28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Zegarra v. D'Nieto Uniforms, Inc., P.R. · filed 2009-06-10(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain to ground jurisdiction in this case, Cuadros’s Commonwealth law claims against the defendants 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 after dismissing the federal claims against the same defendants.

Cruz-Acevedo v. Toledo-Davila · filed 2009-09-30(c)(3)

Because no federal claims against the moving defendants on which to ground jurisdiction remain in this case after dismissal of the section 1983 claims, plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims against movants 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 claims within its original jurisdiction, and to dismiss those state-law claims without prejudice.

Del Toro-Pacheco v. Pereira-Castillo · filed 2009-10-07(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a “distzdct court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has oziginal jurisdiction.” ... Having dismissed all of plaintiffs federal claims against defendants, the court will not exercise supplemental juzdsdiction. Therefore, the court dismisses without prejudice plaintiffs’ supplemental claims.

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

Harris v. City of Chicago · filed 2009-10-14(c)(3)

In view of that disposition, which results in the dismissal of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, Plaintiffs state law claims — the state constitutional claims set forth in Counts I through V and the state law claims asserted in Counts VIII through XVII of his second amended complaint — are dismissed 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.

Colon-Fontanez v. Municipality of San Juan · filed 2009-12-02(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain to ground jurisdiction in this case, ColonFontanez’s Commonwealth law claims against the Municipality 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 all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed, and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Severin v. Jefferson Parish · filed 2009-12-16(c)(3)

... no federal question remains before the district court and we find no error in its discretionary refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Severin’s state law claims and dismissal of them without prejudice.

When the federal claims are dismissed, a court may dismiss a supplemental state-law claim without prejudice so it can be heard in state court.

Hervey v. Cty. of Koochiching · filed 2008-06-09(c)(3)

Hervey’s claim under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act was before the district court based on supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Because we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the federal claims, we remand the case with directions to modify the final judgment so as to dismiss the MGDPA claim without prejudice, so that it may be considered, if at all, by the courts of Minnesota.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when only state claims remain, with those claims dismissed without prejudice so they may be pursued in state court.

Ingram v. School Board of Miami-Dade Co. · filed 2006-02-10(c)(3)

When a court decides not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) because only state claims remain, the proper action is a dismissal without prejudice so that the complaining party may pursue the claim in state court.

When a district court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims are resolved, dismissal of the state law claims must be without prejudice to pursuing them in state court.

Rimac v. Duncan · filed 2009-03-10

In the event that the federal claims are resolved in Crawford and Duncan’s favor, and the district court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, the dismissal shall be without prejudice to Rimac’s ability to pursue those claims in state court.

When a court declines supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim under § 1367(c)(3), dismissal of that claim should be without prejudice.

Kiara Smith v. Broughton · filed 2009-06-08(c)(3)

Because the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law medical malpractice claim, however, dismissal of that claim should have been without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing federal claims, but the state law claims must be dismissed without prejudice.

Cap Export, LLC v. Zinus, Inc. · filed 2018-01-18(c)(3)

In addition, although a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), any such dismissal must be without ... prejudice.

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

ReMedPar, Inc. v. AllParts Medical, LLC · filed 2010-01-04(c)(3)

Having concluded that dismissal of the federal claims asserted in the complaint is warranted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims; those claims are therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to the discretion granted by 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.

Lopez-Mendez v. Lexmark International, Inc. · filed 2010-01-21(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain to ground supplemental jurisdiction over Commonwealth claims in this case, plaintiffs claims pursuant to Law 100 and articles 1802 and 1803 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.

St. Louis v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp. · filed 2010-02-01(c)(3)

In the instant case, all federal claims have been dismissed and nothing counsels this Court to retain the state law claims. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and Plaintiffs NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims are hereby dismissed without prejudice.

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 have been dismissed.

Taylor v. AUTOZONERS, LLC · filed 2010-02-11(c)(3)

The exercise by a district court of supplemental, or pendent, jurisdiction over state law claims is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which expressly permits the Court to decline the exercise of jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Absent any remaining federal claims against the Defendant, in its sound discretion, the Court hereby dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiffs claims under state law.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all federal claims, leaving those state claims dismissed without prejudice.

Missick v. City of New York · filed 2010-03-22(c)(3)

The Court declines, in its discretion, to exercise 28 U.S.C. § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction over Missick’s remaining disability accommodation claims pursuant to either the NYHRL or the NYCHRL. Those claims are therefore DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Lindberg v. Clarion Sintered Metals, Inc. · filed 2010-03-31(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining breach of fiduciary duty claims and those causes of action will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the court may dismiss those state law claims without prejudice when no reason to retain jurisdiction applies.

