28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

McKenzie v. Big Apple Training Inc. · filed 2023-07-31(c)(3)

Here, subsection (3) applies because the Court has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Thus, the Court may exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing the only federal claim.

Ash Jr. v. Reynolds · filed 2023-08-01(c)(3)

Given the Court’s dismissal of the only federal claim in Count 1, the Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim in Count 3.

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

Shallow v. Shallow-Hope · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

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

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

Thomas v. Federal Government · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

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

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

Hussey v. Gracie Square Hospital Psychologist David Rosen · filed 2023-08-28(c)(3)

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

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

RJ&CS Holdings LLC v. Dr Randy E Woodward DC PC · filed 2023-08-31(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, only state-law claims remain. ... Here, the court finds no compelling reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the court has original jurisdiction, but the court may decline those claims when no cognizable federal claim remains.

(PC) Mwasi v. Shittu · filed 2023-09-01(a)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Aguilar v. New Dairydel, Inc. · filed 2023-09-08(c)(3)

As all of Plaintiff’s federal claims against the Moving Defendants fail, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against the Moving Defendants because there remains no independent jurisdictional basis.

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.

Mazyck v. City of North Charleston · filed 2023-10-13(c)(3)

Because the court dismisses Mazyck’s due process and inverse condemnation claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mazyck’s gross negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after some federal claims are dismissed when a federal claim remains pending.

Auto World Automotive Superstores, Inc v. Scorpo · filed 2023-10-17(a)

The dismissal of these claims does not preclude the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). There still is a federal claim insofar as Scorpo remains liable by default on Count One, even though plaintiff has declined to pursue damages under that count.

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

Crouthamel v. Walla Walla Public Schools · filed 2023-10-23(c)(3)

Because Appellants’ federal claims fail, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Appellants’ 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; without an operative complaint, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Maldonado v. Passon · filed 2023-11-09(c)(3)

Because there is currently no operative complaint, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction and it is therefore premature to screen the state-law claims.

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

Jones v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz · filed 2023-11-20(c)(3)

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

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.

Design Gaps, Inc. v. Hall · filed 2023-11-21(c)(3)

Moreover, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. These latter claims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Powell v. New York City Comptroller · filed 2023-11-29(c)(3)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to any 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.

Parrish v. Georgia State Patrol · filed 2023-12-20(c)(3)

Since Plaintiff has not alleged any viable federal claim concerning his three traffic stops and arrests, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. ... However, § 1367(c)(3) states that “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” Id. § 1367(c)(3) (emphasis added).

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

Wilburn v. Galloway · filed 2024-01-08(c)(3)

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

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

EMRIT v. COMBS · filed 2024-01-18(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Emrit’s federal law claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint fails to state a federal claim.

Thomas v. Custer County Jail · filed 2024-02-14(c)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims lack subject matter jurisdiction, and a court may decline it when the federal claims fail to state a claim.

The Church of Holy Redemption v. Wendell, Jr. · filed 2024-03-22(a)

Where, as here, it is determined that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the asserted federal claims or that they otherwise fail to state a claim, it is appropriate to dismiss the state law claims and not exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Soscia Holdings, LLC v. State of Rhode Island · filed 2024-03-25(c)

The court has already determined that all of Soscia’s federal claims, which were the basis for the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, should be dismissed. At this early stage in the litigation, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims 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 claims within its original jurisdiction.

Haile v. 566 Nostrand Ave. Inc. · filed 2024-03-29(c)(3)

However, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s claims under federal law, it “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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

LaCour v. EthruE-001, LLC · filed 2024-04-12(c)(3)

As no federal claims remain in this case, it is within the discretionary authority of this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims once the Court has dismissed “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 903 F.3d 786, 792–93 (8th Cir. 2018); see generally Brown v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 738 F.3d 926, 933 (8th Cir. 2013). The Court agrees with Defendant that the remaining claims are best suited for resolution by a Missouri state court, and the Court in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count V and dismisses it without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not apply when federal claims remain against another defendant, even if all federal claims against a particular defendant have been dismissed.

