28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain state-law claims after the original federal claims have been dismissed.

Long v. City and County of Honolulu · filed 2007-12-21(c)

The retention of jurisdiction was proper. “[A] federal district court with power to hear state law claims has discretion to keep, or decline to keep, them under the conditions set out in [28 U.S.C.] § 1367(c)....”

Section 1367 does not support retaining state-law claims when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims and has no independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Cave v. East Meadow Union Free School District · filed 2008-01-23(c)(3)

We have already found that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over appellants’ federal claims. It would thus be clearly inappropriate for the district court to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims when there is no basis for supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to retain state-law claims after disposing of all federal claims when it has invested substantial judicial resources and the state-law outcome is clear.

Renguette v. Board of School Trustees · filed 2008-03-31(c)(3)

However, where, as here, substantial judicial resources have already been committed to the adjudication of such claims, and where the correct disposition of such claims is clear as a matter of state law, we may retain jurisdiction over such claims in order to promote judicial efficiency. ... We opt to do so here.

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

Piñeiro-Ruiz v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority · filed 2008-03-31(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c) permits dismissal without prejudice of state law claims after the only federal claim has been dismissed.

McIntosh v. Prestwich · filed 2008-05-05(c)

Because the district court properly dismissed McIntosh’s only federal claim, it properly dismissed his state law claims without prejudice.

When the federal claims are dismissed, a supplemental state-law claim may be dismissed without prejudice for consideration in state court.

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

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

A district court may retain related state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy and convenience favor hearing them.

Gaujacq v. Electricite De France International North America, Inc. · filed 2008-08-21(c)(3)

While it would be within the court’s discretion to refuse to hear these claims, having dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court will consider them here. ... This court has before it all the relevant facts and finds it both economical of judicial resources and convenient to consider all the claims in this case.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of state law claims when no federal constitutional claims remain.

Porr v. Daman · filed 2008-11-07(c)(3)

As Porr has no remaining constitutional claims, the district court properly dismissed his claims under Monell. ... Similarly, the district court properly dismissed Porr’s state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Cominelli v. THE RECTOR AND VISITS. OF UNIV. OF VA. · filed 2008-12-09(c)

In the interests of convenience to the parties and judicial economy, this Court chooses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Okolie v. Paikoff · filed 2008-12-11(c)(3)

In this case, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity strongly favor the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Okolie’s state claims. ... In light of these considerations, then, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Okolie’s state claims.

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

Ortiz-Rivera v. Astra Zeneca LP · filed 2009-02-09(c)(3)

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

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in a case that retains a federal claim.

Carey v. Maricopa County · filed 2009-03-12

One federal claim is sufficient to support federal court jurisdiction over a case involving both federal and state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Accordingly, County Defendants’ argument that Subject Matter Jurisdiction is lacking cannot succeed.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain state law claims after disposing of all federal claims when judicial economy favors adjudication.

Nanos v. City of Stamford · filed 2009-04-22(c)

The Court notes that once it has disposed of all federal claims, it can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 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. In this case, the interests of judicial economy weigh in favor of adjudication, as Nanos’s claims are without merit.

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

Fournier v. Payco Foods Corp. · filed 2009-05-01(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain to ground jurisdiction in this case, Fournier’s Commonwealth law claims against Payco are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Torres-Santiago v. Alcaraz-Emmanuelli · filed 2009-05-22(c)(3)

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

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

San Juan Cable LLC v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co. · filed 2009-05-27(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of state law claims when the complaint raises no cognizable federal cause of action.

Kopstein v. Independence Blue Cross · filed 2009-07-29(c)(3)

We merely conclude that, because the Kop-steins’ amended complaint did not raise a cognizable federal cause of action, the District Court also properly dismissed any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal law claims.

Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Authority · filed 2009-08-14(c)(3)

Because the district court correctly dismissed all of the federal law claims, it acted within its discretion in remanding the remaining state law claims to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves retention of supplemental state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claim to the district court’s discretion, which the court must actually exercise.

Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Anodyne Therapy, LLC · filed 2009-12-21(c)(3)

The decision whether to relinquish or retain is committed to the district judge’s discretion. ... But if as in this case the district court retains jurisdiction because it mistakenly believes that the claims, rather than being supplemental, are within the diversity jurisdiction, the retention cannot be defended as an exercise of discretion. It is an abuse of discretion not to exercise discretion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Luna v. Kliebert · filed 2010-02-26(c)(3)

Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Appellants’ state-law claims, because all of the federal claims were properly dismissed. See Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 226-27 (5th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state law claims when all federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND · filed 2010-06-23(c)

Upon due consideration, these state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because the federal claims have been dis ... missed prior to trial.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss remaining state law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Skrzypczak v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa · filed 2010-07-13(c)(3)

Finally, because the district court properly dismissed Appellant’s federal claims, it did not err in dismissing her remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor doing so.

Foster v. Humane Society of Rochester & Monroe County, Inc. · filed 2010-07-21(c)(3)

In a recent case similar to the one at bar, this Court, after dismissing the plaintiffs federal equal protection claim against his state employer, chose in its discretion to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs HRL claim, and to dismiss that claim as well. ... I make the same ruling in this case, finding as I did in Sullivan, that “[t]his course of action will best serve the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties, and will not implicate any particular concerns over comity, since the application of state law to the facts alleged here is a relatively simple and straightforward matter.”

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

Mercado v. Cooperativa De Seguros De Vida De Puerto Rico · filed 2010-07-30(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain to ground supplemental jurisdiction over the Commonwealth claim in this case, plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to Law 100 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed, and to reconsider exercising jurisdiction if the federal claims are reinstated.

