28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to retain a remaining state-law claim after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Brown v. Farmland Foods, Inc. · filed 2001-12-28(c)(3)

This case clearly fits within the third category, because it is a case in which “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Guided by these considerations, the court has no hesitation here in retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Brown’s remaining state-law claim.

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

Lamar County Electric Cooperative Ass'n v. Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. · filed 2002-06-17(c)(3)

The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim in an action brought under federal question jurisdiction if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... In light of the foregoing considerations, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the pendant state law claims.

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

Hanna v. City of Chicago · filed 2002-07-25(c)(3)

Because the § 1983 claims have been dismissed, federal' jurisdiction over the remaining counts is based entirely upon the supplemental jurisdiction statute which 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 to proceed with Hanna’s state law claims or dismiss them.

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

Halprin v. Prairie Single Family Homes of Dearborn Park Ass'n · filed 2002-07-02(c)(3)

Because the FHA claims have been dismissed, federal jurisdiction over the remaining counts is based entirely upon the supplemental jurisdiction statute which 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 to proceed with plaintiffs’ state law claims or dismiss them. To make this determination, the court must balance the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when the statutory grounds and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity support retention.

Smith v. Amedisys Inc. · filed 2002-07-26(c)

Our review is guided by “both the statutory provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and the balance of the relevant factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” ... After balancing all of the factors in this case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Smith’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) allows a court that has dismissed the federal claims to weigh judicial economy, comity, and fairness when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.

Niziol v. Pasco County Dist. School Bd. · filed 2002-08-09(c)

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, in the interest of judicial economy, comity and fairness the Court is not inclined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

KEVIN'S TOWING, INC. v. Thomas · filed 2002-08-27(c)(3)

Because the § 1983 claim has been dismissed, federal jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims is based entirely upon the supplemental jurisdiction statute which provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a supplemental state law claim 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 to proceed with plaintiffs state law claims or dismiss them.

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.

Tirapelli v. Advanced Equities, Inc. · filed 2002-08-15(c)(3)

Therefore, it is within this court’s discretion to proceed with plaintiffs’ state law claims or dismiss them. In this case, the court finds that the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity are not served by this court’s retention of jurisdiction.

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

Union Station Associates LLC v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc. · filed 2002-12-06(c)(3)

The decision to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental claims is a discretionary one, and a court weighs the “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” in making that decision. ... In the interests of judicial economy, and to avoid undue prejudice to the parties in having to re-start this litigation at such a late date, this Court elects to retain its jurisdiction over Union’s state law claims.

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

Trigon Insurance v. Columbia Naples Capital, LLC · filed 2002-12-17(c)(3)

After dismissal of Counts I through IV, there are no remaining claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. ... Because no overriding interest in judicial economy or convenience exists, and the Court finds that this case properly belongs in state court, ... the Court will therefore decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice to refile in state court.

When all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed, a district court deciding whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction must consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity; public interest in the case does not justify retention.

Bettah Beach Prodn v. Park Bd Trustees · filed 2003-01-17(c)(3)

Section 1367(c), as interpreted by Carnegie-Mellon, embodies specific factors that a district court must consider in choosing whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims. A district court errs if it fails to consider those factors.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a 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 comity.

Sachs v. City of Detroit · filed 2003-03-13(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court shall decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Count I of Defendant’s counterclaim.

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.

Conatzer v. Medical Professional Building Services, Inc. · filed 2003-03-21(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Relevant considerations include judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. The strongest consideration here is that state courts are more familiar with, and better equipped to address, the remaining state law causes of action. The Court therefore exercises its discretion and declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, in light of fairness and judicial economy.

Kirwin v. Price Communications Corp. · filed 2003-07-23(c)(3)

The court will therefore exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismiss the claims under state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors doing so.

Abel v. Auglaize County Highway Department · filed 2003-08-04(c)(3)

The Court finds that the case ... presents similar circumstances, and in its discretion shall exercise jurisdiction to decide Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

McKenzie v. City of Detroit · filed 2003-08-27(c)

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff McKenzie’s state-law assault and battery claim even though it had dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs federal-law claims.

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

Chimarev v. TD Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc. · filed 2003-09-04(c)(3)

When federal claims have been dismissed, a district court, may decline to exercise jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Nonetheless, it retains authority to hear such claims. ... Thus, all the factors favor retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining State law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of the federal claims, taking judicial economy, fairness and comity into account.

Haun v. Don Mealy Imports, Inc. · filed 2003-10-06(c)

Proper dismissal of the claims raising federal questions does not deprive the Court of supplemental jurisdiction, but the Court may decline to exercise that jurisdiction. § 1367(c). In making this determination, the Court may consider other factors such as judicial economy, fairness and comity.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decide related state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify doing so.

Zezulewicz v. Port Authority of Allegheny County · filed 2003-11-13(c)(3)

However, we are not required to do so. ... Thus § 1367(c) provides us with the discretion to decide whether or not to consider Zezulewicz’s state law claims. ... We are satisfied that these conditions have been met in this case, and will therefore exercise our discretion to decide the motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after weighing fairness, justice, and judicial economy.