Iglhaut v. The City of New York · filed 2024-04-15(c)(3)

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) does not apply here, because I am not dismissing all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction – there are federal claims remaining against the USA Defendants.

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

Alicea v. Ganim · filed 2024-04-20(c)(3)

As no federal claims remain at this time, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows the decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim to turn on whether the federal claim remains in the case.

Committee to Recall Dan Holladay v. Wiley · filed 2024-04-29(c)(3)

But whether the district court will ultimately exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim may depend on whether it grants leave to amend on the federal claim or, if so, dismisses the federal claim again after amendment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). On remand, the district court should therefore first reconsider whether to grant leave to amend on the federal claim, then determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in light of that decision, and, if so, whether to certify Plaintiffs’ state law question to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the sole federal claim is dismissed at the initial stage and no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction remains.

Lettieri v. Securus Technologies · filed 2024-05-13

So, because [Plaintiff] has only pled federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, based on the Lanham Act claim, once that claim is dismissed at this initial stage, there will no longer be an “independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction” to allow for supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for the remaining state law counts.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when the federal claims have been dismissed.

El v. Honeycutt · filed 2024-05-15(c)(3)

The Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim pertaining to false disciplinary charges did not pass initial review and, accordingly the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s North Carolina slander claim.

Section 1367 supplies no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the sole claim supporting original jurisdiction has been dismissed.

Grossman v. New York State Office of Mental Health, Buffalo Psychiatric Center · filed 2024-06-05(a)

Generally, a federal district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are “so related to claims in the action within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Here, the only basis for this Court’s original jurisdiction appears to be Grossman’s ADEA claim. See Docket Item 18 at ¶¶ 2-3. Because that claim is dismissed, there is no basis for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Grossman’s NYSHRL claims. Grossman’s NYSHRL claims therefore are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when federal claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim rather than for lack of jurisdiction.

Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York · filed 2024-06-06(a)

The Court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim for relief, not for lack of jurisdiction, and the claims were neither wholly insubstantial nor frivolous. The Court therefore reaffirms its prior decision that it has subject matter jurisdiction and that it will exercise that jurisdiction over the remaining breach of contract claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Hankerson v. Unclaim Funds of Commissioner · filed 2024-06-27(c)(3)

A federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of claims under state law, however, when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having dismissed Plaintiff’s claims of which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction – Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983 – the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any of her claims under state law.

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

HALL v. FRANKLIN SPRING CREEK FORD LLC · filed 2024-08-16(c)(3)

With regard to these claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. ... Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a federal court discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Mayberry v. Buss · filed 2024-08-29(c)(3)

Dismissal of federal claims does not automatically deprive federal courts of supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims; instead 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) grants federal courts the discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Jones v. Gilley · filed 2024-10-04(c)(3)

Regardless, if and to the extent Jones intended to assert pendent state law claims, the Court will dismiss them without prejudice because it will dismiss all of his federal 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.

Hultman v. Mattson · filed 2024-10-21(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Hultman’s sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hultman’s remaining state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

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

Moore v. City of New York · filed 2024-10-25(c)(3)

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

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

Murray v. The State of New York · filed 2024-12-06(c)(3)

Accordingly, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims under state law that may be implied from Plaintiff’s pro se pleading.

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

Washington v. DHS Department of Homeless Services · filed 2025-01-02(c)(3)

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

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

James v. Aurora Health Care · filed 2025-01-08(c)(3)

When a court has dismissed all federal claims, especially early in the litigation, federal courts generally relinquish jurisdiction over any remaining supplemental state law claims. Dietchweiler v. Lucas, 827 F.3d 622, 631 (7th Cir. 2016). The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims relating to the plaintiff’s 2021 surgery.

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

Baldwin v. Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers Nevada · filed 2025-01-29(c)(3)

Although supplemental jurisdiction may allow for plaintiff to bring state law claims, plaintiff cannot bring her state law claim of attorney malpractice under the ADA because her federal claims fail. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (“[T]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when no actionable federal claim remains.

Whitfield v. Parmar · filed 2025-01-30

Given the lack of an actionable federal claim, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) supports dismissing a state law claim after the only federal claim is dismissed.