Bishop v. Children's Center for Developmental Enrichment · filed 2010-08-25(c)(3)

Consequently, the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ state law claims upon its dismissal of the federal claims in this case. Nevertheless, because we reverse the district court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ federal claims, we also reverse the district court’s decision on their state law claims. Since the district court will once again have federal claims before it, we remand the state law claims to the district court to allow it to determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in light of this change in circumstances.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss state law claims without prejudice after it has disposed of all claims within its original jurisdiction; dismissal is the usual practice when the federal claims end before trial.

Phillips v. Allen · filed 2010-09-28(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted summary judgment as to all claims (in Counts I, II, and V) over which it has original jurisdiction, it must now address whether to retain jurisdiction over those state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Finding no justification for departing from that “usual practice” in this case, ... the Court dismisses ... the state law claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted in Counts III through TV of the complaint.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim for failure to state a claim, even if the court mistakenly described that dismissal as jurisdictional.

Crosby v. City of Gastonia · filed 2011-03-10(c)

In other words, the court below would certainly have proceeded in the same manner had it announced the proper grounds for dismissal, and in doing so would not have abused the discretion afforded it under the law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, but the state claims may be reinstated when a federal claim is revived on appeal.

Gerhart v. Lake County, Mont. · filed 2011-03-18(c)(3)

Because the district court dismissed all of Gerhart’s federal claims, it declined to assert supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims pur- suant 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In light of our disposition, we further order that Gerhart’s state law claims be reinstated subject to further pretrial pro- ceedings, as warranted.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the parties and court have expended resources and the issues are fully briefed.

Sabol v. Walter Payton College Preparatory High School · filed 2011-04-13(c)(3)

After all federal claims have been dismissed as here, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir.2010)). But given the resources expended by both the litigants and this Court, coupled with the fact that the issues are fully briefed, this Court will address the state claims on the merits (see Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 505, 514-15 (7th Cir.2009)).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to retain or dismiss state law claims without prejudice after all federal claims are dismissed before trial; ordinarily, dismissal is appropriate absent a compelling efficiency or federal interest.

Board of Managers of the Mason Fisk Condominium v. 72 Berry Street, LLC · filed 2011-06-26(c)(3)

Where all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the Court has discretion to retain the state law claims or dismiss them without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After all federal claims are dismissed, a district court may remand remaining state-law claims, especially when it has invested little judicial effort in the case.

Phelan v. Norville · filed 2012-02-10(c)(3)

Therefore, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding the remaining state-law claims to the Texas state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a state law claim when no federal claims remain.

Ridley School District v. M.R. · filed 2012-05-17(c)(3)

Finally, because no federal claims remained, dismissal of Parents’ state law claim was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decide remaining supplemental state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when resolution of the state claims is clear.

Cortezano v. Salin Bank & Trust Co. · filed 2012-05-21(c)

When the resolution of these claims is clear, none- theless, the court may choose to decide them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (listing permissible reasons for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction). Williams v. Rodri- guez, 509 F.3d 392, 404 (7th Cir. 2007). The district court here committed no error by choosing to dispose of these claims as well.

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

Anderson v. Worstell · filed 2012-08-01(c)

Instead, on remand, the district court should consider whether to dismiss those...claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Akers v. County of Bell · filed 2012-08-15(c)(3)

Here, the district court acted within its discretion when, after granting summary judgment on Akers’s federal claims, it chose to retain jurisdiction over, and decide, the Kentucky whistleblower claims that Akers raised in her complaint.

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

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2012-09-25(c)(3)

Having dismissed the sole federal claim, the Court must now decide whether to take supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... 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) (emphasis added). In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, this Court must weigh “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” ... At this stage of the litigation, it would be inconvenient, unfair, and uneconomical to remand the remaining state claims to state court. ... Accordingly, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over all of the state law claims and will address each of the state law claims in turn.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Douris v. State of New Jersey · filed 2012-10-02(c)(3)

Because the District Court properly dismissed all of the federal claims, the Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state-law claims as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims and to remand a removed case to state court.

Thresher v. Gulf States Paper Corp. · filed 2003-02-14(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of the causes of action preempted by ERISA, and the resulting lack of any federal claim, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and the case is, therefore, remanded to state court.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims and to remand those claims to state court.

Duggan v. CITY OF LEAGUE CITY, TX · filed 1997-08-25(c)(3)

Finally, in spite of this Court’s finding that the Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims clearly fail as a matter of law, this Court makes no finding on the merits of the Plaintiffs’ state law claims against any of the Defendants. There may be genuine issues of fact material to a determination of the Defendants’ liability on these claims. The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the Plaintiffs’ intentional tort claims against the officers and the Texas Tort Claims Act claims against the City. The Court is mindful that Texas courts have a special expertise in applying state law. Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Plaintiffs’ state law claims is DENIED. Those claims are remanded to the state court from which they were removed for further proceedings.

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

Warren v. Joyner · filed 1997-10-22(c)

Furthermore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Barnes’ claim against Anand and accordingly, it will be remanded to the Circuit Court of Clarke County, Mississippi.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain a remaining state-law claim or remand it after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hansen v. Sioux By-Products · filed 1997-12-16(c)(3)

Under § 1367(c), the court must decide whether, in the exercise of its discretion, it should retain supplemental jurisdiction over Hansen’s retaliatory discharge claim, or instead remand it to state court.

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

MacE v. City of Akron · filed 1998-01-16(c)(3)

Because it has dismissed Mace’s federal law claims, the court chooses to exercise its discretion and shall remand ... her claims under Ohio law to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.

Section 1367(c) supports remanding remaining state law claims when the federal claims have been eliminated, the state claims predominate, and novel state law issues may be present.

