28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Local 514, Transport Workers of America v. Keating · filed 2002-06-05(c)(1)

Certainly, the issues raised by the parties with respect to Counts IX and X raise novel and complex issues of Oklahoma law concerning the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s right-to-work law when assessed in light of specific provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution. Rather than attempting to predict how the Oklahoma Supreme Court would resolve these important issues of state constitutional law, it is appropriate for this federal court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional challenges presented in Counts IX and X.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over novel state constitutional claims lacking state court precedent and dismiss them without prejudice.

Smith v. Carrasco · filed 2004-09-03(c)(1)

Mr. Smith is asserting state constitutional claims as they apply to convicted prisoners, on which there is apparently no state created precedent. ... Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), this court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Smith’s Indiana constitutional claims, and will dismiss those claims without prejudice to his right to bring them in state court.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims that would require it to resolve unsettled questions of state law.

Doninger v. Niehoff · filed 2009-01-15(c)(1)

If the Court were to decide this claim, it would have to decide not only whether to create a new cause of action that Connecticut courts have not recognized, but also whether to grant greater protections for student speech under the Connecticut Constitution. This is categorically not the role of a federal court. Hence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Doninger’s Connecticut constitutional claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a novel state-law claim, including an unresolved question about a damages remedy under a state constitution.

Creighton v. City of Livingston · filed 2009-05-19(c)(1)

As in Khatib, whether § 3 provides for a damages remedy has not been addressed by California courts, presenting a novel issue which need not be reached considering the complexities of the Katzberg framework and an existing available remedy. This issue is best left to the California courts.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that raises a novel or complex issue of state law, including a state constitutional challenge to legislative delegation of authority.

Arthur v. Thomas · filed 2013-09-30(c)(1)

Section 1367(c)(1) provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state law claim if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” ... The Court can scarcely conceive of more “novel or complex issues of State law” than the Alabama legislature’s ability to delegate its lawmaking authority and whether it has unconstitutionally done so with its lethal injection statute. ... As a result, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law separation of powers claim.

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

Brown v. Waterbury Board of Education · filed 2017-03-28(c)(1)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brown’s retaliation claim under the Connecticut Constitution because it raises a novel question of state law.

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

Kelly v. Santiago · filed 2019-08-06(c)(1)

As the Connecticut Supreme Court has not recognized a private right of action under this provision for money damages, Mr. Kelly’s claim “raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” this Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims that raise new and undeveloped issues of state law.

Velez-Shade v. Population Management · filed 2019-09-25(c)(1)

The court concludes that it would be inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over potential claims under the Connecticut constitution that raise new and undeveloped issues under state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” that “raised a novel or complex issue of State Law . . . .”).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim requiring recognition of a new state constitutional tort so that state courts can decide that issue.

Bohn v. Cook · filed 2019-10-18(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 the defendants because the decision to recognize a new state constitutional tort should be made by the Connecticut courts.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional claim when the availability of a private right of action in that context is unsettled.

Doyle v. Santiago · filed 2019-10-18(c)(1)

Absent clear authorization of a private right of action under these facts, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim.

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

Gamble v. Garcia · filed 2020-09-22(c)(1)

As the state courts have not recognized private rights of action for prisoners under these constitutional provisions, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if … the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.”).

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

Holley v. Cook · filed 2020-11-05(c)(1)

Thus, the court concludes that it is inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Holley’s claims brought under the Connecticut constitution that raise new and undeveloped issues under state law.

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

Amato v. Elicker · filed 2021-04-15(c)(1)

Thus, the Court concludes that it is inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims brought under the Connecticut Constitution that raise new and undeveloped issues under state law.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims involving sensitive or complex questions of state law.

UNITED CANNABIS PATIENTS AND CAREGIVERS OF MAINE v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES · filed 2021-04-22(c)(1)

Because I have dismissed Counts I and IX and because the remaining state claims involve thorny questions about the separation of powers within the State, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over them.

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

Street v. O'Toole · filed 2021-02-22(c)(1)

Because this state-law claim raises novel and complex issues, I will exercise my discretion and decline to consider it, as allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims presenting novel or complex state-law issues when comity, judicial expertise, and fairness favor resolution in state court.

