28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed; in the Third Circuit, it must do so absent an affirmative justification based on judicial economy, convenience, or fairness.

Butler v. Arctic Glacier USA · filed 2016-09-29(c)(3)

In this case, none of Plaintiffs federal claims survive, so the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law wrongful discharge claim, and must do so under Third Circuit precedent unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness affirmatively justify exercising jurisdiction.

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

Hedgpeth v. Rahim · filed 2016-10-03(c)(3)

Although Defendants do not ask for dismissal of those claims on jurisdictional grounds, the Court lacks independent subject-matter jurisdiction over them and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Lefande v. Mische-Hoeges · filed 2016-10-20(c)(3)

... the Court further ORDERS that the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff's federal claims. Furthermore, the Court finds that, although this case has been pending before this Court for some time, having balanced all of the relevant factors, including, but not limited to, comity and judicial economy, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's state- law claims.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when comity and judicial economy favor doing so.

Marshall Tucker Band, Inc. v. M T Industries, Inc. · filed 2017-03-01(c)(3)

Here, the Court is unable to hold the parties would be inconvenienced or unfairly prejudiced by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, nor does the Court find there to be any underlying issues of federal policy involved in Plaintiffs’ state law claims. 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. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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

Crawford v. Antonio B. Won Pat International Airport Authority, Guam · filed 2017-08-30(c)(3)

Given that the only federal claims at issue have been dismissed before trial, and given that the balance of factors of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity does not counsel in favor of retaining jurisdiction here, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Crawford’s remaining claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment and will order those claims dismissed without prejudice.

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

LLM Bar Exam, LLC v. Barbri, Inc. · filed 2017-09-25(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) grants a district court discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” pendent state-law claims “if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... All four Gibbs factors counsel in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over LBE’s state-law claims.

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

Baguidy v. Boro Transit Inc. · filed 2017-09-30(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of all federal claims in this action at the pleadings stage, and upon consideration of all relevant factors, ... the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining pendant state law claims.

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

In re Express Scripts/Anthem Erisa Litig. · filed 2018-01-05(c)(3)

Once a district 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. ... Accordingly, as Plaintiffs' federal claims have all been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Pulliam v. The City of Calumet City · filed 2018-02-12(c)(3)

In keeping with this Circuit’s usual practice, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction because the relevant factors do not justify doing so.

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

Briggs v. Cnty. of Monroe · filed 2018-03-16(c)(3)

Those claims are not so straightforward as to weigh in favor of exercising jurisdiction, in the interest of judicial economy. The Court concludes that the balance of factors weighs against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims.

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

Touponce v. Town of Lee · filed 2018-04-06(c)(3)

Here, all factors weigh in favor of the court’s declination of continuing jurisdiction. ... This leaves no remaining federal claims. The supplemental state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Cisneros ex rel. Situated v. Petland, Inc. · filed 2018-04-17(c)(3)

Because the outcome of this dispute now depends exclusively on issues of state law, the Court finds that judicial economy, fairness, and convenience favor declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining claims. This result is desirable considering that the Court has disposed of Plaintiffs federal claims before trial.

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

Barry Farm Tenants v. D.C. Hous. Auth. · filed 2018-04-30(c)

In this case, the factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Smith v. Town of West Bridgewater · filed 2018-07-10(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining counts.

Section 1367 permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction after rejection of the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Oliver v. Bartholomew · filed 2019-11-25(c)(3)

Here, each of the factors weighed in favor of retaining jurisdiction: Oliver brought the claims in federal court in the first instance, the factual allegations supporting the state law claims were identical to the allegations supporting the federal claims, the issues had already been briefed, and the state law questions were not novel or complex. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a related state claim after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy and the close relationship between the claims favor retention.

Lacoparra v. Pergament Home Centers, Inc. · filed 1997-10-10(c)

Although we are dismissing Lacoparra’s federal claims, we exercise our discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to retain supplemental jurisdiction over her NYSHRL claim based on judicial economy and the close relationship between her federal and state claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain a closely related state claim after dismissing the federal claim when judicial economy favors retention.

Scott v. Flaghouse, Inc. · filed 1997-10-16(c)

Although we have dismissed Scott’s federal claim, we exercise our discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to retain supplemental jurisdiction over her NYSHRL claim based on judicial economy and the close relationship between her federal and state claims.

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

Richardson v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District · filed 1997-11-12(c)

Although we are dismissing Richardson’s Title VII claim, we exercise our discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to retain supplemental jurisdiction over her NYSHRL claim based on judicial economy and the close relationship between her federal and state claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a related state claim after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy and the close relationship between the claims favor retention.

De Jesus-Keolamphu v. Village of Pelham Manor · filed 1998-04-03(c)

Although, as discussed below, we dismiss all of plaintiffs’ federal claims, we exercise out discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to retain supplemental jurisdiction over this state claim based on judicial economy and the close relationship between the federal and state equal protection claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a closely related state claim after dismissing the federal claim when judicial economy supports retention.

