retains viable federal claims against Defendants, the absence of a federal claim places supplemental jurisdiction in doubt. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, I will dismiss Plaintiffs state law claim.

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

Harris v. Del Taco, Inc. · filed 2005-04-19(c)(3)

Thus, Mr. Harris lacks standing to assert a claim for injunctive relief under the ADA; the First Claim for Relief is DISMISSED. All remaining claims for relief arise under California state law. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims; they are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Hancock v. Walt Disney World Inc. · filed 2005-04-20(c)

Having correctly dismissed those claims with prejudice, the district court properly declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law causes of action and dismissed them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims when no federal claims remain.

Vega v. Pepsi Cola Puerto Rico Distributing LLC · filed 2005-05-19(c)(3)

Since no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case, plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Quiñones Colón v. Calderon · filed 2005-05-25(c)(3)

Since no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case, plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

MacArthur v. San Juan County · filed 2005-06-13(c)(3)

Ms. Lyman’s federal claims having been dismissed at the conclusion of the Final Pretrial Conference, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over her remaining state law tort claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Those claims, therefore, will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Henderson v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2005-06-22(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Henderson’s pendant state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Brown v. Lucky Stores, Inc. 246 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir.2001) (when federal law claims are dismissed the proper exercise of discretion is to dismiss pendant state law claims without prejudice).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims when no federal claims remain.

Estevez v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. · filed 2005-07-27(c)(3)

Since no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case, plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to dismiss pendent state law claims without prejudice after no viable federal claim remains.

McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd. · filed 2005-08-02(c)

Absent any viable federal claim, the district court's dismissal of all of McBee's pendent state law claims (without prejudice to their being refiled in state court) was fully appropriate and was not an abuse of discretion -- McBee has not argued otherwise.

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

Hoffman v. Mercado · filed 2005-09-14(c)

Since the Court dismissed plaintiffs federal action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) as interpreted in ... all claims pursuant to state law are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Alicea v. Ondeo De Puerto Rico · filed 2005-09-26(c)(3)

Since the Court dismissed plaintiffs federal action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) as interpreted in Gonzalez-DeBlasini v. Family Department, 377 F.3d 81, 89 (1st Cir.2004); Claudio-Gotay v. Becton Dickinson Caribe, Ltd., 375 F.3d 99, 105 (1st Cir.2004); and Rodriguez v. Doral Mortgage, 57 F.3d 1168, 1177 (1st Cir.1995) all claims pursuant to state law are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Robinson v. District of Columbia · filed 2005-12-02(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court shall dismiss without prejudice Counts I, II, and V of Plaintiffs Complaint, and close this case.

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

Yarborough v. Burger King Corp. · filed 2005-12-22(c)(3)

Because all federal claims will be dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction is not available. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim and dismiss it without prejudice after disposing of the sole federal claim.

Brown v. FL Roberts & Co., Inc. · filed 2006-03-03(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise such jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (2006). In this case, the court will grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant only on the sole federal claim. Plaintiffs state law claim will therefore be dismissed without prejudice to allow the state to resolve the relevant issues.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims when no federal claims remain.

Aguirre-Rodriguez v. Little Caesars · filed 2006-05-10(c)(3)

Furthermore, since no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case, plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Vigneri v. US Bank National Ass'n · filed 2006-07-06(c)

Because the court is dismissing the EFTA claim, the remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. These claims, the conversion claim and the Nebraska UCC claim, are state law claims and are here based on supplemental jurisdiction. The court in its discretion will dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy relevant at an early stage.

Bowers v. Janey · filed 2006-07-07(c)(3)

Considering that the Court has dismissed plaintiffs Title VII claims, this Court would be left with purely state law issues. At this early stage of the lawsuit, preventing those claims from continuing is a more efficient discharge of judicial resources. ... Accordingly, plaintiffs DCHRA claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Poindexter v. McKee · filed 2006-08-07(c)(3)

Although Plaintiff may very well have a valid state-law tort claim, once the Court has dismissed the federal claims it is appropriate to dismiss, without prejudice, the state claims so that the plaintiff may pursue, if he chooses, these claims in the state courts.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice when the federal claims supporting jurisdiction have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Bessinger v. United States · filed 2006-08-09(c)

Where the claims that satisfied federal jurisdiction have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, leaving the “pendent” state claims without their jurisdictional host, the court may, in a case begun in the federal court, dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily calls for dismissal without prejudice of state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, unless judicial economy justifies retaining them.