Von Holdt v. A-1 Tool Corp. · filed 2010-05-17(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) specifically provides that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... None of the exceptions apply in this case. ... For these reasons, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and they are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Guccione v. Parish of Jefferson · filed 2010-06-16(c)(3)

Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Guccione’s state law claims, because all of the federal claims were properly dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 246 (5th Cir. 1999). However, a dismissal without prejudice would have been appropriate in this case.

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

Sanchez-Rodriguez v. AT & T WIRELESS · filed 2010-08-05(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain to ground supplemental jurisdiction over local claims in this case, plaintiffs supplemental claims pursuant to Puerto Rico Law are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the federal claims are dismissed and to dismiss that claim without prejudice.

Brooks v. Gaenzle · filed 2010-08-10(c)(3)

Accordingly, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over Mr. Brooks’s remaining state law claim, and, instead, reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on that claim and remand with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice.

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.

Bernofsky v. Road Home Corp. · filed 2010-09-30(c)(3)

All of the Bernofskys’ federal law claims have been dismissed. The court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and will accordingly dismiss these claims without prejudice.

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

Davila-Feliciano v. Puerto Rico State Insurance Fund Corp. · filed 2010-12-06(c)(3)

The jurisdictional basis to maintain the Law 100 and Law 69 claims in this Court has been undermined by the dismissal of Davila’s federal claims. Accordingly, those supplemental claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to dismiss pendent state claims without prejudice after it properly dismisses the underlying federal claim.

Isaacson v. New York Organ Donor Network · filed 2011-01-04(c)(3)

Because “[n]eedless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer- footed reading of applicable law,” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966), where, as here, the District Court has properly dismissed the underlying federal claim, we cannot say that it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to dismiss the state claim without prejudice as well. See Purgress v. Sharrock, 33 F.3d 134, 138 (2d Cir. 1994).

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

Taylor v. Selig · filed 2011-02-16(c)

Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Taylor’s state-law claims without prejudice, see Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 342 (8th Cir. 2005) (Congress has unambiguously granted district courts discretion in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to dismiss supplemental state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed), or in denying Taylor’s post-judgment motion, see United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend).

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.

Brauchitsch-Monedero v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority · filed 2011-03-16(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Magistrate appropriately recommends that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Puerto Rico law claims. ... As a result, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs federal law claims but dismisses the state law claims 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.

Osterweil v. Bartlett · filed 2011-05-20(c)(3)

Since the Court has dismissed all of plaintiffs federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims and dismisses them 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 the federal claims supporting jurisdiction are dismissed.

Diaz v. Roman · filed 2011-07-29(c)(3)

Indeed, the jurisdictional basis to maintain those claims in this Court has been undermined by the dismissal of plaintiffs’ federal claims. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ article 1802 claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Santiago v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · filed 2011-08-24(c)

The district court appropriately dismissed her local law claims without prejudice, and she is free to pursue those claims in the courts of Puerto Rico.

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

Lang v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK · filed 2011-09-12(c)(3)

Plaintiffs remaining claims require interpretation of state law alone, and are thus more appropriately determined in state court in the interests of comity and efficiency. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and they are instead dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Sears v. Bradley County Government · filed 2011-09-26(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, thus the third rationale of § 1367(c) applies.

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

Flores-Silva v. McClintock-Hernandez · filed 2011-10-27(c)(3)

The jurisdictional basis for maintaining Plaintiffs Puerto Rico claims has been undermined by dismissal of her federal claims. Accordingly, those supplemental Commonwealth claims are ... 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 the federal claims and to dismiss the state law claim without prejudice.

Baker v. McCall · filed 2012-02-06(c)(3)

Having determined that Baker’s federal claims are subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the defamation claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Accordingly, such claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims or dismiss them without prejudice after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Nathson Fields v. Wharrie · filed 2012-02-28(c)(3)

We, thus, remand to the district court to determine whether it wishes to (1) retain supplemental jurisdiction over Fields’ state-law claims and determine the immunity, if any, to which Wharrie and Kelley are entitled under Illinois law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original juris- diction . . . .”) (emphasis added), or (2) dismiss the state- law claims without prejudice, see Harvey v. Town of Merrillville, 649 F.3d 526, 532-33 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[I]t is the well-established law of this circuit that the usual practice is to dismiss without prejudice state supple- mental claims whenever all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.” (quoting Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999))).

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

Sirote v. BBVA Compass Bank · filed 2012-03-20(c)

After review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument, we discern no reversible error in the district court’s December 30, 2010 order dismissing the plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice and dismissing the plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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 dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Arneault v. O'Toole · filed 2012-03-28(c)(3)

Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and those causes of action will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Martin v. City of Glasgow · filed 2012-07-26(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction as to the remaining state-law claims and they are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily supports dismissing supplemental state-law claims without prejudice when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, unless the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favors retaining them.

Drobny v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA · filed 2013-03-08(c)(3)

Plaintiffs have not stated a federal claim, and the Court must now decide whether to retain jurisdiction over then-state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Finding no justification for departing from that “usual practice” in this case, the Court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs state law claims without discussing their merit under state law.

