28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to defer exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim raising novel and complex issues of state law while it considers whether to hear that claim.

Waste Connections of Kansas, Inc. v. City of Bel Aire · filed 2002-03-01(c)(1)

In addition, the court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), questions whether it should exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim because it raises novel and complex issues of Kansas law that would and should more appropriately be addressed to Kansas state courts. ... Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for an injunction based upon these claims is deferred pending receipt of the parties’ memoranda showing cause why, or why not, the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to defer deciding whether state-law claims substantially predominate when the parties have not compared them with the federal claims and the disposition of a motion to dismiss changes that comparison.

Fernandez v. Wolff · filed 1996-02-22(c)(2)

However, the defendants do not detail this argument by comparing Count II to the federal claims; in light of our disposition of the motion to dismiss, such a comparison has in any event changed. Accordingly, we refrain from addressing the substantial predominance issue at this time. In this particular case, the more appropriate time to consider the issue will be when the defendants file additional summary judgment motions regarding the remaining federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to defer its discretionary decision on supplemental jurisdiction over local law claims when it dismisses the sole federal claim without prejudice and allows amendment.

Colbert v. District of Columbia · filed 2013-12-13(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss without prejudice Count VI, the only federal law claim in this case and will grant Ms. Colbert the opportunity to amend the Complaint, the Court cannot determine at this juncture whether it will elect to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining D.C. law claims. The District’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment with regard to the D.C. law claims will be denied without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and the court may defer that decision while an original-jurisdiction claim remains pending.

Briscoe v. United States · filed 2017-07-25(c)(3)

Since “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under [§ 1367(a)] if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Shekoyan v. Sibley Int’l, 409 F.3d 414, 423 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“A district court may choose to retain jurisdiction over, or dismiss, pendent state law claims after federal claims are dismissed.”), the Court will await the outcome of the government’s motion to dismiss Count II— plaintiffs’ claim of negligent supervision against the United States — before it rules on the motion to dismiss the state law claims against Lowry in his individual capacity.

A court may defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims while granting leave to amend the complaint to state federal claims.

Anderson v. Experian · filed 2019-11-26(c)(3)

Because the Court is granting Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to state federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court will defer ruling on whether to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim.

Bouyer v. Mission Hills Storage Owner, LLC · filed 2020-05-27(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Garcia v. Cetina Sr. · filed 2020-06-30(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Gougis v. Artenyan · filed 2020-11-18(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Fernandez v. HKJ Gold, Inc. · filed 2020-12-11(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Garcia v. RKC Investment LLC · filed 2020-12-16(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims while the viability of federal claims remains unclear.

Lopez v. Genesis FS Card Services, Inc. · filed 2021-04-21(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because it is not clear that Plaintiff can assert any federal claims falling within the Court’s jurisdiction, it will determine at a later stage whether or not to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Before deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, a court may order the plaintiff to show cause why it should do so.

Cleveland v. McIntyre · filed 2021-07-07(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

A court may hold state law claims in abeyance while it determines whether an amended complaint states a viable federal claim that could support supplemental jurisdiction.

CLARK v. ALBERT · filed 2021-10-20(c)

The Court could only hear Mr. Clark’s state law claims by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). It is unclear at this stage whether Mr. Clark can state a viable federal claim. The Court will therefore hold Mr. Clark’s state law claims in abeyance pending review of any amended complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims while it determines whether a federal claim can proceed.

Warren v. PVH Corp. · filed 2022-04-29(c)(3)

Thus, the Court will decide at a later stage whether to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff seeks to assert.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims while it considers an amended complaint on the federal claims.

Hunter v. Davidson County Maximum Correctional Center · filed 2023-01-03(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to assert state-law claims (see Doc. No. 5 at 2), the Court will reserve deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction until it has reviewed any Amended Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting courts to decline exercising such jurisdiction if it “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

Section 1367 permits a court to defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims until it knows whether any federal claims survive screening.

Jones v. Spangler · filed 2023-01-17(c)(3)

Because at this time it is unclear whether any of Plaintiff’s claims will survive the PLRA screening, the court cannot determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims. After the time has passed for Plaintiff to submit his amendments to the complaint, the court will make this determination.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims before deciding whether to decline it.

Elliott v. Glendora Foothill Investments, LLC · filed 2023-10-25(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims while the viability of federal claims remains unresolved.

Serrant v. 46th Precinct Police Department · filed 2023-11-06(c)(3)

Because it is not clear that Plaintiff can state any federal claim, the Court will determine at a later time whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state-law claims Plaintiff seeks to raise in any amended complaint.

A court may defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims while the plaintiff has leave to amend dismissed federal claims.

Robinson v. AETNA · filed 2024-05-28(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has been granted leave to file an amended complaint, the Court will determine at a later stage whether to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claim she may be asserting.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims while the plaintiff has leave to amend federal claims.

Campbell v. Office of Mental Health · filed 2024-05-29(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because the Court is granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, the Court will determine at a later stage whether to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

A court that grants leave to replead federal claims may defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Katsnelson v. Department of Homeless Services, NYC · filed 2024-06-21(c)(3)

Because, as explained below, the Court has granted Plaintiff leave to replead his claims, the Court will determine at a later stage whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff seeks to assert.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to defer deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over possible state law claims while the plaintiff has leave to amend.

Satchell v. Molina · filed 2024-06-21(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has been granted leave to file an amended complaint, the Court will determine at a later stage whether to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims he may be asserting.