OWENS v. DILL · filed 2025-03-12(c)

Upon dismissal of the only federal claim alleged in the complaint, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

Section 1367 does not permit the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Twardy v. Ocwen Financial Corporation · filed 2025-03-19(a)

But for the reasons explained above, supra, at 17–21, the federal claims have been dismissed, so the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not apply when the claim within the court’s original jurisdiction is stayed rather than dismissed.

Summit Carbon Solutions, LLC v. Bremer County, Iowa · filed 2025-03-20(c)(3)

The third factor is additionally unsatisfied as I have not dismissed all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction. As previously noted, Summit Carbon’s challenge to Ordinance No. 23-02 will be stayed, not dismissed.

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

SHEKAR v. SELENE FINANCE L.P. · filed 2025-03-21(c)(3)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction absent a federal question and dismiss Mr. Shekar’s state law claims 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.

Sreedhar v. University of Florida · filed 2025-04-29(c)(3)

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

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

Whitby v. Luminis Health Anne Arundel Medical Center · filed 2025-05-22(c)

Because the Court dismisses the one federal claim in this suit, and because there does not exist diversity of citizenship between the Defendants and Plaintiff (given that Plaintiff is a resident of Maryland, as are the two Defendants), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II and III, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and those Counts will also be dismissed.

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

Askins v. Prestige Management Inc. · filed 2025-05-27(c)(3)

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

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

Woods v. Tidwell · filed 2025-06-17(c)(3)

The court has discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over these claims even after dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” in such circumstances (emphasis added)).

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

Walker v. Tripp · filed 2025-06-20(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Harge v. Lewis · filed 2025-07-09(c)(3)

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

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

Yokely v. Ky Department of Corrections · filed 2025-08-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his negligence claim arising under state law.

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

Logan v. AHRC - New York City · filed 2025-08-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court at this stage declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Mescall v. New York City Supreme Criminal Court · filed 2025-08-27(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) provides no basis to decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims supporting that jurisdiction remain in the case, even if another plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed.

Velez · filed 2025-09-15(c)(3)

Since the federal claims that justify the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction survive, there exists no basis under § 1367(c)(3) to dismiss Plaintiff Gabriel Velez’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.

Askins · filed 2025-09-18(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3).

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

Elliott v. Trempealeau County · filed 2025-09-24(c)(3)

First, declining supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate because only state claims remain after dismissing count 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.

Dorsey v. Zajac · filed 2025-09-25(c)(3)

The Court finds no unusual circumstance here to overcome the presumption of declining supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

James · filed 2025-11-06(c)(3)

As for the state law claims, Plaintiff does not allege any facts stating a claim upon which relief could be granted against the named defendants; however, to the extent such facts can be gleaned from the existing record, the court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

B.N. · filed 2025-11-12(c)(3)

However, because this Court dismisses the federal ECPA claim, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s related state law 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 dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bramwell · filed 2025-11-12(c)(3)

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

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

Ray · filed 2025-11-18(c)(3)

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

Section 1367 provides no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the complaint’s sole federal claim is dismissed.

Bragg · filed 2025-12-23

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, the sole federal claim in the FAC, there is no source of supplemental jurisdiction for Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims pursuant to § 1367.

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

Herman · filed 2026-03-09(c)(3)

Because PFC’s federal claims against Defendants have been dismissed, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over PFC’s state law claims.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims when the federal antitrust claims supporting it are dismissed.

Weber v. National Football League · filed 2000-07-31

Because plaintiffs claims under the Sherman Act are being dismissed, the antitrust venue and service of process provision of 15 U.S.C. § 22 is not applicable, so this Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining causes of action.

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

Medici v. Lifespan Corp. · filed 2019-06-03(c)(3)

The Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Medici's remaining state law claims. 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."

Section 1367 permits pendent jurisdiction over related local claims, but the opinion treats the dismissal of all federal claims as leaving no basis to exercise it.

Johnson v. Greater Southeast Community Hospital Corp. · filed 1995-10-19

A federal court may exercise pendent jurisdiction over municipal law claims when such claims are so inextricably intertwined with the facts and circumstances giving rise to the federal claims that they “form part of the same ease or controversy under Article III.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, in light of the court’s decision to grant defendants’ motions for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs federal claims, the court has no basis to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the only federal claim.