Szekeres v. Schaeffer · filed 2004-01-23(c)(3)

After careful consideration of the relevant factors and the equities, the Court concludes that it is not in the interests of fairness, justice or economy for the Court to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Harvill v. Westward Communications, LLC · filed 2004-03-25(c)

In determining whether to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims, the court considers the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and issues of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... For the reasons previously stated above, the Court has dismissed all of the Plaintiffs causes of action of which it had original jurisdiction, leaving various state-law claims. The Court hereby declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over said claims.

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

Barragan v. St. Catherine Hospital · filed 2004-04-20(c)

Under § 1367(c), when all federal claims have been dismissed from a case, supplemental state claims will ordinarily be dismissed without prejudice. ... The court determines that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness would be served by retaining jurisdiction and, accordingly, exercises supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when judicial economy and convenience favor doing so.

Good v. BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS OF COUNTY OF SHAWNEE · filed 2004-05-19(c)(3)

The court is authorized to decline supplemental jurisdiction upon the dismissal of all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the court shall exercise its discretion and review the state law claims and the arguments raised by the parties concerning them.

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

Williams v. Dow Chemical Co. · filed 2004-05-20(c)(3)

The fact that the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction is a factor tending in the direction of declining jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... I conclude that judicial economy, convenience and fairness militate in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction and comity will not be unduly impacted by doing so.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors deciding them.

Garrett v. Fisher Titus Hospital · filed 2004-05-24(c)(3)

On the other hand, a district court does have discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in the interests of judicial economy and to avoid unneeded litigation. ... The Court finds that the instant matter presents similar circumstances, and in its discretion shall exercise jurisdiction to decide Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Welch v. Centex Home Equity Co., LLC · filed 2004-06-30(c)(3)

Because the court has now dismissed all of plaintiffs federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court may, but is not required to, exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs supplemental state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Olle v. Columbia University · filed 2004-08-15(c)(3)

As there are no longer any claims based on federal law in this action and with due consideration of concerns of judicial economy, convenience and fairness, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Olle’s remaining claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain related state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy supports retention.

Miller v. Terramite Corp. · filed 2004-10-04(c)(3)

When the district court has dismissed the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction," id. § 1367(c)(3). ... We find no abuse of discretion. Although the district court did not write a separate section dealing with the reasons supporting its decision to retain jurisdiction, such reasons are evident from the court’s expres- sion that Miller’s request to dismiss the ERISA claim and to remand the entire case to state court would waste judicial resources. (J.A. at 191 n.2.) This reasoning supports the court’s exercise of discretion in this instance.

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

Motorola Credit Corporation v. Uzan · filed 2004-10-22(c)(3)

Under § 1367(c)(3), it is indisputable that Judge Rakoff could have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after we directed him to dismiss plaintiffs' RICO claims and after he dismissed plaintiffs' other federal claims. ... When, as in this case, a federal court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it must reassess its jurisdiction over the case by considering several related factors—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

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

Chiasson v. City of Thibodaux · filed 2004-11-01(c)

Here, the lawsuit before the Court is also in an advanced stage. Discovery is complete, and the parties are on the eve of trial. The Court concludes, as did the district court in Amedisys, that the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim. Thus, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Borrelli v. Secretary of Treasury · filed 2004-11-16(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of all claims asserted against the federal defendants, the court is required to “reassess” its jurisdiction over the case and may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Judicial economy and comity both counsel in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the New York defendants.

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

Radolf v. University of Connecticut · filed 2005-03-30(c)(3)

Having granted Defendants summary judgment on all Dr. Radolfs federal claims — -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 claims against the Defendants, especially considering the fact that these claims present potentially novel questions of state law and involve state officials and state interests.

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

Valdes v. Crosby · filed 2005-03-31(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines to exercise its discretion to simply dismiss plaintiffs state law claims against these defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and instead finds that considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness dictate that McEachern’s, A.D. Thornton’s, Burger’s and Giebeig’s summary judgment motions be granted as to Count III, plaintiffs wrongful death claim.

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.

Wheeler v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2005-04-21(c)(3)

Original jurisdiction now lacking, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) discretion after dismissal of all federal claims turns chiefly on whether the remaining state-law issues are unsettled and whether judicial economy supports retaining them.

Benjamin v. New York City Department of Health · filed 2005-07-25(c)(3)

In assessing whether § 1367(c)(3) discretion has been appropriately exercised, this Court looks mainly to whether a District Court reached unsettled issues of state law and to whether disposition was supported by significant considerations of judicial economy.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court broad discretion to dismiss remaining state law claims after the federal claim supporting jurisdiction is dismissed, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, federalism, and comity.

United States Ex Rel. Phillips v. Permian Residential Care Center · filed 2005-09-12(c)(3)

When a federal law claim that serves as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction is dismissed and only a state law claim grounded on supplemental jurisdiction remains, a district court has broad discretion to dismiss the state law claims. ... Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim asserted against Defendant.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the decision to retain a supplemental state law claim to the district court’s discretion after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed; judicial economy, convenience, and fairness guide that decision.