McClelland v. Gronwaldt · filed 1998-09-09(c)

Turning to the second and third statutory factors, our analysis above mandates that the only two federal claims alleged, i.e., the complete preemption claims, must be "dismissed." Consequently, the state law claims now clearly predominate over the (now nonexistent) federal claims. Finally, we find no "exceptional circumstances" that would make the fourth section 1367(c) factor relevant. Thus, our section 1367(c) analysis results in the conclusion that remand is appropriate.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state-law claims after the federal claim is resolved, taking comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness into account.

Roche v. Town of Wareham · filed 1998-10-29(c)(3)

Termination of the federal claim that anchors various state claims does not strip the court of the power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, but rather “sets the stage for an exercise of the court’s informed discretion.” ... Accordingly, the court declines to assume jurisdiction over Plaintiffs chapter 151B claim (Count I), and it is remanded to the Essex Superior Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court broad discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state law claims after it dismisses all federal claims.

West v. Congemi · filed 1998-11-23(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), when federal law claims that serve as the basis of subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed, and only state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction remain, a district court has broad discretion to remand the state law claims. ... The Court, having dismissed the federal law claims of the plaintiffs, hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remands all pending state law claims in this matter back to state court.

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

Wilcox v. Elliott · filed 1999-02-10(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and DENIES without prejudice Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on those claims. The remainder of the case is thus REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.

Section 1367 permits a district court to remand supplemental state law claims after dismissal of the claims supporting original jurisdiction, taking account of economy, fairness, convenience, and comity.

Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans · filed 1999-04-09

A district court, in its discretion, may remand supplemental state law claims when it has dismissed the claims that provide the basis for original jurisdiction. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 352, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988). When deciding whether to remand supplemental claims, a court should examine economy, fairness, convenience, and comity.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support remanding supplemental state law claims when the dismissal of the original-jurisdiction claim underlying the remand was erroneous.

Kennedy v. Texas Utilities · filed 1999-06-21(c)(3)

Because we have held that the district court erroneously granted summary judgment for the United States, and because its decision to remand the state law claims was based at least in part on this summary judgment, we conclude that the court erred in remanding the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court broad discretion to remand state claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Guzzino v. Felterman · filed 1999-09-30(c)(3)

In evaluating Dean Witter’s arguments -- which are not wholly lacking in persuasive force -- we are mindful of the wide discretion vested in the trial court to order a remand of state claims on the heels of a dismissal of federal claims.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts broad discretion to remand supplemental state claims after federal claims are dismissed, including when related state proceedings make remand favorable to judicial economy and comity.

Guzzino v. Felterman · filed 1999-09-30(c)

We agree with the trial court that this circumstance heavily supports a remand, eliminating the disfavored prospect of state and federal proceedings running on parallel, and possibly nonharmonious tracks. Thus, even if, as Dean Witter represents, the state law implicated by the case is prosaic, considerations relating to conservation of and respect for judicial resources and interests of comity and federalism markedly tip the balance in favor of a remand.

After dismissing the federal claims, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand the remaining state-law claims.

Jacobs v. Winthrop Financial Associates · filed 1999-12-21(c)(3)

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court granted the motion to dismiss Counts I and II of the Complaint from the bench and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, ordered the remaining state law claims remanded to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sitting in and for the County of Suffolk.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand remaining state law claims after dismissing the claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Barnett v. Okeechobee Hospital · filed 2000-06-06(c)(3)

With the granting of Defendant DVA’s Motion to Dismiss, the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining Defendants in this action has been removed. ... Therefore, the Court in its discretion hereby REMANDS the Plaintiffs remaining state law claims to the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Okeechobee County, Florida.

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

McDonald's Corp. v. City of Norton Shores · filed 2000-06-26(c)(3)

As to those claims, the Court has supplementary jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. Nevertheless, since the only federal law claims asserted will be dismissed, federal law authorizes this Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims and remand those claims to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to remand remaining state-law claims after the federal claims have been disposed of.

Green v. Ameritrade, Inc. · filed 2000-11-16(c)(3)

Accordingly, the case will be remanded pursuant to clause (3) of subsection (c) of § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows dismissal of state law claims after the claims supporting federal jurisdiction are dismissed; when the district court’s disposition is unclear, the appellate court may remand for clarification of whether it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Dayes v. Pace University · filed 2001-02-05(c)(3)

Presumably, the District Court either intended that its reasoning under Title VII would also apply to the claims brought under New York law or intended to dismiss the state law claims once it dismissed those claims providing the basis for federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Given that the record remains unclear as to whether and how Dayes’s state law claims were disposed by the District Court, we remand to the District Court so that it may clarify whether it intends to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims or whether it intends to dismiss them so that they may be pursued in state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain state claims after federal claims are dropped in extraordinary circumstances, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and forum manipulation when deciding whether to remand.

Payne v. Parkchester North Condominiums · filed 2001-03-29(c)

If we authorize plaintiffs to drop their federal claims, then in our discretion we can remand the case or, under extraordinary circumstances, retain the state claims under supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In making the determination whether to remand, we must weigh “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” ... Applying this approach, we find that, in the atypical case before us, the balance of factors weighs against remand even if we permitted the complaint to be amended.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to remand remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and possible forum manipulation.

Kuehl v. LaFarge Corp. · filed 2001-09-17(c)(3)

Although, as a general principle, the adverse disposition of a plaintiffs federal claims early in the litigation and before the commencement of trial warrants the dismissal without prejudice of any supplemental state-law claims, Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1177 (1st Cir.1995), that result is not compelled by a lack of judicial power, as demonstrated by the discretionary language in § 1367(c).

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

Jordan v. Solomon · filed 2001-10-19(c)(3)

Further, given that it does not have original jurisdiction over any of the claims remaining in the case, the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and will, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), remand the case to the Superior Court of New Jersey.