Kodengada v. International Business MacHines Corp. · filed 2000-03-13(c)

Although this Court is dismissing Ko-dengada’s Title VII claim, we exercise our discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to retain supplemental jurisdiction over his HRL claim “based on judicial economy and the close relationship between [his] federal and state claim.” Richardson v. Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 984 F.Supp. 735, 747 (S.D.N.Y.1997); see also Rounseville v. Zahl, 13 F.3d 625, 631 (2d Cir.1994) (a district court may “continue to exercise jurisdiction over a state claim ... even when the federal claim to which it is pendent has been dismissed before trial” where it entertains “a summary judgment motion that offer[s] some prospect of ending the litigation entirely.”).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its facts substantially overlap with those of a federal claim.

Khalfani · filed 2026-03-11(a)

Here, such supplemental jurisdiction exists, as the federal and state law claims would likely implicate a substantial degree of factual overlap; the race discrimination claim will require evidence of why Plaintiff was fired, which will in turn implicate the alleged firearm found in his bag.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, especially when dismissal occurs early enough to preserve judicial economy and fairness.

Austral Oil Co., Inc. v. National Park Service · filed 1997-10-23(c)(3)

All claims against Oryx are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and with discretionary denial of supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing the foundational federal claims early in the litigation, based on fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity.

Vidal-Soto v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya-Puerto Rico · filed 1998-04-24(c)(3)

Balancing the interests of fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity, we, accordingly, decline jurisdiction over the Puer-to Rico claims as we have dismissed the foundational federal claims at this early stage of litigation.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; retaining early-dismissed state-law claims requires a sound assessment of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2006-07-11(c)(3)

In the absence of a clearly articulated federal interest and without any other consideration of the Co-hill factors, we think the district court exceeded its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the case is at an early stage and retaining the claim would not serve judicial economy or convenience.

Multi Denominational Ministry of Cannabis & Rastafari, Inc. v. Gonzales · filed 2007-02-02(c)(3)

Exercising supplemental jurisdiction would neither promote judicial economy nor convenience to the parties because the case is still in its early stages. And aside from defendants’ current motions to dismiss, the court has yet to consider any dispositive motions in this case. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 USC § 1367(c) (3), the court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ 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, with judicial economy and fairness favoring that choice early in litigation.

Singer Management Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram · filed 2009-04-07(c)(3)

Where a district court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over state claims, the district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Here, every claim over which the court had original subject matter jurisdiction is dismissed. At this early stage in the litigation, in accordance with the principles of judicial economy and fairness to the litigants, the court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the State’s counterclaims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim early in the litigation, particularly in the interest of comity.

John Kiernan, Plaintiff v. The Town of Hudson, New Hampshire, and Hudson Police Officer Dan Dolan, Defendants · filed 2015-02-10(c)(3)

Given that the court has dismissed the sole federal claim in Kiernan’s complaint “at an early stage in the litigation,” Camelio, 137 F.3d at 672, and in the interest of comity, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in Kiernan’s amended complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of convenience and any unusual circumstances favoring retention.

Mason v. Arizona · filed 2003-03-28(c)(3)

While the Court recognizes that litigation of a new suit in state court may create some inconveniences to Plaintiff, Plaintiff makes no showing of extraordinary or unusual circumstances to warrant this Court retaining jurisdiction over his state law claims. Consequently, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been resolved; the court weighs economy, fairness, convenience, and comity in exercising that discretion.

Duval Ranching Co. v. Glickman · filed 1997-03-14(c)(3)

As discussed below, however, none of Plaintiffs’ federal Claims — that is, the ones over which we have original jurisdiction — survive summary judgment. Accordingly, we have discretion to decline jurisdiction over these state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Exercise of our discretion is governed by the weighing of several factors, including economy, fairness, convenience, and comity.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after the federal claims are resolved, even when the state claims raise a novel issue, if economy, convenience, and fairness support retention.

Allen v. City of Los Angeles · filed 1996-08-07(c)

Two Section 1367(c) factors are present here. The state law indemnification claims involve a novel issue of California law: the definition of “actual malice” under Cal. Gov’t Code § 996.4. In addition, all of the claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction have been resolved. ... Given these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining jurisdiction over the state law indemnification 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 discretion guided by economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Jeffery v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2000-03-13(c)(3)

In this case, the Court has dismissed all federal causes of action with prejudice, leaving only Jeffery’s five state-law claims. Thus, the “factual predicate” found at 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) exists. After considering the values established by Gibbs, the Court exercises its discretion by refusing to extend supplemental jurisdiction to Jeffery’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after all federal claims are dismissed, even if refiling in state court inconveniences the plaintiff.

Pickern v. Best Western Timber Cove Lodge Marina Resort · filed 2002-04-01(c)(3)

While the court recognizes that litigation of a new suit in state court may create some inconvenience to plaintiff, plaintiff has made no showing of extraordinary or unusual circumstances. Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as to the remaining state law claims.

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

Good v. Fluor Daniel Corp. · filed 2002-09-11(c)(3)

This Court may retain jurisdiction even after the basis for original jurisdiction is removed. ... In making that decision, a district court may appropriately consider “the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” ... The Court therefore retains jurisdiction of these cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

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

Grove v. De La Cruz · filed 2005-10-31(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs state law claims arise from the same conduct as her ADA claims, and because discovery and motion practice are complete with respect to the state law claims, the Court finds that these values are best served by retaining jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims, and accordingly, reaches the merits of these claims.

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

Van Asdale v. International Game, Technology · filed 2007-08-10(c)(3)

Where the court has dismissed all claims over which the court has original jurisdiction the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, we think that retaining jurisdiction of the pendant state claims would not serve the economy or convenience of this court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction to resolve pending motions concerning state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim when doing so promotes economy, convenience, and fairness.