Yax v. UPS & Liberty Mutual · filed 2006-08-24(c)(3)

Assuming that the district court’s alternative holding on the IIED claims constituted an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, the district court should have dismissed the IIED claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after all federal claims have been dismissed, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Scheanette v. Dretke · filed 2006-08-28(c)(3)

Finally, because the district court properly dismissed all of Sheanette’s federal claims, the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his supplemental state law claims was not an abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed.

Caldwell v. Green · filed 2006-09-07(c)(3)

Therefore, the state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction also will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ruttenberg v. Jones · filed 2006-12-13(c)

As all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, over which there is jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, have been dismissed, plaintiffs’ state law claims contained in Count VI, Count VII, and Count VIII, will be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (explaining that supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion”); Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 109 (4th Cir.1995) (noting that “[t]he doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction indicates that federal courts generally have discretion to retain or dismiss state law claims when the federal basis for an action drops away”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

E & L Consulting, Ltd. v. Doman Industries Limited · filed 2006-12-15(c)(3)

With all federal claims dismissed, the dismissal, without prejudice, of the remaining state claims was proper.

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

Smith v. City of Unadilla · filed 2007-01-11(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it had jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims and those are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Barcena v. Department of Off-Street Parking · filed 2007-01-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the Counts over which this Court had original jurisdiction, I lack jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs remaining Count against Molina, a Florida corporation whose principal place of business is in Miami-Dade County, Florida. ... Therefore, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts IV, V, and VI and such Counts are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367 calls for a district court to consider whether state-law claims fall within supplemental jurisdiction and, after dismissing the federal claims, whether to dismiss those claims without prejudice or retain and resolve them.

Payton v. County of Carroll · filed 2007-01-18

To the extent that these counts raised issues purely under state law, the district court should have considered whether they fell within its supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Once it dismissed the federal claims, it should then have decided whether to dismiss the state-law issues without prejudice, or to retain them and resolve them.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims when no federal claims remain to support jurisdiction.

Tirado-Menendez v. Hospital Interamericano De Medicina · filed 2007-02-14(c)(3)

Because no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case, Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims are dismissed without prejudice 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 all federal claims and to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

Alliance for Children, Inc. v. City of Detroit Public Schools · filed 2007-02-15(c)(3)

Thus, pursuant to section 1367(c), the Court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in this case. ... The Court believes it is appropriate to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims now that the plaintiffs federal claims will be dismissed. The state law claims, therefore, will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims when no federal claims remain.

Perez-Sanchez v. Public Building Authority · filed 2007-03-12(c)(3)

Because no federal claims on which to ground' jurisdiction remain in this case after dismissal of the section 1983 and section 1985 claims, plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims when no federal claims remain.

Morales-Figueroa v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria · filed 2007-04-09(c)(3)

Furthermore, because no federal claims on which to ground jurisdiction remain in this case, plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hegre v. Alberto-Culver USA, Inc. · filed 2007-04-25(c)(3)

Because jurisdiction over this claim rests solely upon 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the absence of a federal claim places supplemental jurisdiction in doubt. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, Plaintiffs state law claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Courtney, John W. v. Halleran, Neal T. · filed 2007-05-07(c)(3)

Because we have rejected the plaintiffs’ federal claims, there is nothing more we need to add about the dismissal of their state claims. They are entitled, if they wish and are able to do so under state law, to pursue those matters in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims, with the early stage of the suit and comity favoring dismissal.

INVERNESS HOLDINGS, LTD. v. Schaafsma · filed 2007-05-14(c)(3)

In the instant case, the dismissal is made early in the progress of the suit. The state law claims involve interest arguments as to the content of state law and the interests of comity favor dismissal of those claims without prejudice for later resolution by the state courts. As such, all state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice when no federal claims remain to ground jurisdiction.

De Jesus-Sanchez v. Taber Partners I, LLC. · filed 2007-06-14(c)(3)

Because no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case, plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, leaving the state-law claims dismissed without prejudice.

Davila v. Potter · filed 2007-06-21(c)(3)

In view of the aforementioned, the Court hereby grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the ADA and Title VII claims. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining supplemental Commonwealth claims. Judgment dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and the Commonwealth claims without prejudice shall be entered accordingly.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses the federal claims, and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Fraticelli-Torres v. Garcia-Rivera · filed 2007-08-13(c)(3)

Because no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case the Court having dismissed the EMTALA claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Seabrook v. City of New York · filed 2007-09-14(c)

The Court has now dismissed all federal claims, leaving only state claims against the City and defendants the Partnership and Chase. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court may decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over these claims. ... Accordingly, plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims against all defendants are hereby dismissed without prejudice.