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

Bartlett v. City of Chicago School District 299 · filed 2014-04-17(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction, it must now address whether to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Finding no justification for departing from that “usual practice” in this case,... the Court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs claim arising out of the Illinois Constitution.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of state-law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Howell v. Farris · filed 2016-07-07(c)(3)

Furthermore, because Howell’s federal claims were dismissed, the district court correctly dismissed his state-law claims as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of a supplemental state law claim when no federal claim remains.

Eisner v. Cardozo · filed 2017-03-24(c)(3)

Given the lack of a federal claim remaining, however, we remand Eisner’s NYCHRL discrimination claim with instructions to the district court to dismiss the claim without prejudice.

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

A'Gard v. Perez · filed 2013-01-26(c)(3)

Because all of the plaintiffs federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

J.P.M. ex rel. C.M. v. Palm Beach County School Board · filed 2013-01-30(c)(3)

Because all federal claims against the School Board are dismissed herein, the remaining potential state and common law claims will be also be dismissed (without prejudice). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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.

Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc. v. Coweta County, Georgia · filed 2013-02-14(c)(3)

Because the District Court, after disposing of Starship’s federal claims, properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice, we do not recast those claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are resolved on summary judgment and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

DeFina v. Meenan Oil Co. · filed 2013-02-15(c)(3)

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

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

Luu v. Ramparts, Inc. · filed 2013-02-21(c)(3)

The Court accordingly dismisses Plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice to their filing in state court.

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

Windwalker v. Bentley · filed 2013-02-26(c)(3)

Exercising its discretion under § 1367(c)(3), the court declines to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Windwalker’s remaining state law claims. Accordingly, such counts are all due to dismissed without prejudice to Mr. Wind-walker’s right to pursue them in state court.

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

Slocum v. Devezin · filed 2013-06-03(c)(3)

As all Plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed, the Court will exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and will dismiss any related state law claims, such as a claim for IIED, without prejudice, so that they may be filed in the appropriate state court.

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

Dejarnett v. Willis · filed 2013-10-04(c)(3)

Section 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.” Because the federal claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction have been resolved against Dejarnett, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim and, instead, dismisses it without prejudice.

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

St. Juste v. Metro Plus Health Plan · filed 2014-03-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Plaintiffs state law claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

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

Matta-Rodríguez v. Ashford Presbyterian Community Hospital · filed 2014-07-18(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it exercised original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. Accordingly, those 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 state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, and to dismiss those state claims without prejudice.

Rodgers v. University of Missouri Board of Curators · filed 2014-09-29(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law torts, which are 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 federal claims, considering judicial economy and the availability of another forum.

Barnett v. Baldwin County Board of Education · filed 2014-10-08(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the federal claims of the five Plaintiffs whose students have IEPs, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice of the state law claims for false imprisonment is appropriate.

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

Ellis v. Wilkinson · filed 2015-01-28(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims, and dismisses such claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after all federal claims are dismissed before trial, particularly when the litigation has not progressed significantly.

Mahdy v. Cearley · filed 2015-03-24(c)(3)

The remaining claims in this case all arise under state law; the Court is thus permitted to dismiss those claims over which it initially exercised supplemental jurisdiction. ... Here, given that this litigation has not progressed significantly, the Court will accede to the Tenth Circuit’s request that district courts “should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice” where all federal law claims are dismissed before trial.

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

Attallah v. New York College of Osteopathic Medicine · filed 2015-03-27(c)(3)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims, and dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

Harris v. City of Texarkana · filed 2015-04-15(c)(3)

We reject as meritless appellants’ contention that the district court failed to consider all of their federal claims, and we also conclude that the court properly acted within its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims and dismissing those pendent claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Duehning v. Aurora East Unified School School District 131 · filed 2015-04-20(c)(3)

The Court has granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, and the parties are not diverse; therefore, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. The Court finds that the exceptions to relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction are inapplicable in this case. ... The Court dismisses without prejudice Counts X, XI, and XIII pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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 have been dismissed.

Pappion v. R-Ranch Property Owners Ass'n · filed 2015-05-21(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims and they are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Ernst v. Hinchliff · filed 2015-09-08(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff may be able to pursue a MGDPA claim or any other state claim against the Defendants in state district court, the Court recommends that there be no exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and any and all remaining state claims be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff to pursue in state district court.

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

Rosen v. Property Advantage Partners · filed 2015-11-30(c)(3)

However, we vacate the judgment in part and remand with instructions to dismiss Rosen’s state law claims without prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (“When . . . the court dismisses the federal claim leaving only state claims for resolution, the court should decline jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without prejudice.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims upon the dismissal of all federal claims).