Leder v. Shinfeld · filed 2009-04-14(c)

While the Order of May 22, 2008 disposed of the sole federal claim, we retained jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) for purposes of considering the remainder of Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed when retaining them would not promote economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Peruta v. Town of Rocky Hill · filed 2009-08-07(c)

When all of a plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed, the Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) if it determines that exercising supplemental jurisdiction would not promote economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against Valadez.

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

Shafi v. Palestinian Authority · filed 2010-02-23(c)(3)

Because the plaintiffs’ first two claims will be dismissed, there are no remaining claims over which there exists original subject-matter jurisdiction. Notions of comity and efficiency weigh heavily in favor of allowing an Israeli court to make determinations about Israeli law, and there are no overriding concerns regarding fairness or convenience that counsel against declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ third claim for relief.

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

Trimble v. District of Columbia · filed 2011-04-26(c)(3)

Because Trimble’s § 1983 claim will be dismissed, there are no remaining claims over which there exists original subject-matter jurisdiction. No overriding concerns regarding fairness or convenience counsel against declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining D.C. common law and statutory claims over which the D.C. Superior Court has jurisdiction. Thus, these claims also will be dismissed.

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

Trimble v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2011-04-26(c)(3)

A district court, in its discretion, may choose not 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); see also Mead v. City First Bank of DC, N.A., 616 F. Supp. 2d 78, 81 (D.D.C. 2009). ... No overriding concerns regarding fairness or convenience counsel against declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining D.C. common law and statutory claims over which the D.C. Superior Court has jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when convenience and fairness favor resolving them.

Stewart v. Bierman · filed 2012-05-08(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ state law claims are closely related to their FDCPA claims, and, for the convenience and fairness to the parties, the Court can easily dispense with them. Accordingly, this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction to address the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, considering fairness, convenience, and judicial resources.

Short v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc. · filed 2012-12-03(c)(3)

Although the Court has dismissed all of the federal claims at issue in this action, it has the discretion to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims. ... The Court elects to retain supplemental jurisdiction. Since the parties and the Court have already devoted substantial time, effort, and resources to a four-day bench trial on this matter, declining to exercise jurisdiction and sending the case to state court for additional proceedings would be unfair, inconvenient, and a waste of judicial resources.

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 the early stage of litigation, comity, and fairness informing that choice.

Pliakos v. Manchester, N H , et al. · filed 2003-07-15(c)(3)

Given that this case is “at an early stage in the litigation,” Camelio, 137 F.3d at 6 7 2 , and in the interests of both comity and fairness to the parties, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in counts four through twelve of plaintiff’s complaint.

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, taking account of the litigation stage, comity, and fairness.

Pan American v. Pease, et al. · filed 2003-10-29(c)(3)

Given that this case is “at an early stage in the litigation,” Camelio, 137 F.3d at 6 7 2 , and in the interests of both comity and fairness to the parties, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in counts two through five of Pan Am’s complaint.

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

McCarthy v. Milford, et al. · filed 2004-02-18(c)(3)

Given that the court has dismissed all of plaintiff’s federal claims, and in the interests of both comity and fairness to the parties, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in counts two, four, and five of plaintiff’s complaint.

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

Heghmann v. Rye, N H , et al. · filed 2004-11-08(c)(3)

Given that the court has dismissed all of Heghmann’s federal claims, and in the interests of both comity and fairness to the parties, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in counts two and five of Heghmann’s complaint.

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

DePoutot v. Raffaelly · filed 2005-03-03(c)(3)

Given that this case is "at an early stage in the litigation," Camelio, 137 F.3d at 672, and in the interests of both comity and fairness to the parties, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in count two of plaintiff's complaint.

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the relevant fairness and efficiency factors weigh against retaining them.

Rodriguez v. City of New York · filed 2008-02-27(c)(3)

The factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. Plaintiffs likely have not expended a substantial amount of time, resources, or effort developing their state law claims independent of their federal claims because both are based on the same underlying facts. Nor is the case at such a late stage that it would be unfair to the parties to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at this point. It therefore is reasonable for the Court to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing federal claims when declining jurisdiction would not further fairness or judicial efficiency.

Molinari v. Bloomberg · filed 2009-01-13(c)

However, declining to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims in this case would not further fairness or judicial efficiency. Both sides have fully briefed and ably argued all claims, both State and Federal. State law is clear in its requirement that these claims must be dismissed.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims and resolve clearly time-barred state claims when fairness favors doing so.

Greco v. Communications Workers of America, Local 1104 · filed 2011-09-19(c)

Even if such claims were not preempted, the court would exercise supplemental jurisdiction to dismiss the claims as clearly time-barred. While this court has the discretion to dismiss state claims when all federal claims have been dismissed, and dismissal is generally the proper course, it is not required.

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; comity may support that choice.

Durante v. Belknap, NH · filed 2005-02-16(c)(3)

In the interest of comity, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, with comity favoring dismissal when state law is uncertain.

Ali v. STETSON UNIVERSITY, INC. · filed 2004-10-08(c)(3)

Having rejected Plaintiffs claim under § 1981, the basis for this Court’s original jurisdiction no longer remains. The Court must therefore determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs breach of contract claim. ... Given the uncertainty that inheres in this area of law, the principle of comity counsels this Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when comity favors resolution in state court.