Overall v. University of Pennsylvania · filed 2005-09-23(c)(3)

This language mirrors the precatory language of the commentary to the statute to develop a consistent theme: the ultimate decision on this issue is within the sound discretion of the Court. ... The defamation claim is at its earliest stages after remand, and there would be no waste of judicial resources to remand the case at this point to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing all federal claims, including for reasons of judicial economy.

S.K. Ex Rel. L.K. v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 · filed 2005-11-10(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims, and only Plaintiffs’ state law claim, negligent training and supervision, under Count II remains. The Court determines that it will not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this instance for the sake of judicial economy. The remaining claim stated in the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

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

Iowa Protection and Adv. Services v. Tanager Place · filed 2005-12-13(c)

For the reasons stated in Tanager Place’s brief, the court concludes that the values of judicial economy, convenience and fairness weigh in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to dismiss supplemental state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing that decision.

Professional Sound Services, Inc. v. Guzzi · filed 2005-12-14(c)(3)

Moreover, the District Court did not abuse its discretion, see Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39, 56 (2d Cir.2004), in dismissing the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). PSS has failed to show that the interests of “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” required the District Court to retain jurisdiction over those claims.

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

Glandon v. Keokuk County Health Center · filed 2005-12-23(c)(3)

A federal district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Judicial economy, convenience and fairness argue in favor of the retention of supplemental jurisdiction. Trial is close at hand, scheduled for January 23, 2006. Remand of the state law claims to the state court would involve delay and further expense in bringing the case to issue. Considerations of comity are not significantly involved. The state law claims are factually straightforward and the underlying state law is relatively well-established. There being no sound reason to decline supplemental jurisdiction, and good reason to continue to exercise such jurisdiction, this Court will retain the case.

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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

McReynolds Ex Rel. DM v. ALA. DEPT. YOUTH SERV. · filed 2006-03-28(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court has the discretion to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... After considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness to the parties, and comity, the Court is convinced that the Plaintiff's remaining claims are better left to the Alabama courts. Therefore, these claims too must be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) 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.

Mcreynolds v. Alabama Department of Youth Services · filed 2006-03-28(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court has the discretion to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... After considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness to the parties, and comity, the Court is convinced that the Plaintiffs remaining claims are better left to the Alabama courts. Therefore, these claims too must be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain a supplemental state law claim after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy supports resolving it.

Foryoh v. Hannah-Porter · filed 2006-04-18(c)(3)

However, as explained below, the resolution of Plaintiffs state law claim is clear and, consistent with precedent, the Court finds that interests of judicial economy “provide[] a solid footing” for the Court to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs supplemental state law claim.

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

Johnson v. Ozmint · filed 2006-06-02(c)(3)

After considering the factors discussed in Shanaghan v. Cahill, the court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the putative South Carolina Tort Claims Act claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissal of the claims within its original jurisdiction when the statutory factors and considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Mendoza v. United States · filed 2006-06-30(c)

The balance of the statutory provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and the relevant common law factors favor this Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims are dismissed, considering the stage of the case, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

CBC DISTRIBUTION v. Major League Baseball · filed 2006-08-08(c)(3)

Because the federal claims have been dismissed, the court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The parties have stipulated that the court can and should retain subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Doc. 126. The court has considered that the parties' Stipulation dismissing Counts I, II, and IV comes late in the progress of this case, has considered generally accepted principles of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants, and has determined that the court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the claims remaining in this matter.

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

Price v. Jefferson County · filed 2006-09-20(c)(3)

In this situation, because the federal claims are being dismissed before trial, the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity suggest that this court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Musarra v. Digital Dish, Inc. · filed 2006-09-28(c)(3)

This Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims and finds no overwhelming issues of judicial economy which would weigh heavily towards exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims. ... For these reasons, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ OMFWSA claims, and the 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 federal claims, considering prejudice to the parties and judicial economy.

Thomas v. Board of Education of West Greene School District · filed 2006-12-07(c)(3)

Because the only remaining claim is governed exclusively by state law, and plaintiffs will suffer no prejudice in effectuating that claim in a proper state forum, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claim, and dismiss it without prejudice.

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

Owens v. Town of Delhi · filed 2007-01-04(c)(3)

Here, the federal claims against all Defendants have been dismissed and only state law claims remain. ... Therefore, the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over Owens’ remaining state law claims.

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

Bittakis v. City of El Paso · filed 2007-03-13(c)

Having considered § 1367(c) and the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court finds that justice will best be served by retaining jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

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

Weathers v. Millbrook Central School District · filed 2007-04-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed those claims that formed the basis for our original jurisdiction, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claims against the doctor defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when years of litigation and completed discovery favor judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

In Re Nigeria Charter Flights Contract Litigation · filed 2007-10-25(c)(3)

A dismissal on jurisdictional grounds at this juncture would frustrate the goals of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness. ... Thus, although plaintiffs’ federal claims are indeed dismissed, the Court retains jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims under state law.