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

McNorton v. Georgia Department of Transportation · filed 2007-12-13(c)(3)

Generally, however, “when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction” and dismiss the state claims as well. ... Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), Plaintiffs state law claim for “negligent infliction of emotional distress” is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims against defendants when no federal claims against them remain.

Hernandez-Miranda v. Diaz-Masso · filed 2007-12-27(c)(3)

Because no federal claims against the individual defendants on which to ground jurisdiction remain in this case after dismissal of Title VII claims, plaintiffs supplemental state law claims against them are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Clark v. Natl Equi Hold Inc · filed 2008-01-04(c)

The complaint was properly dismissed, and the “enterprise,” when the “enterprise” itself district court acted within its discretion by dis- did and do goes [sic] about its intended ac- missing Clark’s state law claims without preju- tivities, it engaged only in nefarious activ- dice to their being refiled in state court. See ities, albeit all were not “racketeering activi- § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after it correctly dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Clark v. Crues · filed 2008-01-08(c)

The district court dismissed Clark’s state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), which gives a district court the authority to decline jurisdiction over state-law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” In this case, all of the claims arising under federal law have been dismissed, and the district court lacks original jurisdiction over the claims arising under state law. Because the district court correctly dismissed Clark’s federal-law claims, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to dismiss Clark’s state-law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice when no federal claims remain to support jurisdiction.

Redondo Construction Corp. v. Izquierdo · filed 2008-02-07(c)(3)

Because no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case, RCC’s supplemental state law claims for breach of contract and torts are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims for failure to state a claim, and to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

Ventimiglia v. AT & T YELLOW PAGES · filed 2008-02-26(c)(3)

Upon a determination that Plaintiffs' federal claims fail for failure to state a claim, the Court has discretion to either exercise supplemental jurisdiction, or dismiss without prejudice, Plaintiffs' attendant state law claims, see Miner v. Local 373, 513 F.3d 854, 864-65 (8th Cir.2008). The Court, in its discretion, dismisses Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, without prejudice.

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

Local 1575 International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2008-04-25(c)(3)

Because no federal claims to ground jurisdiction remain in this case, the ILA’s supplemental state law claims are dismissed without prejudice 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 and dismiss them without prejudice after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

GARENANI v. County of Clinton · filed 2008-05-12(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs federal claim will be dismissed, it is appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims and counterclaims when no federal claims remain.

Landrau v. Solis-Betancourt · filed 2008-05-19(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain to ground jurisdiction in this case, plaintiffs’ state law claims against defendant Solis and defendant Solis’ state law counterclaims against plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice 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 claims within its original jurisdiction, and to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

Cordova v. Aragon · filed 2008-05-20(c)(3)

... I exercise my discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, and dismiss such claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits state-law claims dismissed without prejudice after dismissal of all federal claims to be asserted again if the federal dismissal is reversed.

Aviall Services, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, LLC · filed 2008-08-11(c)(3)

Although these decisions left Aviall free to pursue the claims in state court, they also effectively conferred on Aviall the option of asserting them again in this court if the court’s dismissal of the federal-law claims was reversed on appeal. Because the dismissal of the state-law claims was inextricably intertwined with the dismissal of the federal-law claims, it followed that if the rationale for dismissing the federal-law claims fell away, the predicate for dismissing the state-law claims did as well.

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

Alvarez-Torres v. Ryder Memorial Hospital, Inc. · filed 2008-09-19(c)(3)

Because no federal claim remains to ground jurisdiction in this case, plaintiffs’ state law claims against defendants are dismissed without prejudice 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, and it may dismiss those state claims without prejudice.

Reichelt v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2009-01-14(c)(3)

The district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissing them without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Mercado-Burgos v. Hospital Dr. Cayetano Coll Y Toste · filed 2009-04-14(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES plaintiffs’ EMTALA claims against Hospital Cayetano Coll y Tosté (and against defendant Dr. Alcantara and her conjugal partnership with her husband, to the extent the complaint can be read as such) with prejudice, leaving no remaining federal claims. The supplemental claims brought pursuant to the laws of Puerto Rico are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental claims when no federal claims remain to support jurisdiction.

Portugues-Santa v. B. Fernandez Hermanos, Inc. · filed 2009-05-15(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain to ground jurisdiction in this case, plaintiffs commonwealth law claims against defendant BFH are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Vázquez-Rivera v. Hospital Episcopal San Lucas, Inc. · filed 2009-05-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed the EMTALA claims — the only federal claims in the instant lawsuit — the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Court will enter judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

B & B ENTERTAINMENT, INC. v. Dunfee · filed 2009-06-08(c)(3)

Because the Court disposes of Plaintiffs’ federal claims by this Order, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Consequently, Plaintiffs’ state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.