After dismissing the only federal claim, a court may remand the remaining state-law claims under § 1367(c)(3), even when the parties are diverse, if an in-state defendant removed the case on federal-question grounds.

Woolf v. Mary Kay Inc. · filed 2001-10-29(c)(3)

Finally, because only state law claims remain, those claims should, in the interests of comity, be heard by the state district court, which has greater familiarity with the unique questions of state law currently in dispute.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after dismissing the claim that supplied original jurisdiction.

Hilliard v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc. · filed 2001-11-01(c)(3)

Once the direct liability claim against Kaiser is dismissed, all that remain in this matter are the original state law claims brought by the Plaintiff, which the Defendants concede do not trigger complete preemption, since they are not direct liability claims against Kaiser Permanente. It is within the court’s discretion to choose to continue to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims that were properly removed here when the direct liability claim arose. ... Thus, the court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and so remands this matter back to the Circuit 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 and to remand a removed case for resolution of those claims.

Illinois Ex Rel. Mota v. Central Sprinkler Corp. · filed 2001-12-03(c)(3)

The only remaining claims arise from state law. According to the supplemental jurisdiction statute, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over pendent state law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because this case was originally removed from state court, it is remanded there for resolution of the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and remand them.

Chisolm v. Michigan AFSCME Council 25 · filed 2002-07-24(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... A district court generally has the discretion to retain or remand these claims if it subsequently dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction. This discretionary authority gives the Court the discretion to remand rather than dismiss the plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) lets a district court retain or remand supplemental state law claims after it dismisses every claim within its original jurisdiction.

Lindsey v. Dillards · filed 2002-10-07(c)(3)

Under §§ 1367(c) and 1441(c), a court is not required to remand state law claims when the only federal claim has been dismissed. Instead, the district court maintains discretion to either remand the state law claims or keep them in federal court.

When related federal claims are revived on appeal, supplemental state-law claims dismissed under § 1367(c)(3) should be reinstated on remand.

Estate Robert Smith v. Marasco · filed 2003-01-29(c)(3)

After granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of the Smiths’ section 1983 claims, the district court dismissed their supplemental state tort law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1367(c)(3). Because we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to certain of the Smiths’ section 1983 claims, we also will reverse the district court’s dismissal of their related state-law claims and the district court on the remand should reinstate those claims.

Section 1367(c) leaves remand of related state-law claims to the district court’s discretion after the federal claims are dismissed.

New Mexico v. General Electric Co. · filed 2003-03-27(c)

Remand of pendent claims within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction is a matter entrusted to the court’s discretion under § 1367(c).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental state-law claims to be remanded when the federal claim supporting supplemental jurisdiction is reinstated on appeal.

Sagan v. United States · filed 2003-08-25(a)

However, because we now reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment for the United States and remand this case for further proceedings, the claims against the Algonac Defendants must also be remanded based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and remand them after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Adams v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2004-05-04(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no compelling reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law contract claims. The case is hereby remanded to the Iowa District Court for Scott County, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been resolved.

Cox v. Maine State Police · filed 2004-05-27(c)(3)

A federal court, in its discretion, may relinquish jurisdiction after removal when there is no longer a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... I therefore remand the remaining state law claims against the DA’s Office to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claim, with a strong presumption in favor of remand after a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal absent unusual circumstances.

Durant v. Servicemaster Co. · filed 2004-08-11(c)(3)

But the district court could — and in this case should — have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after it dismissed the RICO claim, notwithstanding plaintiffs’ failure to seek remand after the district court dismissed the RICO claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim and remand a removed case after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed.

Pappas v. City of Lebanon · filed 2004-08-16(c)(3)

No federal claims remain pending in this case, and the parties offer no reason for the court to entertain the unresolved state law claim, in the nature of an appeal from the Board's decision. ... The court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim and will remand the above-captioned case to the court of common pleas from which it was removed.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after all federal claims have been eliminated.

Holloway v. Avalon Residential Care Homes, Inc. · filed 2004-08-05(c)(3)

The district court therefore determined that the amended complaint was not preempted by ERISA and ordered the case remanded to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... The district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding the case to the state court.

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

Weiss v. American Jewish Committee · filed 2004-09-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed Sacharin’s federal cause of action, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to consider Rabbi Weiss’s state law claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and remands these claims to the New York State Supreme Court, New York County.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to remand a remaining supplemental claim after judgment eliminates original federal jurisdiction and the court finds no reason to retain the case.

Spriggs Ex Rel. Estate of Spriggs v. Sirinek · filed 2004-12-07(c)

As the Court has entered judgment in favor of the United States, no original federal jurisdiction remains. The only remaining claim is against Dr. Sirinek, which is presently in this Court under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because this case was removed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1442, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Court finds no reasons for this case to remain in federal court. The Court therefore REMANDS this case to the 225th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand unresolved state-law claims after it has disposed of all federal claims, particularly when state law is unsettled.

Clark v. AMSOUTH MORTG. CO., INC. · filed 2007-01-03(c)(3)

Because this question is unsettled under Alabama state law and because summary judgment has been entered in favor of all defendants on the federal claims, which were the basis for removal, this court believes that the best course is to remand these remaining, unresolved state-law claims back to state court for resolution, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to dismiss or remand supplemental state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Holmes v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 2012-04-06(c)(3)

Once a court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it is within the court’s discretion to dismiss or remand the supplemental state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits remand of remaining state law claims if the federal claims fail.

Dorley v. South Fayette Township School District · filed 2015-09-04(c)

Should Plaintiff decline to amend his Complaint on the federal claims or they otherwise subsequently fail, the remaining state law claims will be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County for disposition.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and remand them when no federal claim remains.