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

Wiley v. Department of Children & Family Services · filed 2015-12-15(c)(3)

However, we vacate the judgment in part and remand with instructions to dismiss Wiley’s state law claims without prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (“When . . . the court dismisses the federal claim leaving only state claims for resolution, the court should decline jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without prejudice.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims upon the dismissal of all federal claims).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction; dismissal without prejudice is presumptively appropriate.

Gardner v. Andersen Eye Associates, PLC · filed 2016-02-16(c)(3)

However, the dismissal of the claim over which the féderal court had original jurisdiction creates a presumption in favor of dismissing without prejudice any state-law claims that accompanied it to federal court. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. Gardner’s supplemental state law claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Baer v. Lynch · filed 2016-02-25(c)(3)

The district court did not address Baer’s claim that section 941.29 violates the Wisconsin constitution, and we infer that the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that state-law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). That decision was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion, see Underwood v. City of Chicago, 779 F.3d 461, 464–65 (7th Cir. 2015), but the dismissal of the state-law claim should have been without prejudice, so we modify the judgment accordingly, see Harvey v. Town of Merrillville, 649 F.3d 526, 533 (7th Cir. 2011).

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

Walker ex rel. 401k Plan v. Merrill Lynch & Co. · filed 2016-03-25(c)(3)

There is no reason to deviate from that rule here. Accordingly, to the extent that the Complaint states a Section 349 claim, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim, and it will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, ordinarily dismissing the state claims without prejudice when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Thurmon v. Mount Carmel High School · filed 2016-06-13(c)(3)

Thus, having dismissed both federal law claims, I am dismissing the remaining state law Counts III, IV and V without prejudice.

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

Nance v. Humane Society of Pulaski Co · filed 2016-08-04(c)(3)

Having properly dismissed the federal claims, the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing without prejudice the state-law claims.

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

Chapman ex rel. Drake v. Ouellette · filed 2016-08-09(c)(3)

When all federal claims have been dismissed the district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and may dismiss them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs state law claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Taliaferro v. Lone Star Instrumentation & Electric Corp. · filed 2016-08-17(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the claim over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law breach-of-contract claim and to dismiss it without prejudice.

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

Momot v. Dziarcak · filed 2016-09-22(c)(3)

The Court finds that the interests of judicial economy would best be served by dismissing Plaintiffs state-law claims. No discovery has yet occurred, and judicial resources would be best served by permitting Plaintiff to bring his claims in the courts most directly tasked with interpreting New York tort law. Dismissal will be without prejudice to bringing his state-law claims in an appropriate forum.

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

Brady v. School Board, Somersworth, et al. · filed 2016-11-03(c)

All of Brady’s federal claims, however, have been dismissed. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consider the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Ramey v. Mellow · filed 2017-01-10(c)(3)

Having properly disposed of the federal claims, the District Court was well within its discretion to dismiss without prejudice the remaining state law negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000).

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

Bruguier v. Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians · filed 2017-02-21(c)(3)

No federal claim remains, and the court sees no reason to depart from the circuit’s general rule in this instance. Accordingly, the court will dismiss all 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, with the early stage of litigation and the state courts’ interest in deciding state law favoring dismissal without prejudice.

Nikolao v. Lyon · filed 2017-02-23(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court is declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims upon its dismissal of her federal constitutional claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint fails to state a federal claim, and to dismiss those claims without prejudice to pursuing them in state court.

Alston v. Pennsylvania State University · filed 2017-04-13(c)

In addition, because Alston’s complaint failed to state a claim based on federal law, it was appropriate for the District Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Alston’s state-law claims and to instead dismiss those claims without prejudice to pursue them in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claim is withdrawn; at an early stage, the court may dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Robbins v. City of New York · filed 2017-05-24(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs intent is quite clear from the letter, I will treat the letter as a motion to amend her complaint under Rule 15(a) to withdraw her federal claim, and for me to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because this case is in an early stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims, and for the reasons set forth above, those claims are dismissed without prejudice to pursuit in state court.

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

Marriott v. USD 204, Bonner Springs-Edwardsville · filed 2017-09-08(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs' federal claim has been dismissed, the court finds it has no supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. These claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

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.

Sonterra Capital Master Fund Ltd. v. Credit Suisse Group AG · filed 2017-09-25(c)(3)

As discussed above, the Complaint has failed to adequately state a federal claim against any defendant. The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Eight and Nine, and they are accordingly dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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.

Staten v. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of N.Y., Inc. · filed 2017-10-19(c)(3)

... the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Kan-Di-Ki, LLC v. Sorenson · filed 2018-02-13(c)(3)

The district court’s jurisdiction over this case was premised on the existence of federal law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The district court properly dismissed DL’s federal law claims with prejudice. Thus, the court acted within its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

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

McGarry v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners for the Cnty. of Lincoln · filed 2018-02-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. ... Accordingly, the Court will dismiss that claim without prejudice.