Forrester v. Clarenceville School District · filed 2021-05-06(c)(1), (c)(4)

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction where “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of [s]tate law” or there are “other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (4). ... Considering factors such as federal-state comity, judicial expertise, the need to avoid unnecessary resolution of novel and complex issues of state law, and fairness to the parties, the court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims raise novel or complex issues or compelling reasons favor their resolution in state court.

Bowles v. Macomb Community College · filed 2021-05-07(c)(1), (c)(4)

Consequently, the court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the claims and will dismiss them without prejudice. A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction where “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of [s]tate law” or there are “other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (4).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the absence of state-court guidance makes the governing state-law issue novel.

McGrath v. Dunecrest Condominium Association · filed 2021-05-13(c)(1)

Given the absence of interpretive guidance from Indiana courts regarding the Indiana Condominium Act and its grievance procedures, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the McGraths’s state law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits discretionary remand of supplemental state-law claims raising novel state-law questions to avoid needless federal decisions of state law.

Graeff v. Ashcroft · filed 2023-03-09(c)(1)

The principle that the Court should avoid needless decisions of state law, particularly on novel claims, counsels in favor of the discretionary remand of Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1)’s novel-state-law-claim ground for declining supplemental jurisdiction depends on the facts of the case and is not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss.

Gethsemani Baptist Church v. San Luis, City of · filed 2024-11-22(c)(1)

The City moves to dismiss both of the Church’s FERA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), asking this Court not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Such an evaluation, however, depends on the facts of a case and thus is not appropriate on a motion to dismiss. As such, this Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts Four and Five without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims that raise no novel or complex issue of state law.

Arawana Mills Co. v. United Technologies Corp. · filed 1992-05-07(c)(1)

In addition, the state law claims in this case do not raise novel or complex issues of state law that would suggest, much less require, declining the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to section 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims whose elements are well established and present no real novelty or complexity.

Grove Holding Corp. v. First Wisconsin National Bank · filed 1992-09-11(c)(1)

Accordingly, this Court sees no real complexity or novelty to the state law issues in this case which would counsel this Court to decline jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for novel or complex state-law issues, but ordinary breach-of-contract and reimbursement claims do not justify doing so.

D'Allesandro v. Johnson & Wales U. · filed 1995-01-23(c)(1)

With respect to subsection ( 1 ) , it is clear to the court that plaintiffs' breach of contract and reimbursement allegations raise neither novel nor complex issues of state law such that remand would be justified.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law; a claim the court finds not novel may remain within its supplemental jurisdiction.

Rubio v. Bob Crow Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc. · filed 2001-04-30(c)(1)

District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). The Court disagrees with the characterization of this issue as novel and will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

A state-law claim that presents no novel or complex issue gives no basis to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) on that ground.

IntraComm, Inc. v. Bajaj · filed 2007-07-05(c)

Additionally, none of Appel- lant’s claims raise "novel or complex issue[s] of state law," 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction when the related state-law claims present no novel or complex issue of state law.

Mar-Cone Appliance Parts Co. v. Mangan · filed 2012-07-20(c)(1)

Accordingly, the court finds the validity of Mangan’s Contribution Claims do not raise “novel or complex” issues of state law requiring dismissal pursuant to § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for a novel or complex state-law question; an ordinary statutory interpretation question and substantial factual overlap with federal claims favor retaining jurisdiction.

Elftmann v. Village of Tinley Park · filed 2016-06-09(c)(1)

However, for the- reasons • explained above, the 'Court does not find the relevant state law particularly novel, complex, or difficult to construe. ... Given the significant factual overlap in Plaintiffs’ state and federal claims, the interest in judicial economy also weighs against splitting the case among different courts. ... For these reasons, the Court declines to relinquish jurisdiction under Section 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction over a California writ of mandate petition presenting straightforward employment issues when it shares facts with a federal due process claim and remand would risk inconsistent rulings.