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

In Re Short Sale Antitrust Litigation · filed 2007-12-20(c)(3)

After considering the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss the State Law Claims without prejudice.

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

Trustees of Marion Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses v. City of Marion · filed 2007-12-26(c)(3)

Among the situations enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 in which it is appropriate for a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is that in which the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III-VII of the complaint.

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

Salis v. American Export Lines · filed 2008-04-30(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted Hoegh’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Salis’s claim against Hoegh under COGSA, and Salis’s remaining state-law claim against AEL fails to meet the required amount in controversy for this Court to exercise original jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332, there is no longer a claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction. ... Therefore, after considering the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court dismisses Salis’s claim against AEL 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; judicial economy, convenience, and fairness may justify retaining them.

Banks v. County of Allegheny · filed 2008-06-30(c)(3)

Given that all of the federal claims against all of the defendants should be dismissed, the District Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain related state law claims after dismissing the federal claim when judicial economy favors resolving a pending motion.

Swanson v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2008-07-15(c)(3)

Nonetheless, the Court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims because they are closely related to Plaintiffs TILA claim, over which the Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This is true even though the Court dismissed the TILA claim. ... In the interest of judicial economy, the Court exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims for the disposition of Defendants’ motion.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering the statutory grounds and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

United States Ex Rel. Foster v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. · filed 2008-09-24(c)

Having considered these factors and the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that, on the balance, the factors weigh in favor of dismissal of Foster’s claims under the California FCA. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law cross-claims after all original-jurisdiction claims are dismissed, based on convenience, fairness, and judicial economy.

Barton v. ALL-AMERICAN HOMES, LLC · filed 2008-10-21(c)(3)

Regardless of the lack of complete diversity and the fact that only a state-law contractual claim remains, the court exercises its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over this matter, after considering the convenience and fairness to the parties and judicial economy.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally favors declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, unless judicial economy and avoiding multiple lawsuits justify retaining them.

Brown v. Cassens Transport Co. · filed 2008-10-23(c)(3)

Because in this case the “ ‘interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation’ ” did not trump the interest in “ ‘needlessly deciding state law issues,’ ” the district court abused its discretion in exercising pendent jurisdiction to decide the plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after the federal claims are dismissed, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Fei Hang Chen v. Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc. · filed 2008-10-23(c)(3)

When, however, the federal claims are dismissed, a federal court may, in its discretion, retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims or dismiss them without prejudice to being re-filed in state court.

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

Thorn v. BAE Systems Hawaii Shipyards, Inc. · filed 2008-11-10(c)(3)

The court finds that the considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of the court declining jurisdiction over these state law claims and REMANDS Plaintiffs state law claims to the State of Hawaii Circuit Court of the First Circuit.

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

Cintas Corp. v. Unite Here · filed 2009-03-09(c)(3)

“Once [a court’s] discretion is triggered under § 1367(c)(3), it balances the traditional values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction.” ... Convenience and comity weigh heavily against this Court retaining jurisdiction.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain related state-law claims when judicial economy favors doing so.

Morningstar v. City of Detroit · filed 2009-04-23(c)(3)

At that stage in the proceeding, dismissal of Plaintiffs pendant state-law claims was discretionary. ... The Court concludes, however, that the interests of judicial economy weigh in favor of its continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the case.

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

Blakeman v. the Walt Disney Co. · filed 2009-05-11(c)(3)

Since the interests of judicial economy, convenience, comity and fairness to litigants are not violated by refusing to entertain these matters of state law in this case, the Court, in its discretion, “decline[s] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [plaintiffs] state law claims [because] it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all federal claims to retain fully litigated state claims while declining supplemental jurisdiction over others when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor that choice.

Cindrich v. Fisher · filed 2009-07-08(c)(3)

Likewise, in this case, interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties were served by the district court exercising substantial, but not total, supplemental jurisdiction to resolve claims that Cindrich had voluntarily brought in federal court and were fully litigated. There was no abuse of discretion.

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

Sullivan v. Hyland · filed 2009-08-12(c)(3)

Taking all factors into consideration, the Court concludes that efficiency and fairness would best be served by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the private and State Defendants because the remaining claims are purely state law claims befitting the expertise and experience of a state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to retain related state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy and fairness favor retention.

Crowell v. Kirkpatrick · filed 2009-09-14(c)(3)

Here, principles of judicial economy and fairness between the parties favor the retention of jurisdiction, because the state claims are essentially redundant of the federal claims, and no novel or undecided state legal principle need be applied.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and municipal claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy and comity favor adjudication in state court.

Nnebe v. Daus · filed 2009-09-30

Here, reasons of judicial economy and comity militate against retaining jurisdiction over the state claims, as the Plaintiffs will suffer no prejudice as a result of being required to bring their state law claims in state court. ... The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state and municipal law claims in the SAC.