Eley v. Evans · filed 2007-02-06(c)(2)

Because of the dismissal of Eley’s FDCPA-claim, the only federal claim in his complaint, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), over the remaining six state tort law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissal of the only federal question claim.

Burke v. Royal Insurance · filed 1999-03-15(c)(3)

Given that I have recommended that summary judgment be granted dismissing the only federal question claim, I accordingly recommend that the District Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the only federal claim has been dismissed.

Coghlan v. Wellcraft Marine Corp. · filed 2001-01-26(c)

On remand, the district court may refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Coghlans' state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The only federal claim over which the district court had original jurisdiction, the MMWA action for breach of warranty, was dismissed. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in such circumstances.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the sole federal claim is dismissed.

Pierce v. Ritter, Chusid, Bivonia & Cohen · filed 2001-02-12

Without the sole federal claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute, and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) over the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the sole claim within its original jurisdiction has been dismissed.

Coghlan v. Wellcraft Marine Corp. · filed 2001-02-16(c)

On remand, the district court may refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Coghlans’ state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The only federal claim over which the district court had original jurisdiction, the MMWA action for breach of warranty, was dismissed. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in such circumstances.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after resolving the only federal claim.

OPTICAL DISC CORP. v. Del Mar Avionics · filed 2001-07-27(c)(3)

Because the only claim arising under federal law is ODC’s patent infringement claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim.

Austin v. JC Penney Co., Inc. · filed 2001-09-25(c)(3)

Accordingly, Austin’s FCRA claim will be dismissed with prejudice. The Court makes no findings with respect to the merits of the remaining counts in the Complaint ... and declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over them.

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

Barron v. Lee Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2002-01-28(c)(3)

However, because judgment has been entered on Plaintiffs’ only federal claim, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. Plaintiffs’ remaining claim, Count V, is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim.

Meyer Material Co. v. Mooshol · filed 2002-03-04(c)(3)

Consequently, the Court exercises its discretion and relinquishes its supplemental jurisdiction over Meyer’s remaining state law claims because the Court has dismissed Meyer's sole federal claim, the civil RICO count. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Smith v. Lejeune · filed 2002-05-17(c)

As stated above, the Court has determined that Flower, Thomas, and Barbour are entitled to qualified immunity, and therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs only federal claim, .that based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, the Court HEREBY DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over Plaintiffs remaining state and common law claims for relief, and they are HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after disposing of the sole federal claim.

Parkinson v. Anne Arundel Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2002-08-05(c)(3)

Having dispensed with the sole federal count in plaintiffs complaint, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining common law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental non-federal claims after the only federal claims have been dismissed.

Loughlin v. United States · filed 2003-09-10(c)(3)

Moreover, because the FTCA claims against the United States were the only federal claims in these cases, and the Court’s jurisdiction over the non-federal claims is based the supplemental jurisdiction statute, the dismissal of the FTCA claims compels the Court to dismiss the remaining claims as well.

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

Nevyas v. Morgan · filed 2004-03-11(c)

As Plaintiffs’ only federal law claim is dismissed, we shall further exercise our discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, but dismissal of the sole federal claim for lack of jurisdiction leaves no supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

In Re Nifedipine Antitrust Litigation · filed 2004-09-01(c)(3)

However, if the underlying claim is dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, then the Court does not have available to it the option of maintaining supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses the sole federal claim.

MBC REALTY, LLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore · filed 2005-01-10(c)(3)

For the reasons discussed above, I shall grant the City’s motion to dismiss and enter judgment in favor of defendants as to count five of the amended complaint, the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim. As complete diversity of citizenship is lacking in this case, I shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and shall dismiss without prejudice the remaining, state law claims.

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

Eckert v. Schroeder, Joseph & Associates · filed 2005-04-11(c)(3)

... this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over said claim. because it has dismissed the sole federal claim upon which the Court’s jurisdiction rests.

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

Starfish Investment Corp. v. Hansen · filed 2005-05-20(c)(3)

Having found that dismissal of Starfish’s only federal claim is appropriate in this case, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining thirty-nine claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses the only federal claim at the pleading stage.