(PS) Richardson v. County of Shasta · filed 2020-02-28(c)(1)

However, the gravamen of the action is a straightforward employment case, turning on whether defendants/respondents (hereinafter, “defendants”) terminated plaintiff’s employment in compliance with agency personnel rules and whether they violated plaintiff’s federal due process right to a hearing. ... On the contrary, however, remanding a petition based on the same factual allegations as plaintiff’s § 1983 claim would create a risk of inconsistent rulings between the federal and state courts on the same issues and facts. ... Like the Doe court, the undersigned finds it appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandate.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction when state constitutional claims mirror federal claims and present no complex issue of state law, with judicial economy favoring review.

ATTWOOD v. CLEMONS · filed 2021-03-17(c)(1)

As such, there is no complex issue of state law that this Court should avoid, and the notion of judicial economy weighs in favor of this Court reviewing the matter. This Court, therefore, chooses to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state and city claims when their statutory language is clear and they present no novel or complex issue of state law.

Reyes v. The City of New York · filed 2023-11-02(c)(1)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) does not require a different result either. This provision states that the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that “raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” ... Here, the state and city Right to Record Acts do not involve the state’s interest in the administration of its government nor do they present complex issues; the statutory language as applied to this circumstance is clear and unambiguous. Although there are only a handful of cases analyzing the state Right to Record Act, it does not mean the state law is “unsettled” or that there is a novel issue for the Court to decide.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the extent of pretrial proceedings.

Gabaldon v. The Town of Mountainair · filed 2024-06-28(c)(3)

In this case the Court concludes that these factors weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s state-law claims are closely intertwined with his federal claims, rely on the same set of facts, and are subject to disposition based on clearly established law. Hence, the Court elects to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims and resolve all of the claims addressed in Defendants’ Motion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain against other defendants and the court has already made substantive rulings on the state law claims.

Spriestersbach v. State of Hawaii · filed 2024-11-18(c)(3)

First, there are federal claims remaining against other defendants in this case. ... Moreover, the instant case has been pending for almost three years, and this Court has made substantive rulings regarding Spriestersbach’s state law claims against Dr. Garrett. ... Under the circumstances of this case, this Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Spriestersbach’s state law claims against Dr. Garrett.

A court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when federal claims remain.

Chapman v. The City of Albany · filed 2025-01-24(c)

County Defendants contend that “the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).” Cnty. Mot. at 18–19. However, because some of Plaintiff’s federal claims may proceed, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See, e.g., Hettler v. Entergy Enters., Inc., 15 F. Supp. 3d 447, 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain a related state-law claim when federal claims remain against another defendant and judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor hearing the claims together.

Cretan v. Newport Township · filed 2025-02-04(c)(3)

Here, because the negligence claim against the Township will continue at this procedural juncture, it would not be in the interest of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness to the litigants to dismiss the negligence claim against PAWC, only for the claim to be refiled in state court causing parallel litigation over the same set of facts.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when related federal claims remain pending.

King 972631 v. Watt · filed 2025-09-04(c)

Here, because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Watt and Beck, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Watt and Beck.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain a related state-law claim when it is neither novel nor substantially predominant and the federal claim remains pending.

Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. v. City of Ukiah · filed 2026-01-12(c)

The state-law portion of Cause of Action V is not novel or particularly complex, nor will it substantially predominate over Plaintiff’s federal claim because they are based on the same facts. So, since Plaintiff’s federal claim is still alive, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim in Cause of Action V.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims raising novel or complex issues of state law, even if federal claims remain in the case.

HealthCall of Detroit, Inc. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · filed 2023-07-24(c)(1)

Here, even assuming that the federal takings claims were reinstated, the court would still decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims because they raise “novel or complex issue[s] of state law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1)-(2) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction for unsettled state-law issues, but the court treats that option as unavailable for disputes over another nation’s law.