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

HEALTHCARE FINANCE GROUP, INC. v. Bank Leumi USA · filed 2009-10-26(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing HFG’s federal claim, the Court finds that the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The Court therefore dismisses the claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering fairness, convenience, and judicial economy.

Crosby v. CITY OF GASTONIA · filed 2010-01-07(c)(3)

However, convenience and fairness to the parties, paired with strong considerations of judicial economy, militate in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors retention.

Francis v. Marshall · filed 2010-02-02(a)

Though all the federal claims are dismissed, the Court has discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim at this stage. ... Judicial economy suggests that the Court should retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity weigh against retaining them.

Ed Ex Rel. Vd v. Tuffarelli · filed 2010-03-02(c)(3)

I have now dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal claims. The Cohill factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over claims between New York parties implicating only New York state law.

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

Rae v. County of Suffolk · filed 2010-03-05(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal law claims, it must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Accordingly, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants lead this Court to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and to dismiss Plaintiffs state-law claims against Defendant Barry-Rae pursuant to § 1367(c).

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

Coleman v. STATE SUPREME COURT · filed 2010-03-17(c)(3)

Coleman has not shown that there is any reason why the Court should depart from the usual rule in this case. Accordingly, because each of Coleman’s federal claims is subject to dismissal for the reasons set forth above, his state law claims against Bellevue and St. Luke’s should be dismissed without prejudice to his refiling 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, with comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness guiding that decision.

Mead v. INDEPENDENCE ASS'N · filed 2010-05-27(c)(3)

In the absence of any federal claims remaining after resolution of a motion to dismiss, the court must determine whether to entertain Plaintiffs state-law claims. ... The Court has weighed these factors and has determined that the balance weighs in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Counts III, IV, V, and VI of Plaintiffs Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Schuler v. Pricewaterhousecoopers,llp · filed 2010-09-24(c)(3)

Considering that the Court has granted defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Schuler's ADEA claim, it would not be in keeping with judicial economy or ... comity to maintain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. See id. Therefore, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Schuler's DCHRA claim.

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

Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc. · filed 2010-10-25(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because we conclude that the district court properly dismissed all of the federal-law claims and the bal- ance of factors does not tip in favor of retaining the state-law claims,8 we cannot say that the district court abused its discre- tion in dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy, convenience, and fairness guide that decision.

SigmaPharm, Inc. v. MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL CO. · filed 2011-03-02(c)(3)

Although federal courts with original jurisdiction over a federal claim have supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that form “part of the same case or controversy,” a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Here, these factors warrant dismissal of the state law claims. There is no judicial economy in trying the state claims here because the case is in its early stages, an answer has not been filed, and trial has not been scheduled.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors resolving them.

Carlson v. City of Delafield · filed 2011-03-11(c)(3)

Although the Court may relinquish its supplemental jurisdiction if one of the conditions of § 1367(c) is satisfied, it is not required to do so. ... Therefore, the Court will retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and address the issues relative to those claims.

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

Locantore v. Hunt · filed 2011-03-31(c)(3)

Plaintiffs federal claims are all dismissed prior to trial, and there is no reason to believe that judicial economy, convenience, or fairness would be served by this Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, and to do so would be inconsistent with the principle of comity. Thus, Plaintiffs putative state constitutional and negligence claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Ford v. New Century Mortgage Corp. · filed 2011-06-22(c)(3)

When a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... The Court has considered and weighed the relevant factors, and it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Geauga Savings’ counterclaims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when judicial economy and convenience favor retention.

Daniels v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2011-06-24(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court determines that these considerations weigh in favor of exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related nonfederal claims after dismissing all claims supporting federal jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Emory v. United Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2011-10-21(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent non-federal claims if it has dismissed all the claims that provide the basis for federal court jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court will continue to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ non-federal claims.

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

Wood v. Montana Department of Revenue · filed 2011-11-30(c)(3)

Count II is the only claim over which the Court could exercise original jurisdiction. The Court has discretion to remand the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... In this case, the factors of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weigh heavily in favor of retaining jurisdiction over the pending supplemental claims. The parties have thoroughly litigated this matter, and trial is set for next month on December 12th. Given these facts, the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Gordon v. Kaleida Health · filed 2012-01-17(c)(3)

This case is an exception to the general rule. As fully discussed above, Plaintiffs’ common law claims were brought in this Court in the first instance, based on precisely the same facts and circumstances as the claims still pending in the Federal Action. Plaintiffs then chose to voluntarily dismiss the instant claims and others, only to resurrect them all in two state court actions. Principles of judicial economy, convenience to parties and witnesses, and fairness all weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction here. Moreover, there is no harm to the principle of comity. Plaintiffs already have chosen to bring their NYLL claims in this Court, and what remains of their state common law claims seek the same relief under alternate legal theories. For these reasons, I find it appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this action.

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

Kraft v. Mayer, et al. · filed 2012-01-25(c)(3)

Therefore, based on the balance of relevant factors, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kraft’s state law claims.