Hall v. Tressic · filed 2005-08-15(c)(3)

Considering that the only federal claim in this action is to be eliminated at the early pleading phase of the litigation, supplemental jurisdiction of the remaining state laws claims is declined, and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Graham v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2006-09-06(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of the only federal cause of action pled in the complaint, the Court, exercising its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim.

RWB SERVICES, LLC v. Rally Capital Services, LLC · filed 2007-08-22(c)(3)

As civil RICO was RWB’s sole federal claim, we will exercise our discretion and relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over RWB’s remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal-law claim when the plaintiff can pursue those claims in state court.

Segal v. Geisha NYC LLC · filed 2008-02-22(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed Segal’s sole federal-law claim and nothing bars Segal from pursuing his claims in state court, it was completely appropriate for the court to relinquish its jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it has dismissed the sole federal claim before discovery begins.

Mead v. City First Bank of DC, NA · filed 2009-05-20(c)(3)

Having dismissed the sole federal claim alleged before discovery has begun, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining counts of the amended complaint.

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

Caissie v. City of Cape May · filed 2009-05-27(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims against Public and Private Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it disposes of the only federal claim.

White v. Northern Michigan Regional Hospital · filed 2009-09-11(c)(3)

Having disposed of White’s lone federal claim, the court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and declines supplemental jurisdiction over claims which arise under state law.

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

Wilson v. Poulos · filed 2010-03-02(c)(3)

However, since this Court has dismissed the only federal cause of action, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, taking the plaintiff’s preference for state court into account.

Robinson v. Gordon, et al. · filed 2010-05-05(c)(3)

Given that the court has dismissed the sole federal claim in plaintiff’s complaint, and taking into consideration plaintiff’s expressed preference to litigate his state common law claims in state court, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in counts one through five of plaintiff’s complaint.

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

Digital Healthcare Inc v. Affilliated Computer Services Inc · filed 2011-04-20(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed the lone federal claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

A district court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when it has dismissed the only federal law claims.

Castiglione v. Papa · filed 2011-05-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed Castiglione’s only federal law claims, the District Court should have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim.

Perkins v. Fort Lincoln II Condominium Association · filed 2011-05-27(c)(3)

As the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ sole federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the parties’ remaining claims based on District of Columbia law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim.

ANTELIS v. Freeman · filed 2011-06-29(c)(3)

However, having dismissed Count I— the sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise 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 the sole federal claim.

Collington v. District of Columbia · filed 2011-12-14(c)(3)

To the extent that the complaint can be said to raise a claim under common law or a District of Columbia statute, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses the sole federal claim.

Brown v. Englander, et al. · filed 2012-06-01(c)(3)

Given that the court has dismissed the sole federal claim in Brown’s complaint, and taking into consideration the factors identified in both United Mine Workers and Camelio, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in Brown’s complaint, which shall be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it disposes of the only federal claim early in the case.

Peters v. Applewood, et al. · filed 2012-08-30(c)(3)

Having disposed of the only federal claim at this early stage of the case, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Estate’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Camelio v . Am. Fed’n, 137 F.3d 666, 672 (1st Cir. 1998).

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over Commonwealth-law claims to remain when the federal claim survives a motion to dismiss.

Sastre-Fernández v. del Capitolio · filed 2013-09-26(a)

Finally, since his federal claim survives the motion to dismiss, supplemental jurisdiction over Sastre-Fernández’ Commonwealth-law claims remains proper, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after the foundational federal claim ends.

Unum Group v. Loftus · filed 2016-12-06

The defendant is mistaken. "In a federal-question case, the termination of the foundational federal claim does not divest the district court of power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction but, rather, sets the stage for an exercise of the court’s informed discretion.”

Dismissal of the federal claim removes the basis for supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 over the related common-law claim.

Sanchez v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. · filed 2019-08-05

Although the dismissal of the § 1981 claim destroys the basis for § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction over the common law breach of contract claim, the Court retains jurisdiction over this claim under § 1332 diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff is a citizen of Maryland, Defendant is a corporate citizen of Delaware and Texas, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the sole claim supporting original jurisdiction.