A district court may dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims before trial.

Lawlor v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago · filed 2018-03-13(c)

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court also dismisses Plaintiffs’ state-law claims against all Defendants without prejudice.

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

Appel v. LaSalle County State's Attorney Felony Enforcement Unit · filed 2019-09-04(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a supplemental state-law claim to be dismissed without prejudice when the federal claim against that defendant is dismissed.

McGowan v. Hulick · filed 2010-07-20(c)

Because we understand the district court to have recog- nized that McGowan’s complaint against Gardner might have stated a state-law claim for negligence, how- ever, we also order that the dismissal of that claim be modified to show that it is without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When a court declines supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, it must dismiss the remaining state-law claims without prejudice.

Bryner v. Lindberg · filed 2011-07-08(c)(3)

We need not decide whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the state-law claims or simply declined to exercise its jurisdiction; in either event, the dismissal should have been without prejudice.

When a court declines supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) after dismissing a § 1983 claim, dismissal of the remaining state law claims is without prejudice.

Stanley v. Superior Court of California · filed 2011-07-25(c)(3)

We assume that the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stanley’s state law claims after dismissing his § 1983 claim, and therefore construe the dismissal of these claims to have been without prejudice.

When a court declines supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claims, dismissal of the state law claim is without prejudice.

Crozier v. Endel · filed 2011-07-26(c)(3)

We assume that the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Crozier’s state law claim under the Nevada Constitution after dismissing his § 1983 claims, and therefore construe the dismissal of this claim to have been without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); cf. Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (requiring clarification that dismissal based on declining supplemental jurisdiction was without prejudice).

When a court declines supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under § 1367(c), it must dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Stallworth v. Slaughter · filed 2011-08-08(c)

The district court dismissed Stallworth’s state-law claims for money damages on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity, and it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. ... For both grounds on which the district court relied, our precedent is clear that a dismissal must be without prejudice.

When a court declines supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, dismissal of the state claims is without prejudice to pursuing them in state court.

Spencer v. Wenerowicz · filed 2016-02-18(c)

We note that the District Court only dismissed the federal claims on the basis of exhaustion. We understand it to have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged in the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we will modify the District Court’s dismissal of Spencer’s state law claims to make clear that this dismissal is without prejudice to his ability to pursue those claims in state court.

When a district court declines supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims without reaching their merits, it should dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Gunsay v. Plummer · filed 2017-06-21(c)

However, because the district court declined to wade into the merits of Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, dismissal of these claims should have been without prejudice.

When a court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, it normally dismisses the affected claim without prejudice.

Maryann Bullock v. City of Covington · filed 2017-10-06

Normally, when a court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the court dismisses the claims without prejudice.

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

Walker v. Tuscaloosa County School Board · filed 2019-11-18(c)(3)

The Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against Defendants Williamson and Burnett, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

McElrath v. City of Cleveland · filed 2019-11-20(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims in this case. ... Here, all Plaintiff’s federal question claims have been dismissed, and there are no allegations in the Complaint that would support another basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Mangum v. Town of Wrightsville Beach · filed 2019-11-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims arising under federal law, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims (plaintiffs’ fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth claims), and dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the sole federal claim has been resolved and comity and fairness favor dismissal without prejudice.

Munoz v. Chantre · filed 2019-11-25(c)(3)

As Munoz’s ADA claim has been fully adjudicated, the interests of comity and fairness lead the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Munoz’s related state law claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, comity, and fairness, and to dismiss the remaining state claims without prejudice.

Matute v. Cnn Construction, Inc. · filed 2019-11-26(c)(3)

In exercising such discretion, district courts consider judicial economy, convenience, comity, and fairness. ... However, because the FLSA overtime claim will be dismissed without prejudice and might be timely refiled, Counts II, III, and IV will also be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the sole federal claim has been adjudicated and comity and fairness favor dismissal without prejudice.

Phelps v. PS Los Angeles - Pico Blvd., Inc. · filed 2019-11-22(c)(3)

As Phelps’s ADA claim has been fully adjudicated, the interests of comity and fairness lead the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Phelps’s related state law claim.

State-law claims dismissed after the court declines supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) must be dismissed without prejudice.

Moody v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2020-04-14(c)

The dis- missal of the state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) should have been without prejudice.

When a court declines supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims, it must dismiss the remaining state-law claims without prejudice.

Borras-Borrero v. Corp del Fondo del Seguro del · filed 2020-05-01(c)(3)

When declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims, it "does not wash" to dismiss them with prejudice instead of without prejudice.

When a court declines supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), dismissal of the state-law claim should be without prejudice.

Rumley v. Democracy Prep · filed 2020-05-01(c)

The dismissal of the state law OCA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) should have been without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally calls for dismissing supplemental state-law claims without prejudice when the federal claims are dismissed, especially at the pleading stage.