Jose v. M/V FIR GROVE · filed 1991-10-15(c)(1)-(2)

Alternatively, I could have declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(l)-(2) on the basis that the claim involves an unsettled issue of state law. However, because this case involves disputed issues of the laws of another nation, I have none of these options available to me.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims raise novel or complex issues of state law and substantially predominate over the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Anspec Co., Inc. v. Johnson Controls, Inc. · filed 1992-03-31(c)(1), (c)(2)

Their numerosity and weight compels the Court to the conclusion that they will substantially predominate over the CERCLA claim and will raise novel and complex issues of state law. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court hereby dismisses without prejudice plaintiffs' claims for nuisance, fraud, and violation of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when they raise novel or complex state law issues and all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Freund v. Florio · filed 1992-06-03(c)

The court, however, concludes that in this situation, where the underlying federal claim has been dismissed, it would be improper to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these pendent state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367, codifying the doctrines of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction, sets forth the circumstances in which “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim.” ... Dismissal of plaintiffs’ state law claims is appropriate here for both reasons.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel or complex state-law issues when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Operation Badlaw, Inc. v. Licking County General Health District Board of Health · filed 1992-06-26(c)(1), (c)(3)

Given that the Court has found all plaintiffs’ federal claims to be without merit, it would be unwise to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (3), which permit the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law” or if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction----” Cf. Province v. Cleveland Press Pub. Co., 787 F.2d 1047 (6th Cir.1986). Both of these statutory provisions apply here. Consequently, these claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that raise novel or complex state law issues.

Support Ministries for Persons With Aids, Inc. v. Village of Waterford · filed 1992-07-30(c)(1)

Thus, while it is true that the federal and state claims arise out of the same operative set of facts and will probably involve virtually the same proof at trial, this court, in its discretion, chooses to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all of the state law claims, including the claim under Article 78. As asserted by the defendants, there is no reason for this court to embroil itself in a dispute between the State and a local government and to make this novel and potentially extremely significant interpretation of state law.

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

Schwartz v. System Software Associates, Inc. · filed 1993-02-12(c)(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), this court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it raises “a novel or complex issue of State law.” Although abstention doctrines are not lightly invoked by this court, the court believes that this issue is a novel question best addressed by a state court. Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it, and hereby sua sponte dismisses Plaintiffs common law fraud claim.

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

Winn v. North American Philips Corp. · filed 1993-06-22(c)(1)

This court refuses to decide this novel and complex question of state law as it is precisely the type of issue which should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim for a novel or complex state-law issue, predominance over the federal claim, dismissal of all federal claims, or exceptional compelling reasons.

Kabealo v. Davis · filed 1993-09-07(c)

While § 1367 does not permit dismissal of federal claims, it does allow the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim if the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law or predominates over the federal claim, if all federal claims have been dismissed, or, in exceptional circumstances, if there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

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

H. Salt of Southern California, Inc. v. Wen Lung Yu Li Tzui Yu · filed 1993-08-11(c)(1)

Section 1367(c)(1) provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if "the state law claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(1). Whether the contract at issue here is assignable does not present a novel issue of California law.

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

Lajoie v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations · filed 1993-10-12(c)(1)

In sum, even if the court is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise that jurisdiction over the claim that special deputy sheriffs are “employees” under Connecticut state law inasmuch as that claim clearly “raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Count One must therefore be dismissed, without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel issues best decided by a state court.

Borges v. City of West Palm Beach · filed 1993-11-19(c)(1)

However, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims relating to the publication of the arrest (Counts III, IV, VII, IX and XI) in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), which provides in pertinent part that the district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.”

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that raise a novel and unsettled issue of state law.

St. George v. Mak · filed 1993-12-29(c)(1)

Accordingly, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), over the plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to the Connecticut free speech act and the Connecticut workers compensation statute.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise complex issues of state law.

Chambers Medical Technologies of South Carolina, Inc. v. Jarrett · filed 1994-01-19(c)(1)

Because these claims raise complex issues of state law, this court, in its discretion, declines jurisdiction to decide them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims raise a novel issue of state law.

Lane v. Calhoun-Liberty County Hosp. Ass'n Inc. · filed 1994-03-11(c)(1)

As a result, the Court concludes Plaintiffs’ state law claims raise a novel issue of state law and therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Lajoie v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations · filed 1994-08-26(c)(1)

Second, even if the defendants’ claims were sufficiently related to the plaintiffs’ case to trigger 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), this court would nevertheless decline to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) inasmuch as the defendants have raised novel and complex issues of state law.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss a supplemental state-law claim without prejudice so state courts can resolve an unsettled question of state law.