Atlas v. Village of Glencoe · filed 2019-11-18(c)

If Plaintiffs choose not to amend the complaint or otherwise fail to state a federal claim, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and the case will be remanded back to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(8).

Section 1367(c)(2) and (3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction and remanding remaining state claims when all federal claims have been dismissed early in litigation and judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide no affirmative justification for retaining jurisdiction.

MCNALLY v. WATERFORD TOWNSHIP · filed 2019-11-18(c)(2), (c)(3)

Therefore there are no considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties that provide an affirmative justification for retaining jurisdiction over the matter. Thus, the Court finds that it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims under § 1367(c)(2) and (3), and the Court will remand the matter to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims after dismissal of all federal claims when the early stage of litigation, comity, and judicial economy favor remand.

Ommert v. Hanover Township Trustees of Butler County, Ohio · filed 2019-11-18(c)(3)

The Court has discretion as to whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. Comity and the interest in judicial economy weigh against the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in this matter and favor remanding the case to state court. Plaintiff has moved to dismiss all of her federal claims, this case is in the very early stages, and the Court has not yet had the opportunity to consider the merits of plaintiff's state law cause of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims at an early stage.

Grace v. Jack Cleveland Casino LLC · filed 2019-11-18(c)(3)

... the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, which are better resolved by the Ohio state courts.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial.

MECCA v. J. B. HUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. · filed 2019-11-20(c)(3)

Therefore, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim and that claim will be dismissed and remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County.

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

Oleksak v. Gateway Technical College · filed 2019-11-26(c)(3)

Without this federal claim, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims and remand it to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Given the nature of the plaintiff’s state law claim and the questions raised in the defendant’s motion to dismiss that claim, it appears prudent for the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand the remaining state-law claims when the plaintiff completely disclaims all federal claims early in the case.

Monteiro v. City Of Brockton · filed 2019-11-21(c)(3)

Under the circumstances, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims would be inappropriate, and the case will therefore be remanded to state court.

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

Yoakum v. Yukon Public Works · filed 2019-11-25(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction; only Plaintiff’s state law claims remain. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action under state law and remands them to the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma.

Section 1367 permits remand of remaining state-law claims after the sole federal claim is dropped when the early stage of litigation and the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Acosta v. District Council 36 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO · filed 2019-11-22(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where no claims remain over which the district court has original jurisdiction. ... The aforementioned factors greatly weigh towards remanding the case back to state court. This action is in its earliest stage of litigation and the Court has expended minimal resources. Thus, remand would not adversely affect judicial economy.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims when the state law claims turn on a federal preemption issue.

Haehl v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. · filed 2003-08-12(c)(3)

It makes sense for this federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to decide whether plaintiffs’ state law claims are preempted by the federal Home Owners’ Loan Act (“HOLA”), 12 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq.

After all federal claims are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a court to exercise limited supplemental jurisdiction to resolve federal preemption before dismissing the remaining state claims without prejudice.

DaPonte v. Manfredi Motors, Inc. · filed 2004-09-09(c)(3)

For these reasons, this Court chooses to exercise limited supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. The Court will decide whether these claims are preempted by ERISA.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, so long as the federal claims were not frivolous.

Jane Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit · filed 2010-01-22(c)(3)

Although a district court may relinquish supplemental jurisdiction following the dismissal of all federal claims, it is not required to do so, unless the federal claims are frivolous and so do not engage the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim when the asserted federal claim is frivolous.

Pierre v. Inroads, Inc. · filed 1994-07-21

It is all too plain that Pierre has sought to exploit the supplemental jurisdiction statute to bootstrap a contract claim into federal court via a frivolous copyright claim, even though the complex fact-intensive contract dispute is better suited for the “surer-footed reading of applicable law” available in state court (Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726, 86 S.Ct. at 1139).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing nonfrivolous federal claims on the merits.

Stern v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies · filed 2003-10-09(c)

Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) the district court had discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Stern’s state-law claims, and the court did not abuse its discretion by retaining jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the federal claim is dismissed, even if the federal claim was non-frivolous.

Mutual Assignment v. Lind-Waldock Co · filed 2004-04-09(c)(3)

If diversity jurisdiction is untenable, then even if the claim under §4b is non-frivolous, the district court may choose to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over nonfederal claims when the asserted federal claim is frivolous.

In Re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation. Appeals of Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, and Timothy Hurdle · filed 2006-12-13

A frivolous federal law claim cannot successfully invoke federal jurisdiction. ... So it ... cannot provide a perch on which to seat nonfederal claims in the name of the federal courts’ supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint’s sole asserted basis for federal jurisdiction is a baseless RICO claim.

Meier v. Musburger · filed 2008-12-08(a)

Even if the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 were a matter of discretion, the state law counts should also be dismissed.

Section 1367 permits a related state-law claim to proceed on remand when the federal claims supporting supplemental jurisdiction are reinstated.

Quint v. Village of Deerfield · filed 2010-02-26

Because we are reinstating Quint’s constitutional claims against the two detectives arising from the warrant-less entry, search, and seizure, our remand encompasses his state-law defamation claim as well.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are subject to summary dismissal as frivolous.

Allen v. Del Valle · filed 2019-12-09(a)

The court concurs in the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. ... Magistrate Judge further observed that the court lacks jurisdiction over any state law claims because the parties are not diverse, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(b), and because the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) when the federal claims are subject to summary dismissal.

Section 1367(a) does not allow a court simply to decline supplemental jurisdiction over individual state-law claims sua sponte while federal claims remain pending, even if class certification has not been sought.

Doyle v. Ensite USA, Inc. · filed 2021-08-23(a)

Since the Rule 23 claims, which are federal claims, are technically still part of this case even though no class certification has been sought, the court cannot simply decline to exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims relating to Doyle as an individual sua sponte.