A request to decline supplemental jurisdiction can be premature while the federal claim supporting original jurisdiction remains pending.

Immortus v. Lithia Nissan of Eugene · filed 2025-07-14(c)

Because the Court has not yet dismissed the federal claim over which it has original jurisdiction, it finds the question of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction premature.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain a related state-law claim after the federal claim is withdrawn before trial when judicial resources, avoiding a second trial, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Wellness Community-National v. Wellness House · filed 1995-06-29(c)(3)

First, regardless of whether we should have held the trial, we now have committed substantial judicial resources. ... This is an unusual case. We exercise our discretion and hold that we retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law contract claim.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claim is abandoned when retaining them is fair and serves judicial economy.

Roten v. Galen of WV · filed 1998-06-18(c)

Thus, Roten was not prejudiced by the court's decision to retain jurisdiction. Moreover, given how far the case had proceeded, the court's decision was fair to both parties and served the interests of judicial economy. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988); Shanagan, 58 F.3d at 110. Accordingly, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Roten's motion for remand.

Section 1367(c)(1) leaves a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claim is withdrawn when the remaining state-law issues are not novel or complex.

Haymond v. Lundy · filed 2002-01-02(c)(1)

When Haymond’s Lanham Act claim was withdrawn, the court still had discretion to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining part of the action.

Section 1367(c) leaves a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after the federal claim supporting original jurisdiction is withdrawn.

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Ute Distribution Corp. · filed 2012-01-05(c)

The Tribe voluntarily withdrew the Civil Rights Act claim during the discovery phase of the litigation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Neither party challenges the district court’s implicit decision to retain jurisdiction over the Tribe’s Utah corporate law claims. We therefore hold that the district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the Tribe’s claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing the claim within its original jurisdiction when the statutory factors favor doing so.

Jarzembek v. County of Erie · filed 2021-05-27(c)

Having dismissed the claim over which it had original jurisdiction, the court determines that the factors enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed; a surviving federal claim supports retaining the state-law claims.

Wilder v. Morgan · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

However, the Court may dismiss those claims if the Court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Here, as explained above, the Court declines to dismiss Wilder’s Section 1983 Monell claim against LCG. Since a claim remains over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to dismiss Wilder’s remaining state claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the claims supporting federal jurisdiction have been dismissed or abandoned.

Allstate Insurance v. Young · filed 1996-03-20(c)

The underlying statutory interpleader complaint has been dismissed, and the Youngs have abandoned their federal cross-claims under the FFDCPA and ERISA. Therefore, pursuant to the discretion granted by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), I am not inclined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a question of Georgia law involving parties exclusively from the state of Georgia.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims have been voluntarily discontinued or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and standing.

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen v. Gallante · filed 1996-09-04(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs’ federal claims have either been voluntarily discontinued or dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of standing, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental state law claims to proceed when the federal claims supporting them are reinstated on appeal.

Gruenke v. Seip · filed 2000-08-21

The Gruenkes' state law tort claims were before the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1367. Because the District Court dismissed the Gruenkes' S 1983 claims on summary judgment, the court also dismissed the Gruenkes' supplemental state tort law claims noting that "the absence of any federal question or constitutional issue" made dismissal of the state tort law claims appropriate. Gruenke, 1998 WL 734700 at *14. Because we reverse the District Court's grant of summary judgment with respect to the Gruenkes' Fourth Amendment and right to privacy claims, thus restoring the case to active status, we will also reverse and remand the District Court's dismissal of the Gruenkes' state tort law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissal of a federal claim only if the federal claim was substantial from the outset.

Evitt v. Durland · filed 2000-11-28(a)

Although a district court has “the constitutional power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims even after a federal claim has been dismissed,” that is only true “provided the federal claim was not insubstantial from the outset.”

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal claims remain pending.

Bowser v. Blair County Children and Youth Services · filed 2004-11-18(a)

Finally, -the Court must deny Defen-danh-BCCYS’ argument that supplemental jurisdiction over the state .law claims should be declined, for .the reason that there remain outstanding federal claims against Defendant-BCCYS. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367 does not extend supplemental jurisdiction to state-law claims unrelated to the federal claims.

Mierzwa v. City of Garfield · filed 2005-10-19(a)

The claims against the following defendants either did not present a federal question or were unrelated to the § 1983 claims: Gruber and Colabella; Thomas Mierzwa; Jane Mierzwa; Peterpaul, Clark, and Corcoran, P.C.; Ronald Schwartz, Esq.; Robert Skikhman; Saulius Skikhman; Traci Skikhman; Estate of Telesh; and Valley National Bank. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. In addition, complete diversity of citizenship was absent. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Therefore, the District Court properly dismissed the claims against the above defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related local law claim only when the supporting federal claims are substantial.

Decatur Liquors, Inc. v. District of Columbia · filed 2007-02-27

In light of the insubstantiality of plaintiffs’ federal claims, we conclude that the district court lacked federal-question jurisdiction over those claims and thus supplemental jurisdiction over the Home Rule Act claim.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when an amended complaint abandons the federal claims at an early stage.

Riley v. Fairbanks Capital Corporation · filed 2007-03-16(a)

Therefore, because we conclude that the district court did not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the claims raised in ... Riley’s second amended complaint, the supplemental jurisdiction provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 did not apply here.

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims must be remanded.

Nemetz v. Town of Sanbornton · filed 2013-03-14(a)

Because the federal claims as pled in this case must be remanded, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a federal claim when the court has original diversity jurisdiction over a related state-law claim.