Camaj v. Makower Abbate Guerra Wegner Vollmer, PLLC · filed 2019-11-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed Camaj’s sole federal claim – and the only claim that forms the basis of this Court’s original subject matter jurisdiction – the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Camaj’s state law claims.

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

Wilson v. Cunn · filed 2019-11-25(c)(3)

Further, in light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law assault claims and will dismiss those claims as well. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(a) no longer supports supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the sole federal claim is gone.

Doe v. Fenix International Limited · filed 2025-01-29(a)

But, with the Plaintiff’s sole federal claim now gone, we no longer have supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s related state-law claims.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims when the court dismisses the only federal claim.

Cooper-Black v. Jack E. Kirksey Livonia Community Recreation · filed 2025-04-10

As explained earlier, this results in the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ other Counts for state law relief: without the Section 1983 federal claim, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims.

Section 1367 does not preserve supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the sole federal claim after removal.

Stern · filed 2025-12-18(c)

Stern’s affirmative act of voluntary dismissal in this case is akin to amendment of the operative pleading, and it deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal claim survives dismissal.

Slater · filed 2026-03-26(a)

However, as discussed herein, Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim survives dismissal, and the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) makes pendent jurisdiction over state-law claims dependent on federal question jurisdiction over the related federal claims.

Thai Airways International Ltd. v. United Aviation Leasing B.V. · filed 1994-02-07(a)

For the foregoing reasons, Thai Airways has failed to state a RICO claim and, as a result, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Thai Airway’s pendent state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) counsels against retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims supporting federal question jurisdiction are dismissed.

Weisburgh v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. · filed 1994-11-18(c)(3)

Because the Court's jurisdiction is based solely on federal question grounds, the Court should not retain jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims if the federal claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of all federal question claims.

Miller v. City of Nederland by and Through Wimer · filed 1997-09-08(c)(3)

It is further ORDERED that, because all federal question claims have been disposed of, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Copeland v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital · filed 1997-12-02(c)(3)

However, because the court has dismissed all of the federal question claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after all federal question claims have been dismissed.

Dickerson v. Leavitt Rentals · filed 1998-02-11(c)(3)

Given that no federal question remains in this case and diversity jurisdiction does not exist, the court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal question claims have been dismissed.

Izquierdo v. Sills · filed 1999-08-20(c)(3)

Indeed, all the federal question claims have been dismissed, and numerous state law claims, upon which this Court has never ruled, remain. The Court concludes that in light of the posture of the case, retaining jurisdiction would be inappropriate.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when no federal question claims remain.

Krim v. Coastal Physician Group · filed 1999-11-08(c)(3)

Finally, with respect to Count III, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in the absence of any federal question claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... We further agree with the district court's reasoning in dismissing Counts II and III. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Counts II and III on the reasoning of the district court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims that supplied federal question jurisdiction.

Carter v. Arkansas Department of Human Services · filed 2002-02-06(c)(3)

Since the court intends to dismiss the claims over which it has federal question jurisdiction, we will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the State law claims.

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

Barksdale v. Robinson · filed 2002-11-18(c)

Because all of the federal question claims are dismissed, this Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... The remaining state law claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims supplying federal question jurisdiction.

Cuvo v. De Bias · filed 2004-09-30(c)(3)

Finally, because we have dismissed all claims raising federal question jurisdiction, we decline to exercise our supplemental state jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the pendent state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

United States ex rel. Bartlett v. Tyrone Hospital, Inc. · filed 2006-01-27(c)(3)

Finally, as to Count VIII, Gummo’s claim pursuant to the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, the Court again declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1367(c) as the Court has dismissed all of the federal question claims of the Plaintiffs.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves no basis for pendent state law claims against a defendant once the federal question basis against that defendant is gone.

Goodwin v. Moyer · filed 2006-03-29(c)(3)

We agree with the Magistrate Judge that as there is no longer a basis for original, federal ... question jurisdiction against Defendant Husband, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) there is no jurisdictional basis for the pendent state law claims asserted in counts two through six of Plaintiff's amended complaint as against Defendant Husband.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction based on § 1331 when no claim arises under federal law.