Maddaloni Jewelers, Inc. v. Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2004-12-29(c)(3)

Comity dictates that a New York court consider whether these common law theories encompass (or should be stretched to encompass) the facts present here. Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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 weighing in that decision.

Begovic v. Water Pik · filed 2005-04-06(c)(3)

In the interest of comity, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.

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, taking justice and comity into account.

Kenneth D. Widgren, Jr. And Kenneth D. Widgren, Sr. v. Maple Grove Township H. Wayne Beldo Louis Lenz, Jr. · filed 2005-11-17(c)(3)

District courts have discretion to refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2005). ... We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law issues based on its consideration of the interests of justice and comity best served by a state court’s resolution of the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, taking judicial efficiency and comity into account.

Bohmer v. New York · filed 2010-02-04(c)(3)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining stale law claims against the Stale defendants.

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 and federalism favoring state court resolution when identical claims are pending there.

Keys Wi-Fi, Inc. v. City of Key West · filed 2010-09-28(c)(3)

However, “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Florida state law claims. In declining to exercise jurisdiction, this Court notes that Keys Wi-Fi has a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari including identical state claims that is pending before the Florida Circuit Court. Thus, principles of comity and federalism suggest allowing the state court to address these issues.

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

Eddings v. City Of Hot Springs, Arkansas · filed 2003-03-12(c)(3)

After granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal claims, the district court declined to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's election to decline the retention of jurisdiction, we need not address any of the state law 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, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Jordahl v. Democratic Party Of Virginia · filed 1997-07-28(c)(3)

Although the district court did not cite to § 1367(c)(3), it is clear from its opinion, that the district court exercised its discretion not to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... In the instant case, no evidence of abuse of discretion by the district court exists in its decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after all federal claims are dismissed; that choice is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Estate of Pearce By and Through Gonzales v. Harris · filed 1998-04-06(c)(3)

We, therefore, conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. See Anglemyer v. Hamilton County Hosp., 58 F.3d 533, 541 (10th Cir.1995) (reviewing for abuse of discretion); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that when all federal claims are dismissed, district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state claims).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after it dismisses the federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction; that choice is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Binder v. Gillespie · filed 1999-03-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may elect, in its discretion, not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if it has dismissed the original jurisdiction federal claims. See Fang v. United States, 140 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.1998); Voigt v. Savell, 70 F.3d 1552, 1565 (9th Cir.1995). We conclude that dismissal of the state law class claims was not an abuse of discretion.

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; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Shisinday v. Johnson · filed 2000-09-14(c)(3)

First, to the extent to which Shisinday attempts to challenge the district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Shisinday’s state-law claim of false imprisonment because it had dismissed all of Shisinday’s claims over which it had original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), he has failed to show an abuse of discretion, see Sibley v. Lemaire, 184 F.3d 481, 490 (5th Cir. 1999).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Stevenson v. Martin County Board of Education · filed 2001-02-06(c)(3)

Once the district court dismissed the federal claims, it exercised its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). We review a district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for abuse of discretion. See Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Va., 122 F.3d 192, 203 (4th Cir. 1997). The district court did not abuse its discretion in this case. It made a prudent decision in light of the fact that Stevenson had not stated a claim under § 1983.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claims, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Muniz v. Templeton Unified School District · filed 2001-02-23(c)(3)

The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that state law claim after it dismissed Muniz’s federal law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The district court did not abuse its discretion by that dismissal.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are resolved, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Mays v. Buckeye Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. And Frederick B. Parker · filed 2002-01-22(c)(3)

In dismissing without prejudice four other claims Plaintiff had asserted under Ohio statutes and common law, the district court recognized the absence of federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for this reason pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We do not believe the district court abused its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, and we have no reason to believe the district court would choose to exercise ... jurisdiction over Plaintiffs “due process and natural justice” deprivation claim alone.

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

Huntsinger v. Board of Directors of E-470 Public Highway Authority · filed 2002-05-06(c)(3)

Such a dismissal is within the discretion of the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims are dismissed and remaining state claims raise novel or complex issues; retaining those claims after an early dismissal may be an abuse of discretion.

Christian R. Valencia, an Infant by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Teresa Franco v. Sung M. Lee and Shiu Chun Lee, the · filed 2003-01-21(c)

Given plaintiffs’ abandonment of all federal claims in this case long before any decision on the novel and complex issues of state law became necessary, we conclude that the district court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction to decide plaintiffs’ state-law claims against the City was an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; retaining state law claims before substantial work on them may be an abuse of discretion.

Villalpando v. City of Denver · filed 2003-04-14(c)(3)

Accordingly, we conclude the district court abused its discretion in retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Gonzalez-De-Blasini v. Family Department · filed 2004-08-02(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, "district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" if "the district court has dismissed all claims under which it has original jurisdiction." ... We can discern no abuse of discretion in the district court's dismissal of the action after ruling against González on the federal 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, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Woodberry v. Bruce · filed 2004-09-22(c)(3)

Here, the district court properly dismissed the 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights claim, and §1367(c)(3) authorized the court to dismiss Woodberry’s supplemental claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of the federal claims, a decision reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Regions Bank v. J.R. Oil Co. · filed 2004-10-14(c)(3)

In light of our decision to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the RICO claims, we must review the district court’s decision to decline the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Regions Bank’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Our review is for abuse of discretion. See Eddings v. City of Hot Springs, 323 F.3d 596, 600 (8th Cir. 2003). Finding no abuse of discretion, and no arguments on this issue that merit further discussion, we affirm.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim when it dismisses all federal claims at the outset of litigation; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Bascom v. Fried · filed 2004-11-15(c)(3)

Here, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bascom’s state breach of contract claim at the outset of the litigation, after dismissing all of Bascom’s federal claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). ... Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the 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 review for abuse of discretion.