Bedford v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Trans. Authoirty · filed 1994-10-18(c)

The scope and even the recognition of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Pennsylvania remain uncertain. ... The court concludes that under the circumstances, this claim should be adjudicated in the state courts which should be permitted formally to determine whether the conduct alleged by plaintiff is sufficiently egregious to sustain her emotional distress claim against defendant Van de Beek. The court will thus dismiss this claim without prejudice to plaintiff to pursue it in a state court.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that presents a novel or complex issue of state law.

Bahadirli v. Domino's Pizza · filed 1995-01-26(c)(1)

In this case, the state law claim asserted by Bahadirli against Reams presents a novel and complex issue of state law. The claim is therefore properly resolved by a state tribunal. As a purely state cause of action, it is for the state to determine the elements and the scope of a claim for Outrage in the area of national origin discrimination. The court will therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss this claim, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

United States Ex Rel. Capps v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. · filed 1995-02-07(c)(1)

In this case, the state law claim asserted by Capps against Fidelity presents a novel and complex issue of state law. ... The court will therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss this claim, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Anglemyer v. Hamilton County Hospital · filed 1995-06-20(c)(1)

We believe the Kansas courts are the appropriate forum to decide this novel and complex issue of state law. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(1) (federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in cases raising novel or complex issues of state law). We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ms. Anglemyer's pendent state law claims.

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

Lansing Mercy Ambulance Service v. Tri-County Emergency Medical Control Authority, Inc. · filed 1995-07-31(c)(1)

This Court can refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). ... It is a novel, perhaps complex, issue of state law. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the question and will dismiss the Second Claim without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims presenting novel and complex issues of state law.

Parker v. Clarke · filed 1995-11-06(c)(1)

In view of the Court's disposition of the merits of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and in view of the novel and complex issues of state law presented on the facts of this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The factors supporting this determination, as set forth above, are codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) through (3).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim presenting a novel issue of state law.

Adams v. Drew · filed 1995-11-15(c)(1)

To date, the Virginia courts have not passed on this statute. Inasmuch as this claim is not of constitutional dimension — which § 1983 is designed to address — and that it is apparently a case of first impression in any court in Virginia, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims that are not sufficiently complex.

Newman v. Checkrite California, Inc. · filed 1995-12-19(c)(1)

In the instant case, the state and federal claims arise from a common nucleus of operative facts and the state law claims are not sufficiently complex so as to permit declining jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(1). Accordingly, the motion must be denied.

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

Harless Ex Rel. Harless v. Darr · filed 1996-02-27(c)(1)

The court notes that the Plaintiffs’ claims raise novel and complex issues of state law, and that the court may properly decline to exercise jurisdiction over the claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that raise novel or complex issues of state law.

Williams v. Van Buren Township · filed 1996-05-10(c)(1)

In short, this court believes that novel and complex issues of state law are raised by plaintiffs state law claims. Fundamental concepts of federalism and respect for the courts of the State of Michigan dictate that Michigan state courts be allowed to address these issues.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that raises a novel issue, including an unresolved question whether a state statute implies a private right of action.

Hamilton v. BD. OF SCHOOL COM'RS OF MOBILE COUNTY · filed 1996-06-19(c)(1)

A federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim that “raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Without doubt, whether a plaintiff may assert a private cause of action under a state statute which creates no express right of action is a novel question of state law.

Section 1367(c)(1) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction when the state law issues are not sufficiently novel or complex to justify declining it, especially when the federal and state claims share facts and evidence.

Patrick v. City of Overland Park, Kan. · filed 1996-06-21(c)(1)

The state law issues in this ease are not so novel or complex as to warrant taxing the judicial system in that way. Accordingly, the Court declines defendants’ invitation to refuse to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) over plaintiffs state law claim for invasion of privacy.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that raise a novel and complex issue of state law.

Hernandez v. Wangen · filed 1996-08-01(c)(1)

Although Plaintiffs state law claims against Wangen form a part of the same controversy, the Court finds that the state law claims raise a novel and complex issue of state law.