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

Ortiz v. Saez · filed 2012-03-31(c)

Once all claims conferring original jurisdiction have been dismissed, a district court has discretion, assessing “the totality of the attendant circumstances,” in deciding whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over other claims. ... Therefore, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness all weigh towards dismissing the Puerto Rico claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy and prompt resolution favor retention.

King v. Friends of Ayotte · filed 2012-05-14(c)(3)

However, because the federal claims raise issues similar to the state claims, the Court exercises its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction in the interest of judicial economy and in the interest of the litigants obtaining expeditious resolution of the claims.

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 comity, convenience, and judicial economy.

Sharpe v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-05-18(c)(3)

Given that this case is at the earliest stages of litigation, the court finds that comity, convenience and judicial economy weigh against supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court will dismiss without prejudice the remainder of plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed, with judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weighing heavily toward declining jurisdiction in that circumstance.

Hubert PHILOGENE, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Et Al., Defendants · filed 2012-05-25(c)(3)

Where, as here, all federal-law claims are dismissed, this balance of factors weighs heavily toward declining jurisdiction over the remaining common-law claims.

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

Cajamarca v. Regal Entertainment Group · filed 2012-05-31(c)(3)

The Court sees no reason to depart from this practice as none of the Cohill factors support retaining 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, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Sanders v. Murdter · filed 2012-06-21(c)(3)

To the extent he is, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over such a claim.

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

Johnson v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-06-21(c)(3)

By the same token, they “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such] claim[s] . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” § 1367(c)(3). ... Here the factors clearly weigh against retention of the case. This Court has handled little in the case beyond the current Motion to Dismiss and has not dealt at all with the pendent state claims. ... The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining common-law claims, which he may file in the appropriate state or local forum.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only federal claim when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Tamburri v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. · filed 2012-06-21(c)(3)

Plaintiffs RE SPA claim was her only federal cause of action alleged in the SAC. However, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Given the multiple rounds of briefing the Court has already entertained in this matter and the fact that it has already been pending for approximately one year, the Corut finds that remand at this stage in the litigation would not serve the principles of “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” and therefore exercises its discretion to entertain Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors keeping them.

Range v. Douglas · filed 2012-07-13(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court concludes that in the interest of judicial economy, the pendent state-law claims will remain here.

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

De Contreras v. City of Rialto · filed 2012-09-25(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... After considering the jurisdictional principles of judicial economy, procedural convenience, fairness to litigants, and comity, the Court finds it appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdictional over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 allows a court to retain related state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Bosch v. LaMattina · filed 2012-09-28(a)

Further, Plaintiffs state law claims arise out of the same case or controversy as the RESPA claims. Thus, the Court has the discretion to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs supplemental state law claims even though it dismissed the RESPA claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain related state law claims after resolving all federal claims when the claims present no novel or complex state law issues and resolving them together serves judicial economy.

Jones v. Spherion Atlantic Enterprise, LLC · filed 2012-10-17(c)(3)

Although the district court could have chosen to dismiss Jones’ state law claims without prejudice after granting summary judgment on the federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion by retaining jurisdiction and ruling on the tort claims, because: (1) the state claims involved the same incidents—Hinton’s alleged harassment—that Jones’ federal claims were based on; (2) there was no indication the tort claims involved complex or novel state law issues; and (3) ruling on all of Jones’ claims at once served judicial economy.

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 after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Lioi v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene · filed 2012-12-19(c)(3)

Of particular relevance here, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... in this case the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over either set of claims, for two reasons.

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.

Badgett v. District of Columbia · filed 2013-02-25(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims and upon consideration of the aforementioned factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ wrongful termination claim.

After dismissal of the federal claims, § 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims based on considerations including comity and state expertise.

Hootstein v. Collins · filed 2013-03-08(c)(3)

Rather, dismissal of the federal questions merely sets the stage for the court to use its informed discretion regarding whether it should retain the remaining state law claims. ... This court will therefore exercise its discretion and decline jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ causes of action that are based on state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, even in an old case, when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor dismissal.

Chenensky v. New York Life Insurance · filed 2013-03-11(c)(3)

Courts should decline to exercise jurisdiction over even an old case when, as here, the balance of the Cohill factors favor dismissal.

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

Board of Commissioners v. United States · filed 2013-03-27(c)(3)

Specifically, the Court has discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction where, as here, it has dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Taking into consideration the relevant factors, and following Tenth Circuit precedent, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Individual Defendant’s state law claims.

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

Sanchez v. Melendrez · filed 2013-03-28(c)(3)

Taking into consideration the relevant factors, and following Tenth Circuit precedent, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity all weigh in favor of allowing the state court the opportunity to resolve this claim.

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, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Zilyen, Inc. v. Rubber Manufacturers Association · filed 2013-04-02(c)(3)

However, § 1367(c) provides that the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if, among other provisions, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court finds that the balance of factors here weighs in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Power Equipment Maintenance, Inc. v. Airco Power Services, Inc. · filed 2013-06-28(c)(3)

Under § 1367(c), the 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). ... After careful consideration, the Court finds no reason to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

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

Robinson v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2013-08-30(c)

In determining whether to dismiss supplemental state law claims, “the district court is to be ‘guided by consideration of the factors enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).’” Shekoyan v. Sibley Int’l, 409 F.3d 414, 424 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that it is in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity to remand the remaining state law claims to the Superior Court for the District of Columbia.