Clements v. Chapman · filed 2006-06-27(c)(3)

The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Clements’ state law claims which, as noted, were all based on alleged violations of Colorado criminal law. We conclude there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in doing so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Suter v. LA Philharmonic · filed 2006-07-05(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... For these reasons, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, and that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Daniel v. Compass · filed 2006-12-13(c)(3)

When all federal claims have been resolved, the district court’s decision to dismiss state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Priester v. Lowndes County, 354 F.3d 414, 425 (5th Cir. 2004); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Generally, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the court has dismissed all claims over which it had pendant jurisdiction.” ... The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the state law claims after it granted qualified immunity on Daniel’s § 1983 claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Rivera-Martinez v. Commonwealth of PR · filed 2007-01-04(c)(3)

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Rivera-Martinez’s state law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, 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.” Appellate review of the refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is for abuse of discretion. Gonzalez-de-Blasini v. Family Dep’t, 377 F.3d 81, 89 (1st Cir. 2004). In this case, the district court dismissed the Title VII federal claim and therefore, in its discretion, declined to entertain the supplemental state law claim. No abuse of discretion occurred.

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

Thomas v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp. · filed 2007-12-26(c)(3)

In any event, she has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims after dismissing the federal 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, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Keller v. Porter Hospital · filed 2008-02-15(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . [if] the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Because there was no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court’s order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Ward v. National Geographic Society · filed 2008-06-27(c)(3)

As an initial matter, we reject the contention of the Faulkner appellants that the district court erred in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over them state-law claims. We review the district court’s retention of pendent jurisdiction after the dismissal of all federal claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, under an abuse of discretion standard.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the sole claim within its original jurisdiction, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Root v. County of Fairfax · filed 2010-03-26(c)(3)

Here, the court had dismissed the sole claim over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). There is nothing in the record to suggest that it was an abuse of discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it disposes of the federal claims, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Linares v. Armour Correctional Health Services, Inc. · filed 2010-07-06(c)(3)

As such, we conclude that the court abused no discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Linares’s remaining state law negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are resolved; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

City of Colton v. American Promotional Events, Inc.-West · filed 2010-08-02(c)(3)

Having disposed of Colton’s federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdic- tion over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “Because the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state-law claims.” Bryant v. Adventist Health Sys./W., 289 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2002).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims; that choice is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Shafi v. Palestinian Authority · filed 2011-06-14(c)

After dismissing the Shafis’ ATS claims, the district court dismissed the negligence claim as well, noting that § 1367(c) gave it permission to do so. “Whether to retain jurisdiction over pendent . . . claims after the dismissal of the federal claims is a matter left to the sound discretion of the district court that we review for abuse of discretion only.” Shekoyan v. Sibley Int’l, 409 F.3d 414, 423 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We can hardly say that the district court abused its discretion by declining to hear this claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims, and that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Wofford v. Walker · filed 2012-02-28(c)(3)

First, although the district court did not say so explicitly, we infer that the court implicitly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wofford’s state-law claim when it dismissed the case as a whole, which was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the claims that supported federal jurisdiction, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Caviness v. Derand Resources Corp. · filed 1993-01-11(c)

On Count IV, brought under the Texas statute, the court dismissed the claim without prejudice because it had dismissed all claims justifying federal jurisdiction and, in its sound discretion, refused to hear a state law claim of limited scope. ... Finally, with respect to the district court's decision not to retain jurisdiction over Count IV, brought under the Texas Blue Sky Law, we find no abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the claims supporting federal jurisdiction, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Caviness v. Derand Resources Corporation · filed 1993-01-26(c)

Finally, with respect to the district court's decision not to retain jurisdiction over Count IV, brought under the Texas Blue Sky Law, we find no abuse of discretion. See 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 claims within its original jurisdiction, and the decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Royal Food Products, Inc. v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co. · filed 1993-01-13(c)(3)

Count II and IV allege state law claims. As plaintiff's RICO claims have been dismissed, the next determination is whether jurisdiction is proper over the remaining claims. "The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As state law issues are best decided by state courts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to invoke jurisdiction for those two counts.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp. · filed 1994-02-22(c)(3)

Since the plaintiffs failed to properly allege a violation of the federal securities laws, the plaintiffs' claims against DSC and the individuals defendants were correctly dismissed. Moreover, the district court plainly did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims after dismissing the claim within its original jurisdiction, and that discretionary remand is reviewable for abuse of discretion.

Pacificare of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Burrage · filed 1995-07-11(c)(3)

The district court made a discretionary decision under § 1367(c)(3) not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. ... Therefore, this court has authority to review the remand order. ... Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding the claim to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Panis v. Mission Hills Bank, N.A. · filed 1995-07-31(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3), a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. We find the district court did not abuse that discretion in dismissing Pañis’ conversion claim.