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

Ortland v. County of Tehama · filed 1996-08-12(c)(1)

This court’s jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim of discrimination exists by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which provides the district court with discretion to decline jurisdiction over claims that involve complex issues of state law.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that raise novel issues requiring interpretation by state courts.

Two Men & a Truck/International Inc. v. Two Men & a Truck/Kalamazoo, Inc. · filed 1996-09-27(c)(1)

Many of the state claims involve novel issues of franchise law that require a unique interpretation by the Michigan and Indiana courts, making dismissal appropriate under Section 1367(c)(1).

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

Hayes v. Henri Bendel, Inc. · filed 1996-10-18(c)(1)

Because the intentional infliction claim in Count IV “raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” I decline to exercise jurisdiction and will defer to the courts of Massachusetts. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the remaining state law claims present novel issues of state law.

Los Angeles Times v. County of Los Angeles · filed 1996-11-12(c)(1)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(1), since they present novel issues of state law concerning the IAP program: e.g. does the IAP program constitute an “enhanced” or “optional” government service within the purview of California Government Code § 25330-25332; does the IAP Program data compilation constitute a “court record” within the meaning of Government Code §§ 68150-68152; and does the IAP subscription fee constitute an illegal special tax under Article 13A, § 4 of the California Constitution?

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decide a state law claim when it does not raise a novel or complex issue of state law.

North American Group, Inc. v. County of Wayne · filed 1997-01-28(c)(1)

The state law claim therefore was not overly "novel or complex," and the district court did not err in choosing to decide it on its merits.

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

Doe v. Sundquist · filed 1997-02-11(c)(1)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, finding that at least one of the § 1367(c) factors applies, namely, subsection (c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) does not call for declining supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim when state precedent provides sufficient guidance for resolving it.

Moran v. GTech Corp. · filed 1997-03-19(c)(1)

The Court finds GTECH’s argument unconvincing, as there is sufficient guidance from the state courts concerning how a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act should be structured.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a D.C. law claim when the availability of the requested relief under local law is unsettled.

Franklin v. District of Columbia · filed 1997-04-16(c)

Accordingly, and because federal courts are obligated to exercise restraint in such circumstances, this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over this D.C. law claim.

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

Ussery v. Louisiana Ex Rel. Department of Health & Hospitals · filed 1997-04-25(c)(1)

To the extent that plaintiff alleges a separate tort claim against Richmond in his individual capacity, it is supplemental to the other claims. Because we find that it presents “a novel or complex issue of state law,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim against Richmond in his individual capacity.

Section 1367(c)(1) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over an established state-law tort with defined elements merely because the claim arises under state law.

Trudell v. Spaulding Composites · filed 1998-01-12(c)(1)

The court does not believe that the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is sufficiently novel or complex to warrant refusing jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that raise numerous novel and complex state law issues.

Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority · filed 1998-01-15(c)(1)

Nevertheless, we think that this is an appropriate case for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims in view of the numerous novel and complex issues of state law they raise.

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

Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority · filed 1998-01-15(c)(1)

We thus affirm the District Court's dismissal of Bad Frog's state law claims for damages, but do so in reliance on section 1367(c)(1) (permitting declination of supplemental jurisdiction over claim "that raises a novel or complex issue of State law").

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim presenting a novel issue of first impression.

County of Washington v. Counties of Warren & Washington Industrial Development Agency · filed 1998-01-27(c)(1)

Even if Plaintiffs claim can be considered actionable based on a violation of state law, it would present a novel issue of first impression, requiring this Court to interpret state legislative intent and create new state common law. As such, this Court would be compelled to decline supplemental jurisdiction and defer to state court construction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), making amendment futile.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims presenting complex state-law issues.

Poisso v. Formosa Plastics Group · filed 1998-01-30(c)(1)

This Court has discretion whether to accept jurisdiction under § 1367. Considering the remaining state issues and the complexity surrounding those issues, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that presents a novel or complex state law issue, including a question about waiver of state immunity.

Rossomando v. BD. OF REGENTS OF UNIV. OF NEBRASKA · filed 1998-05-11(c)(1)

Moreover, I have the authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim if that claim is either novel or complex under state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). ... Since that issue would not be present if the contract claim were brought in state court and the state law waiver of immunity issue is both novel and complex, I think it prudent to decline jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that present novel issues with little pertinent state precedent.