Burzlaff v. Thoroughbred Motorsports Incor · filed 2014-07-10(a)

The district court therefore had original diversity jurisdiction over the state law claim. It could then properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Magnuson-Moss Act claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Voelker v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., 353 F.3d 516, 522 (7th Cir. 2003).

Section 1367 does not require a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that the claimant has abandoned.

Coalition for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition v. City of Atlanta · filed 2000-07-27(c)

We conclude that, because the appellants effectively abandoned in the district court their argument that the 1994 Festival Ordinance violated the Georgia Constitution, there was no reason for the district court to consider whether to exercise its discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(b) or (c). Accordingly, the district court did not err by failing to exercise supplementary jurisdiction and discussing the appellants’ claim that the 1994 Festival Ordinance violated the Georgia Constitution.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to dismiss a supplemental counterclaim after it resolves the claim supporting federal jurisdiction.

Terry P. Murphy, Stephen A. Murphy v. Florida Keys Electric Cooperative Assn., Inc. · filed 2003-05-09(c)(3)

Once the district court granted summary judgment on Florida Keys’ contribution claim it had the discretion to dism iss the Ashm ans’ counter claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a contract counterclaim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when that counterclaim is already being litigated in state court.

Jordan v. Berman · filed 1992-05-01(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. This very contract claim is the subject of litigation between the parties in the ongoing state court proceedings. The court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over defendants’ contract counterclaim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of a supplemental counterclaim after the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Hodges v. Waters · filed 1994-02-03(c)(3)

The Complaint is DISMISSED. Defendant Waters’ counterclaim is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hooker v. Hoover · filed 1995-04-07(c)(3)

The federal claims in Civil No. 3:94-CV-0190-H having been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims and Defendants’ state law counterclaims.

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

Dial a Car, Inc. v. Transportation, Inc. · filed 1995-04-27(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs federal claims, over which the Court has original jurisdiction, must be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs additional state law claims and defendant Barwood’s state law counterclaims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims and a counterclaim after it resolves all claims with an independent basis of federal jurisdiction.

Irwin v. City of New York · filed 1995-10-19(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s disposition of all matters over which it has an independent basis of jurisdiction, plaintiffs’ state law claims and defendant’s counterclaim for outstanding dockage fees are dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (1986).

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves a court discretion to retain a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim.

Adams v. Rochester General Hospital · filed 1997-08-15(c)(3)

The Court chooses to exercise its discretionary supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s NYHRL claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and dismisses that claim as well.

Section 1367 allows state law claims dismissed after a declination of supplemental jurisdiction to be reinstated when federal claims are restored on appeal.

Reitz v. County of Bucks · filed 1997-09-08

The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In light of the foregoing conclusions, the district court on remand is directed to reinstate plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a district court generally relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims unless unusual circumstances, such as a limitations problem, justify retaining them.

Nelson v. Finishes Unlimited, Inc. · filed 1997-10-31(c)(3)

Only in unusual circumstances, such as a statute of limitations problem, should a federal court retain jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... In this case, because I have ruled in favor of Finishes on Mr. Nelson’s ADA claim, there is no longer a federal question pending before this court. Since no unusual circumstances were presented, Mr. Nelson’s state law claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss pendent state law claims after resolving the federal claims against the plaintiff.

Flannelly v. Board of Trustees of the New York City Police Pension Fund, Article II · filed 1998-06-11(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court hereby dismisses plaintiffs pendent state law claims.

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

Hultberg v. State of Louisiana · filed 1998-11-24(c)(3)

Moreover, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court was within its discretion in dismissing the Hultbergs’ state law medical negligence claims once it dismissed “all claims over ... which it ha[d] original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain and decide a supplemental state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims when the state claim clearly fails and judicial economy favors a merits ruling.

Sholley v. Town of Holliston · filed 1999-04-01(c)

In the ordinary run of cases, dismissal of state claims with no independent jurisdictional basis is the norm. Where it is clear, however, that Plaintiffs state law claim would fail before the Massachusetts courts, judicial economy is well served by disposing of the claim on its merits. Such is the case here.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claim when convenience, the nature of the state law issues, and the case’s progress favor retention.

Henderson v. Columbia Natural Resources · filed 1999-04-07(c)(3)

Although the federal claim has been dismissed, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court elects not to remand the case. Because it is more convenient for the parties and witnesses to have the claims heard in one forum, because the state law issues are not novel or complex, and because the action has progressed substantially in this forum, the Court exercises jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims and counterclaims arising from the same transaction or occurrence when a federal counterclaim independently supports federal jurisdiction.

Frink America, Inc. v. Champion Road MacHinery Ltd. · filed 1999-05-11(a)

In the present case, the parties’ federal and state law claims and counterclaims all arise out of the same transaction and occurrence. Remaining, however, are plaintiffs state law claims and defendant’s federal and state law counterclaims. Thus, defendant’s federal counterclaims provide an independent basis of federal jurisdiction in this action. Accordingly, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and counterclaims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims that remain pending after dismissal of the original complaint when federal counterclaims also remain.

Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Genpharm Inc. · filed 1999-06-08

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367' over Genpharm’s state law claims in its fourth and fifth counterclaims. Notwithstanding the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint, this Court will retain jurisdiction over defendant’s counterclaims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claims when judicial economy favors retention.