North v. Smarsh, Inc. · filed 2015-12-04

Without § 1331 jurisdiction, there is no supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not permit a federal court to retain state law claims if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over every federal claim.

Bainbridge Taxpayers Unite v. City of Bainbridge Island · filed 2022-11-23(a)

The Court DEFERS ruling on the remaining claims, as they are based in state law, until after it determines whether any Plaintiffs have standing and whether the federal RICO claims are properly plead in the amended complaint. In the absence of subject matter jurisdiction over any federal claims, a federal court cannot retain jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 does not supply supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the purported federal claim is too frivolous to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Thomson v. McDonalds · filed 2024-03-22(a)

The Court also lacks jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim. A breach of contract claim is a state-law claim. The Court has jurisdiction over state-law claims in only two circumstances: (1) supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when there is a related, federal-question claim in the same case, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367; or (2) diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Neither is present here. Regarding the former, as just discussed, while Thomson cites a federal statute, the 12 U.S.C. § 3410 claim is so frivolous that federal question jurisdiction does not attach.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the court has federal question jurisdiction.

Solorzano v. Appleby · filed 2025-07-24

In addition, where jurisdiction under § 1331 exists, the Court may, in its discretion, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of § 1332.

Section 1367(a) provides no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the court lacks federal jurisdiction.

Mulla · filed 2026-04-20(a)

Without federal jurisdiction, there is also no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 supplies no supplemental jurisdiction over state claims in a proposed amended complaint that has no cognizable federal claim.

Zsarnay v. Moehair USA Inc. · filed 2025-06-26

Without a cognizable copyright infringement claim, there is no basis for federal jurisdiction. See Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 30 (2025) (“With the loss of federal-question jurisdiction, the court loses as well its supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Hammes v. City of Davenport · filed 2019-05-21

"When a district court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over federal claims, it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367."

Section 1367 leaves the decision to retain related state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claim to the district court’s discretion; even an abuse of that discretion does not eliminate subject-matter jurisdiction.

Kansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Reimer & Koger Associates, Inc. · filed 1996-02-27

On the other hand, the decision of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of the federal claim is discretionary. ... Even if the district court abused its discretion in retaining the case, the court would not be without jurisdiction.

Section 1367 leaves retention of supplemental claims after dismissal of the federal claim to the district court’s discretion; an abuse of that discretion does not eliminate subject-matter jurisdiction.

Kansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Reimer & Koger Associates, Inc. · filed 1996-04-18

On the other hand, the decision of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of the federal claim is discretionary. ... Even if the district court abused its discretion in retaining the case, the court would not be without jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) makes dismissal of remaining state law claims discretionary after the federal claims are dismissed, rather than a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Frey v. Bordis · filed 2008-07-14(c)(3)

Therefore, the dismissal of any state law claims should have been based on the district court’s discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and not Rule 12(h)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional claim after finding no federal violation.

Hanrahan v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth · filed 1995-11-13(c)(3)

Accordingly, finding no Federal violation, we have no occasion to address the Plaintiff's State constitutional claim. See, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims even after all related federal claims are dismissed.

Venetian Casino Resort, L.L.C. v. Cortez · filed 2000-05-01(c)(3)

A district court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims even in the event of the dismissal of all related federal claims.

A district court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, considering economy, fairness, and comity.

State of New Mexico v. General Electric · filed 2006-10-31(a)

We need not address in any detail the State’s argument that, once the State dismissed its federal claims with prejudice, the district court abused its discretion in choosing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). For the reasons stated in its opinion, the district court most assuredly did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction. At the time of dismissal, principles of economy and fairness far outweighed the interest in comity which the State raised to justify a remand to state court.

Section 1367(d) gives a party thirty additional days to file a state claim after dismissal, even if the state limitations period has expired.

Jamerson, Murphy L. v. Ryan, Mark · filed 2006-11-15(d)

However, as the magistrate judge stated in his summary judgment order, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) allows a party thirty additional days within which to file state claims, regardless of whether the state’s statute of limitations has passed.