Winston, Shomas v. The United States · filed 2022-12-20(c)(3)

The general rule under § 1367 is that a federal court should dismiss state-law claims without prejudice if the federal claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not favor retaining them.

Easterling v. Connecticut · filed 2005-02-01(c)(3)

Having dismissed all claims against the Department — the only claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction — considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim against the Union.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claims are eliminated, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

HARRY A. v. Duncan · filed 2005-01-13(c)(3)

This case is one in which the balance of factors dictates that the Court decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are resolved, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Schmitt v. City of Detroit · filed 2003-06-12(c)(3)

All federal law claims in this action having been resolved before discovery, it serves the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law tort claims.

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

Armstrong v. Lamy · filed 1996-08-27(c)(3)

In this case, as in Roche, 81 F.3d at 257, the litigation has matured, discovery has been extensive, the summary judgment record is complete, and interests in both judicial economy and fairness all weigh in favor of this court’s exercising discretion to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy and fairness favor resolution, particularly after lengthy federal litigation and when state-law issues are neither complex nor novel.

Whalen v. County of Fulton · filed 1996-09-26(c)(3)

Because the parties in this case have been litigating this matter in federal court for nearly four years, and the state issues presented do not present any complex or novel questions of state law, the Court chooses to rule on the summary judgment motions as to the state claims in the interests of judicial economy and fairness to the litigants.

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

Downey v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 1262 · filed 1996-10-02(c)(3)

If the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed, the district court should decline to decide the pendent state claims, absent considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retaining the related claims.

Armstrong v. Accrediting Council for Continuing Education & Training, Inc. · filed 1996-11-20(c)(3)

Thus the court concludes that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants favor retaining jurisdiction of these claims because there is a substantial federal interest in resolution of the issues and even if dismissed, the Secretary of Education has expressed the intention to remove the subsequent case back to federal 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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.

Bonovich v. Knights of Columbus · filed 1997-03-21(c)(3)

Moreover, the Court has expended no judicial resources on plaintiffs’ state claims while defendant’s motion to dismiss predicated on the federal question was pending. The Court finds that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ pendant state law claims.

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

Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc. · filed 1997-05-01(c)(3)

Nevertheless, having decided that Trump has failed to state any federal claim upon which relief can be granted, this court must determine whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Trump’s state law causes of action contained in the sixth and seventh counts of its complaint pursuant to § 1367(c)(3). ... Supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of right. ... Clearly, the interests of justice, as well as the interests of comity, will best be served by allowing the Superior Court of New Jersey to construe the New Jersey Constitution in the first instance. Accordingly, Trump’s 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 after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the stage of the case.

Smith v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n · filed 1997-05-21(c)(3)

Given my above holdings dismissing Counts I and II of Plaintiffs Complaint, the claims in Plaintiffs Complaint over which I had original jurisdiction, and taking into account the generally accepted principles of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants, I see no reason, given the preliminary stage at which this action is presently postured, to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law breach of contract claim and thus, I hereby elect under § 1367(c) not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim contained in Count III.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after it resolves the federal claim, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Llanes v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. · filed 1997-06-25(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and in consideration of the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim against Sears.

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

Sterling v. Kazmierczak · filed 1997-11-25(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise 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). ... Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over, the remaining state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

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

Alba v. Ansonia Board of Education · filed 1998-03-11(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3), this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law claims because we have dismissed Counts One and Two, over which we had original jurisdiction. Moreover, the parties will not suffer any prejudice because, by granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, we are dismissing the state-law claims early in the life of this lawsuit.

Section 1367(c)(3) lets a district court retain supplemental claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, in its discretion after weighing judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Ametex Fabrics, Inc. v. Just In Materials · filed 1998-03-17(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under [§ 1367(a) ] if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." (emphasis added). ... Therefore, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, but judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity can favor retaining state claims when litigation is advanced.

Ritzer v. T. L. James Const · filed 1998-06-12(c)(3)

Our review of the record, aided by the briefs and oral argument of counsel, persuades that the district court abused its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction after dismissing the CERCLA claims. All of the factors weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Judicial economy, convenience, and fairness would be served, and comity would not be offended by a determination of the plaintiffs’ state claims in federal court.

After the federal claim is dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) calls for a discretionary decision on retaining a supplemental state claim, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Centres, Inc. And Centres Ventures, Inc. v. Town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, Town of Brookfield Board of Supervisors, Keit · filed 1998-06-15(c)(3)

For instance, our own case law has emphasized that considerations of judicial economy counsel that jurisdiction be retained when the appropriate disposition of the state claim is clear.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the claim supporting original jurisdiction, when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not justify retaining it.

EP Medsystems, Inc. v. Echocath, Inc. · filed 1998-10-19(c)(3)

Accordingly, because no other ground for supplemental jurisdiction is alleged and considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties do not justify the adjudication of the action in this forum, the pendent state law claim by EPM for common law fraud also is 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, considering judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity.