DeWitt v. Mecklenburg County · filed 1999-06-25(a)

In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims despite its award of summary judgment on her federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Crosby v. Paulk · filed 1999-09-10(c)(3)

A district court has discretion to dismiss state-law claims when "all claims over which it has original jurisdiction" have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Graham v. State Farm Mutual Insurance · filed 1999-10-28(c)(3)

If no federal claim survives summary judgment, the court sees ... no reason why the other claims should not be dismissed or remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted and the ... remaining state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(a) permits further consideration of a state-law claim when a related federal claim is reinstated.

Whitmore v. Dennis Michael Harrington Mark Braden · filed 2000-03-01(a)

We also reverse the dismissal of Whitmore’s state emotional-distress claim and remand for further consideration. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss a supplemental counterclaim without prejudice when it declines to retain jurisdiction over that claim.

Outlook Windows Partnership v. York International Corp. · filed 2000-08-21(c)(3)

(5) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the counterclaim filed by the defendant UtiliCorp United, Inc., d/b/a Peoples Natural Gas (filing 4) is dismissed without prejudice.

After the federal claims are dismissed before trial, § 1367 permits the district court to dismiss the supplemental state-law claims without prejudice, remand them to state court, or decide their merits.

Jewel A. Farlow,plaintiff-Appellant v. Wachovia Bank of North Carolina, N.A. · filed 2001-08-06(c)(3)

The upshot of applying Gibbs, Cohill and § 1367 to this case is that on remand, the district court has the discretion either to dismiss the pendent state-law claims ... remand the state-law claims to the state court, or decide the merits of the state-law claims if it believes it should not follow the statement we have quoted from Gibbs.

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion, after the federal claims are dismissed, to dismiss pendent state-law claims without prejudice, remand them to state court, or decide their merits.

Farlow v. Wachovia Bank NC · filed 2001-08-06(c)(3)

The upshot of applying Gibbs, Cohill and § 1367 to this case is that on remand, the district court has the discretion either to dismiss the pendent state-law claims without prejudice, remand the state-law 12 FARLOW v. WACHOVIA BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA claims to the state court, or decide the merits of the state-law claims if it believes it should not follow the statement we have quoted from Gibbs.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits, but does not require, dismissal of supplemental state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Giordano v. City of New York, Howard Safir, Police Commissioner, New York City Police Department, Medical Board, P · filed 2001-12-21(c)(3)

While the statute governing supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, does not require dismissal of pendent state-law claims where all of the federal claims have been dismissed, ... Indeed, we conclude that the state-law claims should be dismissed so that state courts can, if so called upon, decide for themselves whatever questions of state law this case may present.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed.

White-Bey v. Griggs · filed 2002-08-01(c)(3)

Finally, the state law claims were properly dismissed when all of the federal claims were dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to dismiss remaining state-law claims or decide them on the merits after the federal claims are dismissed, but a case originally filed in federal court cannot be remanded to state court.

First National Bank v. Curry · filed 2002-08-21(c)(3)

Thus, the district court erred in remanding Johnnie Curry’s claims to state court. On this point, we vacate the district court’s remand order and remand for the district court to determine whether to dismiss Johnnie Curry’s state-law claims or to consider her claims on the merits pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed the federal claims to dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Price v. University of Alabama · filed 2003-10-23(c)(3)

This court, not having ruled on the merits of the state law claims, will dismiss the repetitive allegations of the amended complaint as well as Count III and Count IV without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

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

Mohammadian v. Ciba Vision of Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2005-07-19(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).

State law claims dismissed under § 1367(c) must be reinstated when some federal claims are reinstated on appeal.

Jackson v. Gordon · filed 2005-08-29(c)

Jackson’s state law claims, dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), must be reinstated because some of his federal claims will be reinstated.

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

Sisters of St. Francis Health Services, Inc. v. Morgan County · filed 2005-11-02(c)(3)

The disposition of St. Francis’s federal claims, even after trial, gives the court discretion either to retain or relinquish jurisdiction over the supplemental claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... In, light of these considerations, and the clarity of at least the home rule issue, this is an appropriate case to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain a supplemental state-law claim after resolving all federal claims before trial, although it generally should dismiss the supplemental claim without prejudice.

Ridings v. Riverside Medical Center · filed 2008-08-11(a)

The district court had discretionary authority to consider this claim under its supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Generally, when a court resolves all federal claims before trial, it should dismiss supplemental claims without prejudice. ... However, the court was not required to dismiss the state law claim, and neither party objected to its continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the court discretion to retain related state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Di Loreto v. Costigan · filed 2009-02-19(c)(3)

The United States Supreme Court has held that it remains within the court’s discretion to retain jurisdiction over state law claims where all federal claims have been resolved. ... In the present case, Plaintiffs two state law claims share a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claims, as they are premised on the constitutional invalidity of the New York judgments. ... the Court retains jurisdiction over the claims and dismisses them on their merits.

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

McLain v. Andersen Corp. · filed 2009-06-03(c)(3)

Moreover, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, courts have the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims even after “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

A court may continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the case is near trial and judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

MacConnell v. City of Nashua · filed 2009-08-14(a)

The remaining counts assert only state law claims; however, considering the matter has progressed beyond summary judgment and is rapidly approaching trial, I believe, based on considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties, that the better course is to continue to exercise this court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after it grants summary judgment on all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Brown v. City of Franklin · filed 2011-06-28(c)(3)

The district court undoubtedly had discretion to dismiss these state-law claims once summary judgment had been granted on all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Janes v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority · filed 2013-10-16(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs' state-law claims are derivative of their federal claims, those factors counsel in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction here.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after disposing of the sole federal claim when the case has proceeded to trial.