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.

Marceline v. Town of Darien · filed 2013-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “[t]he district courts 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.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a 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.

El-Nahal v. Yassky · filed 2014-01-29(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the assertion of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law claims would be inappropriate in the absence of related federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and the predominance of state issues typically favor that choice.

Ketchum v. St. Cloud Hospital · filed 2014-01-30(c)(3)

But the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, and where all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, the factors to be considered in deciding whether to exercise such jurisdiction — judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and predominance of state issues — typically militate against doing so.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims based on judicial economy and fairness.

Thomas v. Daneshgari · filed 2014-02-14(c)(3)

In light of the all of the above, and in the interest of judicial economy and fairness to all of the parties, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

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

Flowers v. Troup County, Georgia, School District · filed 2014-03-05(c)(3)

For these reasons, “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” weigh in favor declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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.

Ergowerx International, LLC v. Maxell Corp. of America · filed 2014-05-07(c)(3)

However, such jurisdiction is discretionary, see City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll., of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S.Ct. 523, 139 L.Ed.2d 525 (1997), and a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the circumstances do not counsel in favor of the Court’s exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Smartfish’s breach-of-contract claim. The case is at an early stage. ... Nor do convenience, fairness, or comity counsel in favor of retaining jurisdiction. ... The Court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy and comity weighing in that decision.

Steshenko v. Gayrard · filed 2014-05-20(c)(3)

This ease has yet to proceed beyond the pleadings, and thus few judicial resources are wasted by dismissing the case at this stage. Further, dismissal promotes comity by allowing the California courts to interpret state law concerning the state law claims in the first instance. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims—FEHA claim, Bane Act claims, and IIED claim—in Plaintiffs Complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims before trial; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and the predominance of state issues typically favor declining jurisdiction.

Martinson v. Leason · filed 2014-05-21(c)(3)

But the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, and where all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, the factors to be considered in deciding whether to exercise such jurisdiction— judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and predominance of state issues— typically militate against doing so. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Martinson’s negligence claim, and it will dismiss that claim 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, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Edwards v. Raymond · filed 2014-05-23(c)(3)

The federal claim of copyright infringement having been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law breach of contract claim. This litigation is at an early stage; discovery has not yet commenced, and principles of judicial economy do not counsel in favor of the exercise of jurisdiction. Nor is there any reason grounded in principles of convenience, fairness, or comity to depart from the standard practice of declining to exercise jurisdiction over state claims once no federal law claims remain.

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, and fairness into account.

Hunters United for Sunday Hunting v. Pennsylvania Game Commission · filed 2014-06-18(c)(3)

Because of the early stage of this action, the Court finds that the factors of judicial, economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants weigh in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Artis v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-06-27(c)(3)

By the same token, they “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such] claim[s] . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the factors weigh against retention of the case.

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

Farr v. Rolls-Royce Corp. · filed 2014-06-30(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court, in its discretion, declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Farr’s state law claims.

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

New Vision Photography Program, Inc. v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-07-07(c)(3)

This Court lacks independent subject-matter jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, and it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Anarion Investments, LLC v. Carrington Mortgage Services · filed 2014-07-17(c)(3)

Here, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... It would not be in the interest of judicial economy for the court to continue to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. Moreover, Tennessee has the stronger interest in the potentially viable claims in this lawsuit in any case, and it would not be inconvenient or unfair for the parties to adjudicate these claims in state court.

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

Kahan v. Slippery Rock University · filed 2014-09-24(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where the federal claims are no longer viable. ... There is no federal interest in deciding those state-based claims, and judicial economy, convenience, and fairness are not served by this court, instead of the state court, resolving this case.

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, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Logan v. Matveevskii · filed 2014-09-29(c)(3)

Here, none of the factors that the Supreme Court enunciated in Cohill—“judicial economy, convenience, fairness, [or] comity”—militate against such dismissal, and there is no reason to believe that this is not otherwise a “usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial.”

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

Little v. Municipal Corp. · filed 2014-09-30(c)(3)

Here, none of the factors that the Supreme Court enunciated in Cohill — “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, [or] comity” — militate against such dismissal, and there is no reason to believe that this is not otherwise a “usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiffs state-law minimum standard claims will be dismissed without prejudice should Plaintiffs’ federal claims be dismissed.

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

United Veterans Memorial & Patriotic Ass'n v. City of New Rochelle · filed 2014-12-22(c)(3)

After disposing of the First Amendment claim,' there are no federal claims left to try. ... Having considered the Cohill factors, the Court concludes that this is the “usual case” in which they “point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state-law claim.

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

Desjardins v. Willard · filed 2015-01-23(c)(3)

Where a federal court has dismissed the anchoring federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" over the remaining state law claims. ... In light of these factors, we hold now -- as we did then -- that the surviving state law claims should be remanded to state court where they began.