Akinseye v. Bigos · filed 1998-11-02(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) gives the district court discretion in deciding whether it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. This Court believes that the interests of judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity militate strongly in favor of not exercising this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction powers.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives courts discretion to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after federal claims are dismissed; judicial economy, the relationship between the claims, comity, and fairness inform that decision.

Scholastic Inc. v. Speirs · filed 1998-11-30(c)(3)

Where, as here ... there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties, jurisdiction over state law claims is supplemental, and whether the court should retain jurisdiction over them is discretionary. ... Courts deciding whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims consider judicial economy, the relationship between the dismissed and remaining claims, comity, and fairness to the litigants.

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

Harper v. Board of Regents, Illinois State University · filed 1999-02-03(c)(3)

As no federal claims remain, there can be no question that the remaining state claims predominate. Additionally, whether an Illinois court would find Plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient to state a claim for either promissory estoppel or fraudulent inducement is not readily apparent from the pleadings. After weighing the relevant factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the claims in Count IX without prejudice to their being refiled in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), Societe Anonyme v. Pharaon · filed 1999-03-19(c)(3)

In light of the above determinations, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. The balance of factors to be considered in determining whether or not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—judicial economy, convenience and fairness—favor dismissal of the state law claims in this action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when convenience and judicial economy favor retention.

Greiner v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. · filed 1999-03-25(c)(3)

As to subsection (3), although the Court has dismissed the claims which granted original jurisdiction, the Court declines to remand the case. It is more convenient for the parties and witnesses and better conserves judicial resources to try the claims sooner rather than later.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim after dismissing related federal claims when judicial economy and convenience favor retention.

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Atlantic Pacific International, Inc. · filed 1999-07-12(c)(3)

In this case, the court concludes that Fleming lacks standing to pursue the federal antitrust claims. Nevertheless, because the court must proceed with API’s identical tying claim, considerations of judicial economy and convenience of the parties and witnesses persuade the court to retain jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor doing so.

Marks v. New York University · filed 1999-08-31(c)(3)

After a district court has dismissed all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims if considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants are implicated.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of judicial economy and the parties’ interests.

Czarecki v. Scherer · filed 1999-08-31(c)(3)

District courts have discretion to dismiss a claim supported by supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Judicial economy and the desires of both sides would be served by retaining jurisdiction over plaintiffs negligence claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all federal claims, with judicial economy, convenience, and fairness guiding that choice.

Dobson v. City and County of Denver · filed 1999-10-26(c)(3)

Generally, dismissal of a plaintiffs federal claims, on which the court’s original jurisdiction rests, permits the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiffs related state claims. ... Because discovery has not begun with respect to Brady, I find that judicial economy would be served if the claims against him were dismissed without prejudice and with leave to file in state court.

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

Masterwear Corp. v. Rubin Baum Levin Constant & Friedman (In Re Masterwear Corp.) · filed 1999-11-05(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a court may decline, in its discretion, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, to the extent I have supplemental jurisdiction, I decline to exercise it.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental claims in its discretion, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Annulli v. Panikkar · filed 1999-12-30(c)(3)

The statute provides that "[t]he 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." 28 U.S.C. S 1367(c)(3). This administrative decision is left to the sound discretion of the district court, and we review such determinations for abuse of discretion, focusing on whether the dismissal of the pendent claims best serves the principles of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

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

Philbrick v. University of Connecticut · filed 2000-03-14(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(c)(3) (West 1993). ... After careful consideration of these factors, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

After disposing of all federal claims, a court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when fairness, convenience, and judicial economy favor doing so.

Straughn v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2000-03-21(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that the interests of fairness, convenience of the parties, and judicial economy, all weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Straughn’s state law claims.

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

Smith Ex Rel. Lanham v. Greene County School District · filed 2000-06-21(c)

Pursuant to § 1367(c), however, a district court may decline to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... The Court finds that judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and comity dictate having these state law claims decided by the state courts. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Dixon v. Ford Motor Credit Co. · filed 2000-09-11(c)(3)

Thus, in the absence of any valid federal claims and any justification stemming from judicial economy concerns or issues of convenience or fairness to litigants, which might be present if this litigation were more advanced, the Court finds that it should not needlessly make decisions concerning state law, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

AGV Productions, Inc. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. · filed 2000-09-15(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed plaintiffs sole claims under federal law, it must consider whether to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims, which invoke the Court’s consideration of the validity and scope of defendants’ right of first negotiation, as well as the current obligations of plaintiff and defendants thereunder. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims •in this action, and dismisses these claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy and fairness favor retention.