Skyline Potato Co. v. Hi-Land Potato Co. · filed 2016-05-24(c)(3)

Although the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Tan-O-On Marketing's state claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), if the Court had disposed of the federal claim before trial, the Court would have declined to exercise jurisdiction over those state claims. ... Because the case proceeded to trial, however, the Court decides the state-law claims on the merits.

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

Perry v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · filed 2017-03-24(c)(3)

In the interest of finality, judicial economy, and the Plaintiff’s ability to have his D.C. Wage Act claims considered on the merits at all, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction here and address the pendent state-law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law alter ego claim brought alongside an independent ERISA claim.

Bricklayers & Trowel Trades International Pension Fund v. Valley Concrete, Inc. · filed 2017-06-06(a)

Additionally, even if the court were to construe Count II as a state law alter ego claim, as Defendant contends, the court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear that claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over closely related state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy and convenience favor doing so.

Smallwood v. Gov't · filed 2018-02-07(c)(3)

Because the state law claims at issue here are so closely related to the dismissed federal claims, the Court finds that the interests of judicial economy and convenience of the parties would be served by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim after the federal claim has been dismissed without trial.

Bean v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc. · filed 2004-04-26(c)(3)

The district judge will want to consider the option of relinquishing jurisdiction to the Wisconsin state courts, since the only basis for federal jurisdiction over the counterclaim is the supplemental jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal claim has been dismissed without a trial.

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

Exum v. United States Olympic Committee · filed 2004-11-17(c)(3)

Having done so, the court was well within its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims and the USOC’s counterclaims, and dismissing those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims after all federal claims are dismissed, especially early in the proceedings.

Cedar Swamp Holdings, Inc. v. Zaman · filed 2007-05-17(c)(3)

As no other basis for federal jurisdiction exists, the state law claims, counterclaims, and third party complaint must be dismissed as well, albeit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Ambrose v. Krause Publications, Inc. · filed 2009-11-30(c)(3)

Because the District Court had dismissed Ambrose's federal claims, it did not abuse its discretion by denying Krause's motion without prejudice for the state law counterclaims to be filed in state court.

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

Pearson v. Unification Theological Seminary · filed 2011-03-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed Pearson’s claims against defendants, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim, which is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law counterclaims when no federal claims survive summary judgment, and to dismiss those counterclaims without prejudice.

Young v. Suffolk County · filed 2013-02-11(c)(3)

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

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

Embassy Realty Investments, Inc. v. City of Cleveland · filed 2013-10-04(c)(3)

Because all of the federal claims have been dismissed, and after reviewing the relevant considerations, ... the Court refuses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law counterclaim.

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

B&S Transport, Inc. v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC · filed 2016-03-21(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ state law claims, and defendants’ counterclaims, are dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Wolfington v. Reconstructive Orthopaedic Associates II, P.C. · filed 2016-12-22(c)(3)

Moreover, even if the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction was appropriate, the Court will exercise its discretion, pursuant to Section 1367(c), to decline to do so since the Court is dismissing the TILA claim, which is “the only claim[] over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and counterclaims after disposing of the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Gallaher v. Estates at Aloma Woods Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. · filed 2018-07-13(c)(3)

Having disposed of the only federal claim over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims under § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to retain state law claims after all federal claims have been resolved.

Salem v. Arakawa · filed 2019-01-31(c)(3)

The district court correctly exercised its discretion in denying Salem’s motion to remand the case to the state court from which it had been removed following his filing of the motion for leave to file a first amended complaint raising only state law claims. See Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1149 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that, when all federal law claims have been resolved, district court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over remaining state law claims).

Section 1367 does not provide jurisdiction over a purely state-law claim when no viable federal claim remains.

Johnston v. Merced District Attorney's Office · filed 2020-05-06

Plaintiff’s allegations may state a cause of action under California law for professional negligence under these legal standards, but the Court does not reach this question because any claim would be under state law, and without a viable federal claim, this Court lacks jurisdiction over purely state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits state-law allegations alongside federal allegations when they are so closely related that they form the same case or controversy.

(PC) Haines v. County of Sacramento · filed 2020-09-17(a)

Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.”

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain and decide supplemental state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when the state-law claims have an absolutely clear resolution.

WATSON v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION · filed 2020-09-30(c)

The court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state-law claims. ... As explained below, because it is absolutely clear how the pendent state law claims can be decided, the court will rule on the merits of Mr. Watson's state negligence claim.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims only when they are sufficiently related to claims within the court’s original jurisdiction to form part of the same case or controversy; jurisdiction over the complaint alone does not suffice.

The Courtland Company, Inc. v. Union Carbide Corporation (Courtland II) · filed 2021-05-10(a)

The defendant is correct that supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims can be premised on claims found in the complaint, but it is incorrect that, by merely exercising jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s federal claims, the court necessarily has supplemental jurisdiction over the defendant’s state-law counterclaims.

Section 1367(c)(3) ordinarily calls for dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state-law claims when pretrial rulings dispose of all claims supporting federal jurisdiction.

Nation v. Piedmont Independent School District · filed 2022-09-06(c)(3)

Ordinarily, though, the court should dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice once it grants pretrial motions dismissing all the claims on which federal jurisdiction is based.