When an appellate court reinstates dismissed federal claims, it ordinarily reverses the discretionary dismissal of accompanying state-law claims under § 1367.

Lemaster v. Lawrence County, Ky. · filed 2023-04-11

When we reverse a district court’s dismissal of § 1983 claims, we typically also reverse the court’s discretionary dismissal of any accompanying state-law claims. See Gambrel, 25 F.4th at 412. We see no reason to depart from our usual course here.

Section 1367 permits a court to defer motions concerning state-law claims while the viability of the federal claims supporting supplemental jurisdiction remains unresolved.

BLACK v. JAMES · filed 2025-03-28

Initially the Court notes that it would be premature to consider the motions to dismiss filed by all Defendants other than the three RICO Defendants because this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claims against those Defendants, under 28 U.S.C. §1367, is entirely dependent upon the viability of Plaintiffs RICO claims. As a result, the motions of all Defendants other than the RICO Defendants will be dismissed as premature.

Section 1367(a) supplied supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims while a federal claim remained; the court treated that jurisdiction as ending when the amended complaint removed the sole federal claim.

Uy v. Van · filed 2025-04-30(a)

This Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ FAC because it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the federal claim and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... The Court agrees that it no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, but that jurisdiction ends when an amended complaint removes all federal claims that supported removal.

Cross · filed 2025-10-24(a)

When a plaintiff amends her complaint to delete the federal law claims that enabled removal to a federal court, leaving only the state law claims behind, the district court loses supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, and the case must be remanded to state court.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal-law claims are reinstated on appeal.

Sterling v. City of Jackson · filed 2025-11-17(a)

Because we reverse the dismissal of the federal-law claims, we vacate the dismissal of the state-law claims over which the district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court that has dismissed all federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims, including unsettled state constitutional claims.

Crenshaw v. Dywan · filed 1999-01-22(c)(3)

Where a court has disposed of the only federal claims in a case, it must then decide whether to retain the remaining state law claims premised on supplemental jurisdiction. ... Principles of comity dictate that the state court is a more appropriate forum to decide the resolution of state constitutional law matters between litigants who are citizens of Indiana. Consequently, the Court will not retain jurisdiction over these state law claims for declaratory relief.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after resolving the federal claims when comity favors resolution of unsettled state-law issues in state court.

Neiswonger v. Hennessey · filed 2000-02-25(c)(3)

In the interests of comity, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims given that state law is unclear on some of the legal issues that this Court would be required to resolve.

Section 1367(a) provides supplemental jurisdiction over a breach of settlement agreement claim related to federal claims arising from the same conduct, even without an agreement to enforce the settlement in federal court.

Rivera0 v. State Insurance Fund Corp. · filed 2006-01-19(a)

We have original jurisdiction over the 1983 and 1985 claims, of course, which in turn gives us supplemental jurisdiction over the related breach of contract claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after all federal claims fail.

Escobedo v. Orellana · filed 2025-02-06

Although Plaintiff’s federal claims all fail, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 does not permit the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state and local claims in a proposed amended complaint when its federal claims cannot survive dismissal.

Andino v. Gem Quality Construction Inc. · filed 2025-03-31

The Court also could not properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the remaining claims in the Proposed Amended Complaint, which are pled under state and local law, if no federal claims could survive a motion to dismiss.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, but a voluntary amendment omitting the only federal claim leaves no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Pintando v. Miami-Dade Housing Agency · filed 2007-09-25(c)(3)

A district court therefore has the discretion to continue to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims in a case even after dismissing the federal claim that created the original jurisdiction. ... In this case, once the amended complaint was accepted by the district court, the original complaint was superceded and there was no longer a federal claim on which the district court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not require a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim when it properly refuses amendment of the only proposed federal claim.

Garrett Wainwright, Timothy T. Ryan, Jr., and Michael J. Lewis v. Doria · filed 1995-08-22(c)(3)

Finally, because he properly refused to allow the plaintiffs to amend their policy claim (the only federal claim that they propose to include in their third amended complaint), he had no duty to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state conspiracy claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims if an amended complaint fails to state a federal claim.

Callison v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. · filed 1995-12-13(c)(3)

If Plaintiffs amended complaint fails to state a federal claim, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 does not require a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment.

Loren v. State of N.Y. · filed 1995-12-27(c)(3)

Because all of Loren's federal claims must be dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment, which "deprives federal courts of any jurisdiction to entertain [prohibited] claims, and thus may be raised at any point in a proceeding," Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 99 n. 8, the district court was not required to exercise supplemental federal jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction if the federal claim is dismissed after an unsuccessful amendment.

Mullen v. Topper's Salon and Health Spa, Inc. · filed 2000-05-12(c)(3)

Jurisdiction will be exercised over this action only if Count I is satisfactorily amended. Otherwise, supplemental jurisdiction shall be relinquished, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 supplies no supplemental jurisdiction after a plaintiff voluntarily amends a complaint filed in federal court to remove all federal claims, but dismissal of the remaining state claims invokes its limitations-tolling provision.

Valdez v. USA, et.al. · filed 2019-11-21(a), (d)

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint completely alters the jurisdictional landscape, renders the parties’ briefing mostly immaterial, and divests this Court of jurisdiction over any remaining claims. Regardless of the parties’ briefing, the question is not whether the Court should exercise or decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but whether there is any current basis for federal jurisdiction. ... Nevertheless, the dismissal of the claims formerly asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) invokes the tolling provision of § 1367(d) as to applicable periods of limitations.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows discretionary retention of state claims after a court dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; it does not apply when a plaintiff removes the federal claims by amending the complaint.