Keady v. Nike, Inc. · filed 2000-09-21(c)(3)

The Court finds that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is warranted in this case. The federal and state law claims arise out of equivalent facts concerning plaintiffs employment with and subsequent resignation from St. John’s. Because the Court has held several pretrial conferences related to the pending causes of action, making it familiar with the alleged facts, and the state law issues have been briefed by the parties, both judicial economy and fairness to the litigants militates toward exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the sole federal claim is dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Surprise v. GTE Service Corp. · filed 2000-11-28(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff Ginsberg’s remaining state law counts.

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

Cowgill v. City of Marion · filed 2000-12-28(c)(3)

Since this Court is granting the motion to dismiss in favor of the federal defendants on all claims over which it had original jurisdiction the court has the discretion to dismiss the remaining state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the court finds that this is such a usual case and that it should decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Daniels v. Townsley · filed 2001-01-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), “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.” ... In consideration of these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs assault claim against Torrenti.

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

Mooney v. Northwest Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad · filed 2001-01-25(c)(3)

That statute provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over supplemental state law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Therefore, it is within this court’s discretion whether to proceed with the remaining third-party claim or dismiss it.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental claims after dismissal of all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy and fairness to the parties.

Donegal Mutual Insurance v. Grossman · filed 2001-01-30(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) addresses the situation present here — where the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... In a case such as this one, which has been pending for five and a half years in this Court, and which is now only several weeks away from trial, the Court will exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claims on the basis of concerns of judicial economy and fairness to the parties.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor deciding it.

Cross v. Ryder Integrated Logistics · filed 2001-03-21(c)(3)

That leaves only Cross’ Illinois state law claim for retaliatory discharge, advanced before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Most frequently a federal court will relinquish jurisdiction over such a supplemental state law claim when the federal claims are dismissed before trial ... But courts are not required to do so ... This case presents just such an exception.

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

Farris v. Exotic Rubber & Plastics of Minnesota, Inc. · filed 2001-03-12(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs federal claim, the Court must determine whether the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over these state claims is proper. According to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if the [Court] has dismissed all claims over which is has original jurisdiction.” ... After considering all of the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Dixon v. Ford Motor Credit Co · filed 2001-04-03(c)(3)

In general, the dismissal of state-law claims is favored when, as here, (1) the federal claims to which they are pendent are dismissed and (2) the factors of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants are not present.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after resolving the federal claims when judicial economy favors doing so.

Hoffman v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Distributors, Inc. · filed 2001-04-30(c)

Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, I shall exercise supplemental jurisdiction and grant the motion for summary judgment as to this claim, as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

F.D.S. Marine, LLC v. Brix Maritime Co. · filed 2001-07-13(c)(3)

When “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it has discretion to “decline to exercise” supplemental jurisdiction. 28 USC § 1367(c)(3); Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 1995). The court should remand the case unless retention of the case is justified by judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants. Executive Software North America, Inc. v. U.S. Dist.. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 24 F.3d 1545, 1564 (9th Cir.1994). Here, all of the above factors clearly favor retention of the case. Therefore, this court will maintain jurisdiction over the quantum meruit claim against Foss and Foss’ counterclaims against FDS Marine.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to retain a state law claim after dismissing all claims within original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Horwitz, Karen v. Bd Educ Avoca School · filed 2001-07-26(c)

The issue becomes whether the district court should have decided not to exercise its jurisdiction over the defamation claim based upon sec. 1367(c), which allows a district court not to assume supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Judges are permitted the discretion to determine whether a state law claim should not be dismissed because of other considerations like judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Id. at 276-77. In this instance, Horwitz’s claim was ripe, Illinois law regarding defamation well-settled and straightforward, the litigation was over two-years-old, and discovery had been closed. We see no reason why the district court should have declined its right to assert jurisdiction over Horwitz’s state- based defamation claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are no longer viable, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Mullen v. Thompson · filed 2001-08-01(c)(3)

Based on this well established law, I find that several reasons support the conclusion that I should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. First, plaintiffs’ federal claims are not viable. Second, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity to the courts of Pennsylvania all weigh in favor of not hearing plaintiffs’ state law claims. Therefore, plaintiffs’ state law claims will also be dismissed, but without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to refile them in state court.

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

Carl v. Parmely · filed 2001-06-28(c)(3)

The Court has considered the foregoing factors and finds that it is appropriate to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case.

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

Pedraza v. Holiday Housewares, Inc. · filed 2001-09-20(c)(3)

Dismissal of Pedraza’s federal claims does not, however, automatically divest this Court of jurisdiction.

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

Matthews v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n · filed 2001-10-23(c)(3)

Federal law authorizes this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once all federal claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (1994). Because the motions filed thus far have focused almost exclusively on Plaintiffs ADA claim and possible injunctive relief, the values of judicial economy, convenience to the parties, fairness, and comity would be no more advanced by retaining the case in this court than by the parties resolving the state law claim in state court. Therefore, the Court believes that Plaintiffs remaining claim should be dismissed without prejudice.