Section 1367 gives a court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Schneider v. Trumbull County Veterans Service Commission · filed 2023-03-14(a)

Under these circumstances, the Court has discretion when determining whether to exercise 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims after dismissing the federal claims that gave rise to its original jurisdiction. Orton v. Johnny's Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009)). Given that “[t]he Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that federal case law interpreting and applying Title VII is generally applicable to cases involving [R.C. Chapter] 4112,” the Court elects to maintain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims for stolen tips related to FLSA wage and tip claims, but not claims for cash-register theft unrelated to those claims.

Garcia v. Three Decker Restaurant LTD (d/b/a 3 Decker Restaurant) · filed 2023-04-17(a)

Therefore, while the counterclaims cannot be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction, they can only be predicated on the alleged theft of tips; not on the alleged theft of money from the cash register.

Section 1367 does not allow state law claims to proceed without a related federal claim to anchor them.

Larrea v. The State of Idaho · filed 2023-06-14

This Court cannot hear state law claims in federal court without one or more related federal causes of action to anchor the state law claims. ... Here, Plaintiff may not proceed on state law claims because his federal claims fail.

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

Hamilton v. City of Lott, Texas · filed 2023-07-03(c)

While Plaintiff complains the Magistrate Judge erred in failing to recommend remand of the remaining state law claims once he recommended dismissal of the federal claims, after considering the relevant law and the arguments of the parties, the Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c).

Section 1367 does not support litigating a state law tort claim in federal court when the complaint states no viable federal claim and no diversity basis appears.

Brown v. Parkview Regional Medical Center · filed 2023-08-01

He may be trying to assert negligence or some other state law tort against the doctors, but without a viable federal claim, he cannot litigate a state law claim in federal court.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir. 2010).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain related state-law claims while federal claims remain pending and to dismiss the state-law claims if the federal claims later resolve short of a merits decision.

Morgan v. Cash · filed 2024-03-19(c)

Plaintiff will be allowed to pursue these state level claims in this lawsuit under an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)) for the pendency of this lawsuit. Plaintiff should be aware that if there comes a time when all federal claims are resolved short of the merits of the case, then the state law claims may then be dismissed.

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

Chang v. Wang · filed 2024-06-28(c)(3)

Applying the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, this Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ NYLL claims should not be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds at this late stage of the litigation.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to remand state-law claims when an amended complaint removes all federal claims, leaving the state-law claims to predominate.

Sanks v. International Gourmet Foods, Inc. · filed 2024-09-24(c)(2)

Because there are no federal claims left in the case, the state law claims ipso facto predominate over any claims this Court had original jurisdiction over, so the Court has discretion to remand those state law claims to state court.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when an amended complaint removes all federal claims, leaving state law claims to predominate.

Howard v. International Gourmet Foods, Inc. · filed 2024-11-20(c)(2)

This Court need not resolve the issue of whether Section 1367(c)(3) applies in this case, as it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction based on Section 1367(c)(2) instead.

Section 1367 does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim when the constitutional claim fails, according to this court.

Davis v. South · filed 2025-01-24

The Court will also dismiss Plaintiff purported state law claim for wrongful imprisonment because his constitutional claim fails, and the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) gives a federal court supplemental jurisdiction over a state law counterclaim that forms part of the same case or controversy as a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Bailey · filed 2025-11-12(a)

This Court had jurisdiction over Strauss’ counterclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides supplemental jurisdiction over any state law “claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

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

Montes v. Ransom · filed 2007-02-22(c)(3)

As the district court did not ... err in its dismissal of Montes’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) when it dismissed Montes’s state law claims.

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

Plotkin v. Bearings Ltd. · filed 1991-11-21(c)(3)

However, clause (3) of subdivision (c) allows the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Under the circumstances of the case this Court determines that considerations of judicial economy, comity, and fairness to the parties warrants the dismissal of the state claims and counterclaims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law cross-claims when the related federal claims have been dismissed and the early stage of litigation, lack of prejudice, and judicial economy favor a state forum.

Glaziers & Glassworkers Union Local 252 Annuity Fund v. Newbridge Securities, Inc. · filed 1993-03-19(c)

In this case, as a matter within our discretion, we conclude that the Trustees’ cross-claims must be dismissed. ... All of the federal claims against Jungers, Newbridge and Equibank have been dismissed. ... Furthermore, the Trustees will not be prejudiced by our decision to dismiss the state law claims as they face no impediments to pursuing these claims in state court.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it resolves all federal claims, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Haavistola v. Community Fire Co. of Rising Sun, Inc. · filed 1993-02-10(c)(3)

This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims under the concept of supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... While this Court recognizes that the Gibbs rule is not to be applied inflexibly in all cases, consideration of the balance of pendent jurisdiction factors — judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity — present here directs this Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims in light of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Ciro, Inc. v. Gold · filed 1993-03-02(c)(3)

For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court in the exercise of its sound discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to the state law claims in Count II of the second amended complaint.

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

Smith v. Zeneca Inc. · filed 1993-05-05(c)(3)

The Court, in the exercise of its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, will “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the plaintiffs state law claim because the Court will “dismiss all claims over which it [had] original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the claim supporting original jurisdiction is dismissed, based on comity, convenience, fairness, and judicial economy.

Easterwood v. General Electric Capital Auto Lease, Inc. · filed 1993-06-24(c)

Since the claim over which this Court had original jurisdiction has been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction because what remains is a claim or theory of damages based upon Georgia law which appears to have been rejected by the Georgia Courts. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decide a supplemental state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims when the state-law outcome is clear and judicial economy favors deciding it.

Moore v. Nutrasweet Co. · filed 1993-11-15(c)(3)

Where the outcome is clear and judicial economy would be disserved by dismissal — that is, where “the process [would have] to begin anew in state court” (Rights, 675 F.Supp. at 424) — the federal court may act on the claim.