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.

AG Funds, L.P. v. Sanofi · filed 2015-01-28(c)(3)

Here, no circumstances counsel in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the AG Funds plaintiffs’ state law claims. The Court has not invested the resources necessary to resolve these noil-federal claims, and convenience, fairness, and comity do not require the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The Court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

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

Turner v. New York Rosbruch/Harnik, Inc. · filed 2015-02-04(c)(3)

In accordance with the guiding principle that district courts will not typically maintain state claims once the anchoring federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Eskenazi-McGibney v. Connetquot Central School District · filed 2015-02-06(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of all federal claims early in this action, and upon consideration of all relevant factors, namely judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity, insofar as the amended complaint may be deemed to state any cognizable claims under state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.

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

Reid v. Freeport Public School District · filed 2015-03-02(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of all federal claims early in this action, and upon consideration of all relevant factors, namely judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity, insofar as the_ complaint may be deemed to state any cognizable claims under state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.

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

Jordan v. Chase Manhattan Bank · filed 2015-03-06(c)(3)

The Court has not invested the resources necessary to resolve these non-federal claims, which are wholly distinct from Jordan’s federal claims, and factors of convenience, fairness, and comity do not require the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The Court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. These claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Bartels v. Incorporated Village of Lloyd Harbor · filed 2015-03-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal causes of action, I find that judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity weigh against retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Spring v. County of Monroe · filed 2015-05-07(c)(3)

Supplemental jurisdiction may be declined, however, where all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... The relevant factors include judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity. ... Here, I find that those interests are best served by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Puerto Rico Clean Energy Corp. v. Hatton-Gotay · filed 2015-07-23(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction, the court considers a variety of factors, including fairness, judicial economy, convenience and comity. Desjardins v. Willard, 777 F.3d 43, 45 (1st Cir.2015). Having dismissed plaintiffs’ federal RICO claim and having considered these factors, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction.

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

United States v. Godley · filed 2015-09-30(c)(3)

In exercise of its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, therefore, the Court will decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the defendants’ cross-claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining local law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed; judicial economy and the stage of the case inform that choice.

Struggs v. City of New York · filed 2015-10-19(c)(3)

For the reasons that follow, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining local law claims. ... However, if the court has “dismissed all claims over which it has-original jurisdiction” it “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining . claims.' 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... But Defendants’ judicial economy arid efficiency concerns do not persuade me. No discovery has been exchanged. The parties are far from trial or even summary judgment.

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 economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Sikhs for Justice "SFJ", Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. · filed 2015-11-13(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims and GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims based on comity and judicial economy.

Croft v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2016-02-10(c)(3)

The Court holds the comity factor to weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and considerations of judicial economy demand the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over distinct state-law claims when fairness and comity favor state-court resolution.

Dibrito v. City of St. Joseph · filed 2016-03-21(c)(3)

Fairness and comity favor allowing a state court to determine those claims. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a 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.

Estate of Steward v. McCay · filed 2016-03-24(c)(3)

This court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, as a matter of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants, respect of the plaintiff’s choice of forum, and comity, the remainder of this case should be remanded to the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, Alabama.

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

Fratello v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese · filed 2016-03-29(c)(3)

The “traditional ’values of judicial economy,- convenience, fairness, and comity’” weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial. Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988)). Having determined that all of the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state-law causes of action. See id. (citing 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, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Brooke v. Peterson · filed 2016-05-13(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the only federal claim in Plaintiffs complaints, the Court must determine whether to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims. “[District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs additional state law claims.

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

Hughes v. City of New York · filed 2016-06-23(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of all federal claims in this action, and upon consideration of the pertinent factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guide that decision.

Rizvi v. Town of Wawarsing · filed 2016-06-24(c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that a federal 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). ... This is just such a case.

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

DM v. Louisa County Department of Human Services · filed 2016-07-08(c)(3)

To the extent that plaintiffs argue that they have a right to recovery under state law, the court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction). Again, Virginia has implemented an extensive legislative scheme in order to protect the confidentiality of child abuse investigation records. In the interest of comity, the court will not interject itself into an area that is the focus of several state laws and regulations.

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, including for reasons of comity.

Kalan v. Health Center Commission of Orange County, Virginia · filed 2016-07-26(c)(3)

The court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kalan’s remaining negligence claim against Dr. Merrick under Count II. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction). As Ka-lan noted in her opposition brief, Virginia has implemented its own regulatory scheme in order to ensure adequate care at nursing home facilities. See 22 Va. Admin. Code 5-371-110 et seq. In the interest of comity, the court will not interject itself into an area that is governed by several state regulations.

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.

Volpe v. American Language Communication Center, Inc. · filed 2016-07-29(c)(3)

Subsection (c) provides that a district court “may” decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, all of Plaintiffs FLSA claims have been dismissed. Accordingly, judicial economy, fairness, convenience and comity will be serv.ed best by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining NYLL claims.