A district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Bright v. Gallia Cnty., Ohio · filed 2014-06-03(c)

“We review a district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for abuse of discretion.” ... In his briefing, Bright offers no argument as to why the district court’s refusal constitutes an abuse of discretion, and thus, we AFFIRM the dismissal without prejudice of Bright’s state-law claims against the Corporation.

A challenge to a district court’s discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) is waived if raised for the first time on appeal.

Gucwa v. Lawley · filed 2018-04-16(c)

“[T]he [district] court’s exercise of its discretion under § 1367(c) is not a jurisdictional matter,” and “[t]hus, the court’s determination may be reviewed for abuse of discretion, but may not be raised at any time as a jurisdictional defect.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 640 (2009). This argument is waived because it has been raised for the first time on appeal.

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

Fichman v. Media Center · filed 2008-01-14(c)(3)

Having granted judgment on the federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367 allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims on which federal jurisdiction was based.

Kelly v. State of Maryland · filed 2008-01-22(c)(3)

After the district court dismissed the claims on which federal jurisdiction was based, it exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (2000) to decline jurisdiction over the state law claims. To the extent that Kelly appeals the district court’s decision as to the state law claims, the district court did not err.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; doing so is within its discretion when state-law tolling may preserve the claims, little judicial work has been done, and their resolution is uncertain.

Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · filed 2009-08-18(c)(3)

We see no abuse of the district court’s discretion here. ... We conclude, therefore, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sharp’s state law claims. ... Sharp’s state-law claims instead are Dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) in accordance with the district court’s alternative ruling.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Sharp Electronics v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co · filed 2009-08-18(c)(3)

A district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim for this reason is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. ... We conclude, therefore, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sharp’s state law claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, whose limitations periods are tolled while pending in federal court and for 30 days after dismissal.

Lane v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc. · filed 2013-11-15(c)(3), (d)

This brings into play the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because of that, the Plaintiff would be able to re-file these state-law claims in an appropriate state court within 30 days, if the court declines to exercise § 1367(a) supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. ... 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice, subject to the right of the Plaintiff to refile the remaining state-law claims in state court within 30 days from the date of this ORDER, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

Section 1367 permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state constitutional, statutory, and common-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial.

SHOFFLER v. CAPE MAY COUNTY NEW JERSEY · filed 2019-09-03(c)(1), (c)(3)

Because Plaintiff's remaining claims concern interpretations of the New Jersey Constitution and statutory and common law and the federal claims have been dismissed before trial, the prudent course is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. For these reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against the Defendants without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, taking into account the absence of another jurisdictional basis and the early stage of the case.

Doughty v. United States Postal Service · filed 2005-03-07(c)(3)

As jurisdiction over the claims under the FTCA is lost upon dismissal of the Postal Service, the Court has discretion to dismiss the supplemental state law claims against O’Neill as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). For the following reasons, the Court will exercise that discretion. First, this Court never had jurisdiction over Plaintiffs FTCA claims. Second, there is no independent basis for jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Third, the case is at its earliest stage.

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

Zigman v. Giacobbe · filed 1996-10-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed the plaintiffs RICO claims which serve as the Court’s source of original jurisdiction in this case, the Court, in an exercise of its discretion, dismisses all the remaining state law claims. At this early stage in the litigation, the plaintiff will not be prejudiced if he brings his state law claims in the New York Supreme Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, particularly at an early stage of litigation.

Arduini/Messina Partnership v. National Medical Financial Services Corp. · filed 1999-09-29(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of plaintiffs’ federal cause of action and the early stage of the litigation, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law fraud claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed at an early stage of litigation.

Cooley v. Mississippi Department of Transportation · filed 2000-05-17(c)(3)

However, because there are no more federal law claims pending before the Court, and because those claims have been dismissed at such an early stage in this litigation, the Court finds that it would be inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over any state law claims that may remain, whether or not they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and hereby dismisses, without prejudice, those state law claims that may have accrued subsequent to November 17,1998.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, including when the dismissal occurs early in the litigation.

Stan v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2000-08-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims at this early stage of the litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing the only federal claim, taking account of the case’s early stage and prejudice from dismissal.

Scottsdale Insurance v. Dorman · filed 2001-03-29(c)(3)

Since Scottsdale has not established diversity jurisdiction, the Court must determine whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Scottsdale’s state law fraud claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. § 1367 provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” In the case at bar, because the Court has dismissed Scottsdale’s only federal claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law fraud claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when it dismisses the federal claims early in the litigation.

United States Environmental Protection Agency Ex Rel. McKeown v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey · filed 2001-03-30(c)(3)

While the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court declines to exercise such discretion because the Court has dismissed plaintiffs’ federal claims early in this litigation.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the case is in its early stages.

Karak v. Bursaw Oil Corp. · filed 2001-05-30(c)(3)

Considering the fact that the case is in its early stages, as a matter of my discretion I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state causes of action.

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, particularly while the case remains in its early stages.

Brozusky Ex Rel. Brozusky v. Hanover Tp. · filed 2002-09-20(c)(3)

As discovery has been stayed pending the resolution of the motions to dismiss, and this case thus remains in its early stages, exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims will be declined.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the need to interpret local law and the early stage of litigation support that choice.

New York State Restaurant Ass'n v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene · filed 2004-01-12(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ state law claim requires an interpretation and analysis of municipal law, specifically the question of what constitutes a “rule” under CAPA. In addition, this case is still at a nascent stage, with no discovery having taken place. The court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses the federal claims early in the litigation.

Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC · filed 2004-06-16(c)(3)

Given the nascent stage of this litigation, we decline to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. They are, therefore, dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim, including at an early stage of litigation.

Civic Center Motors, Ltd. v. Mason Street Import Cars, Ltd. · filed 2005-09-06(c)(3)

Since the federal claim has been dismissed, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is discretionary. ... At this early stage of litigation, this court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, taking account of the litigation’s early stage.

General Motors Corp. v. Hirschfield Steel Service Center, Inc. · filed 2005-11-08(c)(3)

The dismissal of that defendant leaves no federal defendant and eliminates the original basis for federal jurisdiction. The Court will exercise its discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against the remaining defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when amendment remains available and the case is at an early stage.

Glenbrook Capital Ltd. Partnership v. Kuo · filed 2007-09-06(c)(3)

Here, because the Court has granted leave for Plaintiff to amend its current claims that arise under federal law, and because this case is its early procedural stages, the Court will continue exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims at this point in the litigation.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, especially early in the litigation.

In Re iBasis, Inc. Derivative Litigation · filed 2007-12-04(c)(3)

My jurisdiction over the remaining claims exists through supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Having dismissed both federal claims and given the early stage of litigation, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, including when the case remains at an early stage.

Buchanan-Moore v. City of Milwaukee · filed 2008-09-15(c)(3)

Because the federal claims are being dismissed and this case is still at an early stage, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only federal claim, especially at an early stage of the case.

Tubbs v. NORTH AMERICAN TITLE AGENCY, INC. · filed 2009-06-05(c)(3)

Considering that the Court is dismissing the only federal cause of action, and the early stage of the case, the Court will decline to continue exercising jurisdiction over the remaining claims and dismiss them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all federal claims at an early stage.

Claudio v. Sawyer · filed 2009-12-23(c)(3)

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

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local law claims when the federal claims fail early in the litigation.

Amiri v. GELMAN MANAGEMENT CO. · filed 2010-08-19(c)(3)

In light of plaintiffs failure to state a federal claim, the Court identifies no reason to retain jurisdiction over any remaining claims under District of Columbia law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claim is dismissed, particularly when the case is at an early stage before discovery.

Slaughter v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore · filed 2010-12-03(c)(3)

Because this case is at such an early stage, with no discovery having been conducted, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses all federal claims, with the early stage of the case supporting that choice.

Ford v. Hermanson · filed 2010-12-15(c)(3)

Because this case is in its very early stages and the federal district courts have broad discretion in such matters, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; courts generally should do so when the federal claims are eliminated early in litigation.

Clark v. Dominique · filed 2011-06-28(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Clark’s remaining state law claims. Although a federal court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over state law claims after the dismissal of the federal claims that created original jurisdiction, “where, as here, the federal claims are eliminated in the early stages of litigation, courts should generally decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims within its original jurisdiction, with the early stage of litigation favoring that choice.

Johnson v. Levy · filed 2011-09-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal claims, and given the early stage of this litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly early in the litigation.

Wolman v. Catholic Health System of Long Island, Inc. · filed 2012-02-16(c)(3)

As discussed above, the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims and DISMISSES them WITHOUT PREJUDICE on this basis.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, especially when the case is still in its early stages.

Traton News, LLC v. Traton Corp. · filed 2012-08-28(c)(3)

Therefore, because it would be improper to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, the Court dismisses all of Plaintiffs claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the early stage of litigation can favor declining jurisdiction.

Mpoy v. Fenty · filed 2012-11-05(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 weigh against retention of the case. All federal claims against Defendants have been dismissed. The case has not progressed in federal court past motions for judgment on the pleadings, discovery has just commenced, and the Court has developed little familiarity with the issues presented.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed at an early stage of litigation.

RICHARDSON v. ORIOLO · filed 2019-11-18(c)(3)

When a court has dismissed all claims over which it had original federal-question jurisdiction, it has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims. ... The state tort claims asserted against defendant Semper (Counts 4, 5, and 7) are therefore dismissed without prejudice on jurisdictional grounds.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after early dismissal of all federal claims when no affirmative justification supports retaining the remaining state and local claims.

NHCA-TEV, LLC v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS LTD. · filed 2019-11-26(c)(3)

No affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state and local claims exists in this case. The Court reaches this conclusion because the FCA claims have been dismissed at an early stage of litigation and exercising supplemental jurisdiction would require the Court to apply the statutes of 27 jurisdictions in one case.

Section 1367(a) does not support supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after all federal claims have been dismissed, because no federal claim remains with which it shares a common nucleus of operative facts.

McCarley v. Dunn · filed 2022-03-24(a)

As such, there are no federal claims with a shared “nucleus of operative facts” upon which to base supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, supplemental jurisdiction is improper, and this Court need not reach the second step of the analysis, i.e., whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Young v. United States of America, Department of Justice · filed 2022-03-30

Because Young’s federal claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court does not have discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Allevato v. Mallozzi · filed 2022-04-29(c)

Having dismissed plaintiff's Section 1983 claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claim(s) against defendant Mallozzi. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (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"); Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims because all claims over which the federal court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed).

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

JAMES v. BACHMAN · filed 2022-05-09(c)

To the extent the Complaint may be read to assert a state law claim for the property loss, because the Court has dismissed James’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367 no longer provides supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed.