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

Petroskey v. Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg, P.A. · filed 1994-02-01(c)(3)

Here, Petroskey's claims are scheduled to be tried this month, all discovery is at a conclusion, and the interests of "judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants” militate in favor of exercising the Court's supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Hamidian v. Occulto · filed 1994-05-10(c)(3)

This being so, the Court will exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1990). ... In view of the late stage of this case, which is ready for trial, interests of “judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants” warrant retention of jurisdiction.

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

Carroll v. Borough of State College · filed 1994-06-27(c)(3)

Since no federal claims remain and this case is not yet ready for trial, considerations of comity dictate that we relinquish jurisdiction over the pendent state claims remaining. Under section 1367(c)(3) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(e)(3) (West Supp.1992), we may, in our discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which we had original jurisdiction have been dismissed, as is the case here.

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

Wynn v. Morgan · filed 1994-07-08(c)(3)

Since all of these are traditional state law claims and since defendant appears to be primarily relying upon a state statute granting absolute immunity to state employees acting within the scope of their employment (Tenn.Code Ann. § 9 — 8—307(h)), it does not appear that judicial economy, convenience, fairness to the litigants, or comity would be advanced by this court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims and it respectfully declines to do so.

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

Trenton v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp. · filed 1994-09-06(c)(3)

The Court may accordingly decline to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over the remaining state causes of action, as doing so would most sensibly serve the values of economy, convenience, fairness and comity.

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

Raymond J. TIMM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the MEAD CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1994-09-29(c)(3)

Instead, we recognized that especially when difficult and unsettled state law issues are not implicated by the pendent claims, it is entirely acceptable under the discretionary principle for a federal court to decide those claims even after dismissing the main claim. ... Here, by the time the ADEA claim was dismissed, the state law claims were ripe for decision, the applicable state law was straightforward, the litigation was well over a year old, and discovery, which had been at times contentious, was completed. The district court reasonably concluded that there was no need to delay the resolution of this matter (and add to the burdens of the Illinois court system) by having the parties litigate the unspectacular state law issues anew in state court.

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

Brinkman v. Kansas Department of Corrections · filed 1994-09-13(c)(3)

The district court is expressly authorized to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... The court finds no compelling reason to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and determines in the interest of comity and federalism that plaintiffs remaining state law claims be heard in state court.

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

Long v. National Football League · filed 1994-11-22(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it has dismissed all other claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Where, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed on the pleadings, the factors delineated in Gibbs favor dismissal. For example, since we have dismissed the federal claims early in the proceedings, we have not invested a great deal of time in the case and, therefore, judicial economy warrants dismissing the state law claims.

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

Allied Investment Corp. v. KPMG Peat Marwick · filed 1995-01-23(c)

Factors such as judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants, all counsel this Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Allied’s state claim of negligent misrepresentation.

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

Connelly v. General Medical Corp. · filed 1995-03-27(c)(3)

When a court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). While the Court has dismissed thq federal securities fraud claims from this case, a balance of relevant factors, including judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, favors a consolidated judgment.

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

Larkin v. Town of West Hartford · filed 1995-06-20(c)(3)

In the instant matter, the balance of factors indicates that this is the usual case: the dismissal of all federal claims counsels against exercising pendent jurisdiction and in favor of dismissal of the state claims without prejudice.

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

Childree v. UAP/GA AG CHEM, INC. · filed 1995-06-20(c)

Where Section 1367(c) applies, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity may influence the court’s discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Williams v. Wilson · filed 1995-08-17(c)(3)

The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, dismissal of the state law claim at this time will serve judicial economy. The Court also finds that fairness and principles of comity and federalism indicate that the action should proceed in state court, and a balance of the Cohill factors indicates that the cause belongs in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of the stage of litigation and fairness to the parties.

Stehney v. Perry · filed 1995-11-06(c)(3)

In this case, the Court has dismissed every claim over which it had original subject matter jurisdiction, and sees no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim arising under state law. This case is at an early stage of Htigation, and there is no concern that dismissal at this juncture would be unfair.

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

Coppage v. Mann · filed 1995-11-07(c)(3)

Moreover, this case is now far along on the road to final disposition; the parties have completed discovery and are prepared to proceed immediately to trial. ... As this Court has noted recently in similar circumstances, “dismissal here would disserve the goals of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, since the parties have already [completed] discovery, and the Court is already familiar with the facts of the case.” ... Jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims will be retained.

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

Pasztory v. Croatia Line · filed 1996-03-20(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, even if COGSA does not preempt the Plaintiffs claims for negligence and breach of contract, the Court DECLINES to retain jurisdiction over those pendent claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain related state claims after dismissing the federal claim when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and federal concerns favor retaining them.

Pilkington v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 1996-03-27(c)(3)

At this point, with summary judgment granted in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiffs’ federal question, it is within this Court’s discretion to decide whether to dismiss the balance of Plaintiffs’ claim for lack of jurisdiction. ... Thus, considerations of “judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants,” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), point clearly in favor of retaining jurisdiction over these claims and deciding them on the merits in this Court.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after all federal claims are dismissed before trial when judicial economy and avoiding multiple lawsuits outweigh the need to avoid deciding state law issues.