Section 1367 leaves the district court discretion to retain related state law claims after the federal claim is dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

L. Walter Quinn, III Terry Quinn v. Ocwen Federal Bank Fsb Wilson & Associates, P.L.L.C. · filed 2006-12-08(c)(3)

Balancing factors such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity in regard to exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims, the district court did not err in determining all claims, given the factual allegations and admissions of the Quinns’ complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain a related state law claim after dismissing a federal claim when other related federal claims remain pending and judicial economy favors deciding the claims together.

Chavez v. Guerrero · filed 2006-12-15(c)(3)

When the claim over which the court has original jurisdiction is dismissed, the court may, but is not required to, dismiss the related state law claims. ... Even though we have dismissed Chavez’s federal claim raised against Guerrero, the federal claims she raises in Counts II and III against the unnamed police officer defendants remain pending. ... We believe that the interests of judicial economy would be served by having these claims decided together. ... Therefore, we will exercise our discretion to retain jurisdiction over Chavez’s state law claim against Guerrero and, accordingly, Guerrero’s motion to dismiss Count IV is denied.

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

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

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

Section 1367(c) calls for dismissal of state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed at an early stage of litigation.

Bethea v. Trump · filed 2007-03-15(c)

Additionally, as the District Court explained, the remaining claims for perjury and gross negligence arise under state law, and because Bethea’s federal claims are being dismissed at an early stage of litigation, “the state claims should be dismissed as well” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court broad discretion to dismiss related state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Stewart v. ISD No. 196 · filed 2007-04-06(c)(3)

The district court holds broad discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to dismiss related state law claims after federal claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts broad discretion to dismiss related state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Stewart v. Independent School District No. 196 · filed 2007-04-06(c)(3)

The district court holds broad discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to dismiss related state law claims after federal claims are dismissed. ... Because the grant of summary judgment on Stewart’s federal claims was not improper, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of the state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; reinstatement of a federal claim requires reversal of a dismissal of related state claims under that provision.

McClish v. Nugent · filed 2007-04-11(c)(3)

After dismissing the federal claims, the district court also dismissed without prejudice the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides that a district court “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 .... ” Having reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment entered in favor of Terry and Cal-derone as to Holmberg’s § 1983 claim, however, we must also reverse this dismissal and remand the state law claims for further proceedings.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Cisneros v. Aragon · filed 2007-05-21(c)(3)

But because the district court correctly dismissed the federal claims, it could properly dismiss the state-law claims as well.

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

Landrau v. Betancourt · filed 2007-05-21(c)(3)

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

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

Velazquez v. Quinones · filed 2007-08-02(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily favors dismissing state law claims without prejudice when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, after considering the parties’ interests, judicial economy, and comity.

Cardon v. TestOut · filed 2007-08-10(c)(3)

Federal courts must carefully exercise their discretion when hearing state claims based on pendent jurisdiction. United M ine W orkers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The interests of the parties, judicial economy, and comity must be considered. Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726. Under normal circumstances, these factors counsel in favor of dismissing state law claims without prejudice if the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

When federal claims are revived on appeal, state claims dismissed under Section 1367(c) may be reinstated.

Van Deelen v. Johnson · filed 2007-08-14(c)

However, because we have renewed the original basis for supplemental jurisdiction by reviving and remanding M r. Van Deelen’s First Amendment claims, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of his state tort claims and reinstate them to this suit.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss a related state law claim with prejudice after dismissing all federal claims when the plaintiff fails to defend the claim or request dismissal without prejudice.

Baker v. Chisom · filed 2007-08-28

Having dismissed all federal claims, the court had discretion to dismiss this pendent state law claim without prejudice. However, because the state law claim arose out of the same core of operative facts, and because Baker failed to defend that claim or to urge that it be dismissed without prejudice, the district court did not commit plain error or abuse its discretion in exercising its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to dismiss this late-filed pendent claim with prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with comity and judicial economy informing that choice.

Wallace v. Mercantile County Bank · filed 2007-08-31(c)(3)

For these reasons, this court will exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Santiago-Perez v. State Ins. Fund Corp. · filed 2007-11-05(c)(3)

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