Ciesla v. City of Temple Terrace · filed 2022-05-27(c)(3)

“Section 1367(c) gives a court discretion to dismiss a supplemental claim or party when ‘the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’ 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).” Jd. (emphasis added). However, in this instance, there has been no dismissal of the federal claims by the Court. Rather, Plaintiff amended her Complaint and removed all the federal claims that provided the Court with a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when an amended complaint removes all federal claims after removal.

Heaton v. Adams · filed 2025-05-13(a)

Here, seeing that the Amended Complaint does not allege any claims arising under federal law, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

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

Gordon v. MCG Health, Inc. · filed 2003-12-15(c)(3)

Since summary judgment has been granted for the plaintiffs ADA claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after granting summary judgment on all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not favor retaining them.

Somerville v. City of Chicago · filed 2003-11-05(c)(3)

Although I may exercise jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, I need not do so. As I have granted summary judgment on all federal claims in this action, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity would not be served by retention of the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it grants summary judgment on all federal claims.

United States v. Quality Built Construction, Inc. · filed 2003-11-10(c)

As the Court has granted summary judgment with respect to all of Defendants federal claims against Hite, it is within the Court’s discretion to decline jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... After reviewing the matter, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss without prejudice Defendants state law claims against Hite.

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

Dick v. Phone Directories Company, Inc. · filed 2003-06-04(c)(3)

Because summary judgment is granted on Ms. Dick’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her negligent employment claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Cochran v. Collins · filed 2003-02-06(c)

The court has jurisdiction over the federal claim in this case based on federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The court, having granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claim, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Robinson v. Baltimore City Police Dept. · filed 2002-01-24(c)

For the reasons above stated, I shall grant summary judgment as to the sole federal claims. I shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and I shall dismiss those claims without prejudice.

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

Mearday v. City of Chicago · filed 2002-03-28(c)(3)

We decline, however, to exercise jurisdiction over Mearday’s state claim for malicious prosecution as we have granted summary judgment to Defendant Officers on Mearday’s federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims after it grants summary judgment on the sole federal claim, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Doe v. Benicia Unified School District · filed 2002-04-22(c)(3)

The court has, by this order, granted summary judgment for defendants on the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction — the § 1983 claim. This circumstance allows it to consider remanding all of the remaining claims. ... The court finds, upon consideration of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, that it should exercise its discretion to remand the remaining claims.

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

Hogan v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. · filed 2002-04-23(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Rather, the Court will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state claims without prejudice after granting summary judgment on the federal claims against the defendant.

Vonderplanitz v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2002-07-29(c)(3)

... district court properly granted him summary judgment on the federal claims and dismissed the state claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); DeGrassi v. City of Glendora, 207 F.3d 636, 647 (9th Cir.2000).

Section 1367(c) gives a court discretion to decide whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claims.

Flowers v. Fiore · filed 2003-01-09(c)

Since this Court has determined that summary judgment should be granted with respect to Flowers’ federal claims, it has discretion to decide whether supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims should be retained.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after granting summary judgment on the federal claims.

Henzel v. Delaware Otsego Corp. · filed 2003-10-02(c)(3)

Having found that summary judgment is proper with respect to his federal claims, the court dismisses the remaining state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it grants summary judgment on all federal claims.

Perez v. Norwegian-American Hospital, Inc. · filed 2004-03-05(c)(3)

But once the court granted summary judgment on all of Ms. Perez’s federal claims, it was free to decline to exercise jurisdiction over her state law claims.

Supplemental jurisdiction over state claims depends on the jurisdictional and substantive merits of the federal claims.

Kirkland v. DiLeo · filed 2014-09-10

Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 will depend on the jurisdictional and substantive merits of the federal claims. Therefore, we agree with the District Court that the state claims should not be dismissed.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over fraudulent transfer counterclaims logically connected to a federal claim through efforts to collect the same judgment debt, even when the counterclaims involve additional facts.

BGH Holdings, LLC v. DL Evans Bank · filed 2021-09-27(a)

The Court agrees with the Bank. Although the fraudulent transfer counterclaims will involve additional facts regarding plaintiffs’ alleged attempts to evade collection on the Judgment debt, they are logically connected to the Bank’s actions undertaken to try and collect on that debt in 2018.

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

Bigg Wolf Discount Video Movie Sales, Inc. v. Montgomery County · filed 2003-03-28(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant’s counterclaim for injunctive relief.

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

Piedra v. Mentor Graphics Corp. · filed 1997-09-23(c)(3)

The exercise of supplemental federal jurisdiction over state law claims in a case with no federal jurisdiction is discretionary and exercised by this court only in some circumstances. The court has considered the factors of judicial economy, convenience to the parties, and fundamental fairness. This court declines to exercise supplemental federal jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in this case in the absence of any claims over which this court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related counterclaims after it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Shugrue v. Continental Airlines, Inc. · filed 1997-09-15(c)(3)

As to section 1367, while I agree that I have the ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaims, I elect not to do so, as .1 have now granted summary judgment in .favor of defendants dismissing the complaint. The purpose behind exercising supplemental jurisdiction — -to resolve all related claims in one action' — no longer exists.

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

Jackson v. DDD CO. · filed 1998-05-08(c)(3)

The Court, however, has discretion to decline to exercise such jurisdiction where it has dismissed the claim over which it had original jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... That discretion extends to the dismissal of counterclaims outside the original jurisdiction of the Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal claims and counterclaims after dismissing the federal claims.

Fagan v. United International Insurance · filed 2001-01-22(c)(3)

In addition, defendant’s counterclaim is a non-federal claim. Therefore, having dismissed plaintiffs federal causes of action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these non-federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss state law counterclaims after it has dismissed all federal claims.