Lim v. Irvine City · filed 2022-06-23(a)

However, if all federal claims have been dismissed, the district court no longer has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when an ADA claim becomes moot and is dismissed early.

Elliott v. Grbavac · filed 2022-06-24(c)

If an ADA claim is mooted and dismissed at an early stage, the Court has the discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Section 1367 does not sustain supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim after the court dismisses all federal claims.

Mitchell v. Washtenaw, County of · filed 2022-07-13

As this claim is rooted in state law, this Court only has jurisdiction over it if the Court also maintains jurisdiction over either a federal-law claim or a claim involving parties from different states. Having dismissed all the federal claims, the Court does not have jurisdiction over Mitchell’s IIED claim by way of having jurisdiction over related federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims against the defendants have been dismissed and no other basis for federal jurisdiction remains.

B & L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom · filed 2022-08-18(a)

Absent such basis, the Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against them.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but a court may leave those claims unaddressed when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Sanders v. JD Home Rentals · filed 2022-09-08

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, which, for the reasons explained above, he does not. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Accordingly, the Court will not address the viability of Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 does not provide jurisdiction over a proposed amended complaint asserting only a state law claim after the federal claims are dismissed and diversity jurisdiction is absent.

Harwick v. Cedar Fair, L.P. · filed 2022-09-22

This Court had supplemental jurisdiction over that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. There are no remaining federal claims, which previously provided original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Further, because there are Ohio citizens on both sides of the litigation, this court does not have original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Because there is no remaining basis for federal court jurisdiction over her premises liability claim, this court would not have jurisdiction of Harwick’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when the federal claims are dismissed.

Pierce v. Whiteside School District No. 115 · filed 2022-10-26(a)

Regarding Plaintiffs’ state IIED claim, because the Court will dismiss the federal law claims, there is no supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing the federal claim, including when the case has not moved past the pleading stage.

Breshears v. Oregon Department of Transportation · filed 2023-01-09(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Breshears’s federal claim, and because this case has not moved past the pleading stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Breshears’s remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claims.

Grote v. Kenton County, Kentucky · filed 2023-01-23(c)(3)

Because Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the federal claims, the Court will exercise its discretion and dismiss those remaining state law claims. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 does not support jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the court dismisses the sole federal claim.

MLW Media LLC v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2023-02-13

Because the Court dismisses the Sherman Act claim, it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over MLW’s remaining claims under California law for intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and violation of the UCL.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed; it does not apply while such a claim survives.

Morrissey v. CES Computer Enhancement Systems, Inc. · filed 2023-03-09(c)(3)

Finally, Defendants move to dismiss Morrissey’s other state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if that court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Because Morrissey’s FLSA claim survives, however, that provision is inapplicable.

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

Levens v. Gaspard · filed 2023-03-10(c)(3)

This case currently falls within § 1367(c)(3), as the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs claims that initially gave the Court original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state claim after dismissing the only federal claim for lack of standing.

Gastelum v. Kohl's Department Stores Inc. · filed 2023-03-20(c)(3)

Because dismissal of Gastelum’s only federal claim was granted above for lack of standing, the Court ... declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claim pursuant to Section 1367(c)(3).

A district court may continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when at least one federal claim remains, even if it has dismissed most of the federal claims.

Packwood v. Contra Costa Children and Family Services (CFS) · filed 2023-04-07(c)(3)

As discussed above, however, other than for a portion of the Second Cause of Action, the Court has jurisdiction over Packwood's federal claims, and, although it has dismissed most of those remaining federal claims, it has not dismissed the First Cause of Action to the extent such claim is alleged against Gutierrez and Sheriff Livingston. Consequently, the Court will, at least at this stage of the proceedings, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Fifth Cause of Action.

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

Azami v. Sterling Retail Services, Inc. · filed 2023-04-26(c)(3)

A federal court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Seventh Circuit has made it clear that “the usual practice is to dismiss without prejudice state supplemental claims whenever all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.” Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999). Because Plaintiff's federal claim is being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim, and therefore, Count II is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; absent an exception, the usual practice is to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

Kratzer Farms Inc. v. Indiana Grain Buyers and Warehouse Licensing Agency · filed 2023-05-16(c)(3)

Because that disposition leads to the dismissal of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court must address whether to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claims and rule on Defendants’ motion to dismiss related to those claims. ... In sum, the Court finds that none of the exceptions to the “usual practice” applies here. As a result, the Court denies Defendants’ motion dismiss without prejudice on Plaintiffs’ state-law claims and dismisses those claims with leave to refile 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.

LaComba v. Eagle Home Loans and Investment LLC · filed 2023-06-28(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)). The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims at this time.

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

Arellano v. Jones · filed 2023-06-28(c)(3)

To the extent that Arellano is seeking to bring claims under California state law, the 16 Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these pendent state claims 17 because there are no remaining federal claims in this action.

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.

Tredinnick v. TransAmerica Life Insurance Company · filed 2023-07-10(c)(3)

The dismissal of Tredinnick’s claims which arose under federal law means that the Court may, but is not required to, dismiss or remand the remaining state-law claim. ... In line with the Fifth Circuit’s general rule, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Tredinnick’s state-law claim now that the Court has dismissed all of Tredinnick’s federal law claims.

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

Robert v. Mid-hudson Psychiatric Center · filed 2023-07-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.