Shane McCown Danny McCown v. Charles Harmon Rodney Newsome, City of Wheelwright · filed 1996-04-11(c)(3)

Initially, it is noted that the district court properly exercised its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over defendants' state law claims under the circumstances of this case. ... Although state claims should generally be dismissed where all federal claims have been dismissed before trial, "(a) district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues." Landefeld, 994 F.2d at 1182 (citations omitted). Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment for plaintiffs.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims after it dismisses the claims that supplied original jurisdiction, considering fairness, convenience, and judicial economy.

Jones v. Dacosta · filed 1996-06-18(c)(3)

The statute further provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in certain instances, including eases where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, this Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). After consideration of the factors outlined in Shanaghan, this Court will exercise that discretion and dismiss the individual plaintiffs claims in the within case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the court weighs judicial economy against unnecessarily deciding state law issues.

Hankins v. The Gap, Inc. · filed 1996-05-29(c)(3)

Under these guiding principles, Hankins is unable to prevail. She fails to show how any substantial savings in judicial resources would be gained that outweigh the interest in avoiding the unnecessary resolution of state law issues.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering fairness to the litigants and judicial resources.

Wray v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. · filed 1998-06-23(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3) I have discretion in deciding this question. I am to consider such factors as fairness to the litigants and appropriate allocation of judicial resources.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the claims that supplied original federal jurisdiction.

Santiago v. Stryker Corp. · filed 1998-06-25(c)(3)

Additionally, after dismissing plaintiffs foundational federal claims, this Court must reassess its jurisdiction over the supplemental state claims. ... Thus, in the exercise of its discretion, and after balancing the competing factors, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs supplemental claims.

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

Gibson v. Bray · filed 1998-06-25(c)(3)

Pursuant to § 1367(c), however, a district court may decline to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... This Court finds that the state law claim remaining in this action is best resolved by the Georgia state courts. The remaining claim raises issues of state law only that do not implicate federal interests in any manner. Because 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) tolls the state statute of limitations, no unfairness to Lieutenant Gibson results from dismissal.

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

Williams v. Waldron · filed 1998-07-21(c)(3)

However, 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Also, the interest of judicial economy and convenience do not support retaining jurisdiction in light of the four-year long proceedings in a state court which lies in another federal district. ... Because dismissal of Plaintiffs state law claims if barred by the statute of limitations may be an abuse of discretion, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs state claims without prejudice affording Plaintiff the opportunity to move for reconsideration on the issue of the availability of a state court forum.

When claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims must be declined unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide an affirmative justification for retaining it.

TALLEY v. CLARK · filed 2019-11-20(c)(3)

“Where the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original) (citing Borough of W. Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). No exceptions apply here.

After dismissal of all claims within original jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims must be declined unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness affirmatively justify retaining it.

DEVICO v. GENESIS HEALTHCARE LLC · filed 2019-11-26(c)(3)

The District Court “‘must decline’ to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in such circumstances ‘unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.’” Stone v. Martin, 720 F. App’x 132, 136 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000)). The Court finds no affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in this suit.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits supplemental state law claims to be dismissed without prejudice after the federal claims are resolved.

Morales v. Horel · filed 2012-02-27(c)(3)

The district court did not mention Morales’s state law claim in the order granting summary judgment. We deem the state law claims to have been dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims raising novel issues of state law, which can weigh against granting a federal injunction.

Logan v. Public Employees Retirement Ass'n · filed 2016-01-11(c)(1)

Second, the Court is reluctant to grant a federal injunction in a case where it would normally decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, ... Plaintiffs’ claims raise novel issues of state law related to the interpretation of the New Mexico Constitution and New Mexico statutes.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that would require recognition of a new state constitutional tort.

Urban v. Quiros · filed 2022-07-06(c)(1)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim seeking monetary damages for a violation of Article First, § 9 of the Connecticut Constitution against Defendants because the decision to recognize a new state constitutional tort should be made by the Connecticut courts.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a novel question of state law.

Daly v. Kalamazoo College · filed 2023-08-11(c)(1)

A state court is better positioned to resolve this novel question. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim raises a novel question of state law.

Schlagel v. Discount Tire Co., Inc. · filed 2025-01-28(c)(1)

Based on the record before it, this Court respectfully declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count Five.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that raises a novel and complex issue of state law.

Calvary Chapel Lone Mountain v. Sisolak · filed 2020-12-15(c)(1)

The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Calvary Chapel’s state constitutional claim. Calvary Chapel’s claim raises a novel and complex issue of Nevada law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), and a federal court may not “instruct[] state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law,” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims that present novel or complex issues of state law.

Clajon Production Corp. v. Petera · filed 1994-06-08(c)(1)

Nonetheless, this Court declines to exercise its jurisdiction over these claims because they involve "novel or complex issuefs] of State law[J" 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim raising complex state constitutional issues, and that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Chandler v. Miller · filed 1996-01-22(c)(1)

In view of the complex state constitutional issues presented here and the interests of comity in this sensitive area of federal-state relations, we cannot conclude the district court abused its discretion.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a complex issue of state law, including a state constitutional question.

Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc. · filed 1998-04-02(c)(1)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim where "the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law." 28 U.S.C. S 1367(c)(1). Clearly, the question of whether the proposed funding scheme for the Westside Connector violates the New Jersey Constitution is a complex issue of state law which is better left to the New Jersey courts to determine.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a novel state constitutional claim whose cause of action the state supreme court has not recognized.

Miranda v. BBII Acquisition Corp. · filed 2000-10-16(c)(1)

The Supreme Court has not created this cause of action, and thus, this federal court refuses to trailblaze causes of actions that should be considered by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. “The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if(l) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Dismissal is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.