Western Wholesale Supply, Inc. v. Holladay · filed 2001-11-15(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state law counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim when the federal claim supporting jurisdiction is no longer before it.

Alderman v. Inmar Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2002-03-08(c)(3)

The Court notes, however, that it had supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ state law counterclaim for conversion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. To the extent that the federal claim upon which supplemental jurisdiction was based is no longer before the Court, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ counterclaim for conversion.

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

Reed v. Nellcor Puritan Bennett · filed 2003-02-04(c)(3)

However, the court need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction and may decline to do so under § 1367(c) if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, the court has dismissed plaintiffs federal ADA claims, over which it had original jurisdiction. Consequently, this court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over defendant’s state law counterclaim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim after the federal claims have been resolved.

Pepper v. International Gaming Systems, LLC · filed 2004-01-15(c)(3)

The Court concludes further that it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the defendants’ counter-claim and will thus dismiss the same.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court exercising removal jurisdiction to hear pendent state law claims and to resolve them after dismissing the claims that supplied federal jurisdiction.

Rowen v. Nora Elliott United States of America · filed 1995-04-18(a)

When the court exercises removal jurisdiction it also has discretionary jurisdiction over pendent state law claims under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(a). To the extent Rowen raised state claims against Elliott, the court had discretion to resolve those claims after dismissing those that gave the court jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court with proper removal jurisdiction over a federal claim to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims even after it dismisses or otherwise disposes of the federal claim.

Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc. · filed 1999-04-09

Once the court has proper removal jurisdiction over a federal claim, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, even if it dismisses or otherwise disposes of the federal claim or claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain related state-law claims after the federal claim supporting proper removal is defeated on the merits.

Albingia Versicherungs A.G., a Foreign Corporation Siemens Components Pte. Ltd., a Foreign Corporation v. Schenker Inter · filed 2003-12-03(c)

Where removal was proper, but the federal question claim is defeated on the merits, the district court nevertheless may in its discretion retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) leaves a federal court with discretion to retain jurisdiction over state claims after the sole federal claim is dropped following removal.

Grispino v. New England Mutual Life Insurance · filed 2004-02-06(c)

This argument is wrong: the dismissal of the only federal claim after removal of an action to federal court does not by itself deprive the federal court of jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

Section 1367's supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim ends when the court dismisses the federal-question claim, according to this court.

Desavigny v. Baker · filed 2025-02-28

The Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim through 28 U.S.C. § 1367, supplemental jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has found that when a court loses its federal question jurisdiction, the court loses its supplemental jurisdiction over state claims as well. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 30 (2025) (interpreting the text of 28 U.S.C. § 1367). Because the Court dismisses with prejudice the federal question claim before it, it loses subject matter jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim.

After all federal claims are dismissed, § 1367 gives the district court broad discretion to dismiss the remaining state claims, even if their limitations period has run.

Burns-Toole v. Byrne · filed 1994-01-19(c)(3)

The wide discretion afforded the trial judge translates into deference by a reviewing court: "We do not lightly disturb a district court's § 1367 determination to remand state law claims."29 We will not do so here. Based upon our review and analysis of the evidence, that the statute of limitations has run on Burns-Toole's state law claims hardly dictates a result which we, in the interest of justice, cannot countenance.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to dismiss remaining state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed; an early dismissal favors doing so, subject to case-specific considerations such as a possible limitations bar.

Eubanks v. Gerwen · filed 1994-12-22(c)(3)

Under the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C.A § 1367(c), the district courts’ exercise of ancillary and pendent jurisdiction, now referred to as supplemental jurisdiction, is discretionary. ... Here, the federal claims have been disposed of rather early on at the summary judgment phase. Thus comity suggests that the remaining state law malicious prosecution claim should be heard in state court if plaintiff desires to press it, unless limitations have run and therefore may perhaps bar the same. Accordingly, on remand, the district court should carefully consider whether to dismiss, without prejudice, that state law claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, taking account of the stage and complexity of the case and any limitations concern.

Whirlpool Financial Corp. v. GN Holdings, Inc. · filed 1995-01-06(c)(3)

Here it is unclear whether the Illinois three-year statute of limitations (Illinois Act § 13(D)) has run. That, coupled with the early stage of this litigation and the complexity of the claims involved, leads this Court to adhere to the general rule by dismissing the remaining state law claim without prejudice.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the court ordinarily dismisses a supplemental state law claim unless a limitations problem or substantial prior judicial effort justifies retaining it.

Korzeniowski v. ABF Freight Systems, Inc. · filed 1999-03-17(a)

With both of Korzeniowski’s federal claims having been dispatched, the 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) jurisdictional underpinning for his common law claim charging ABF with the intentional infliction of emotional distress has been removed.

Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims should generally be relinquished when all federal claims are resolved before trial, and the possible time-bar exception does not apply when the claims remain timely in state court.

Wilke, Kevin v. Stublaski, Adam · filed 2019-11-22(c)(3)

The general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Ditlefson, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015). An exception to this general rule arises in circumstances in which a state law claim might be time barred. See Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 404 (7th Cir. 2007). That exception, however, does not apply here.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after disposing of the sole federal claim, considering the stage of litigation, prejudice, and federal policy issues.

Imperiale v. Hahnemann University · filed 1991-10-31(c)(3)

Having denied liability as to the sole federal claim presented, the court recognizes that litigation of the state claims is still in a relatively early stage. This case was removed to federal court on January 14, 1991, but by Order entered March 13, 1991 following a pre-trial conference, the court severed and stayed the plaintiff’s pendent state claims. The case proceeded only on the federal claim. Neither party will be prejudiced by returning to state court, and remaining claims do not involve issues of federal policy. Therefore, the court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (Supp.1991).