Peters v. Cars To Go, Inc. · filed 1998-11-16(c)(1)

While Michigan courts may have addressed some of these issues in a very general sense, the Court finds that due to the lack of specific authority, it should forego deciding issues that are best left to the state cpurts. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ MCPA and other state law claims against Mercury will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

N & N Catering Co., Inc. v. City of Chicago · filed 1999-02-17(c)(1)

Thus, notwithstanding the possibility of abstention and the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, the court exercises its jurisdiction over the Licensees’ § 1983 claims, and declines to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over their state law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an unsettled state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims, leaving the state-law question to state courts.

Williams v. Raytheon Co. · filed 1999-04-06(c)(1), (c)(3)

Whether Williams should be permitted to do so, is best decided by the courts of Massachusetts. ... The court declines jurisdiction over Count II, which will be REMANDED to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a recently enacted state-law claim when its provisions track the federal claims and state-law issues do not predominate.

Adelphia Cable Partners, L.P. v. E & A Beepers Corp. · filed 1999-08-06(c)

Because the Florida statute tracks the federal legislation, it is far more likely that federal issues predominate over state issues, and that federal common law interpreting the parallel statutes will be used in interpreting the state law. The Court finds that the state law issues do not predominate, and that the state law’s novelty does not counsel against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in these circumstances. As such, Defendants’ Motions To Dismiss Count III of the Complaint must be denied.

Section 1367(c)(1) gives district courts discretion to dismiss supplemental state law claims that raise novel or complex issues of state law.

American Civil Liberties Union Ex Rel. Weiner v. City of Florissant · filed 1999-08-16(c)(1)

In doing so, we observe that the district court has ample discretion to dismiss "novel or complex issue[s] of State law." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local law claims presenting an unresolved issue of supervisor liability.

Lopez v. Padilla · filed 1999-09-30(c)(1)

Thus, plaintiffs’ local law claims for individual supervisor liability are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the mandate expressed at 28 U.S.C. § 1367: “(c) the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under a claim ... if (1) the claims raises a novel of complex issues of state law.”

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that present unresolved, novel questions of state law.

Julia v. Janssen, Inc. · filed 2000-03-21(c)(1)

However, if a local decision has not been rendered resolving the issue of individual liability under SINOT at the time of the pretrial conference, the Court will dismiss without prejudice declining its supplemental jurisdiction to allow the litigants to refile before the Commonwealth courts.

Section 1367(c)(1) allows a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel or complex issues of state law.

Hunt v. Elkhart County Sheriff · filed 2000-04-03(c)(1)

In any event, however, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) authorizes the court to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction [if] the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law .... ” This is such a case; the principle legal issues with respect to Dr. Cripe both are issues of first impression. The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction when the state law issues are similar and closely related to the federal issues.

Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Climax Telephone Co. · filed 2000-10-12(c)(1)

The Court also rejects Climax’s argument that it should decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Climax contends that the Court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction because interpretation of §§ 306 and 313 of the MTA present novel and complex issues and no Michigan court has interpreted the statutes at issue. Having reviewed the sections of the MTA at issue, the Court disagrees with Climax’s characterization of the difficulty of the state law issues because they are similar and closely related to the issues presented under federal law.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims that present novel and complex questions of foreign law.

Information Resources, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp. · filed 2001-02-06(c)(1)

Passing the point that the “State” involved is the European Economic Community, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands or Spain (or all of them), the novel and complex issues presented by Article 82 of the Treaty of Rome (to which the United States is not a party) counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over its application to the subsidiaries’ claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims raising novel questions of state law, with comity, economy, convenience and fairness informing its discretion.

Rockey v. Courtesy Motors, Inc. · filed 2001-03-13(c)(1)

Each of these claims would require the court to apply a Michigan statute in an unprecedented fashion, with no guidance from any Michigan appellate court. Sales of extended warranties or motor vehicle service contracts are commonplace. Comity cautions that a federal court should not be the first court to step in and create new state-law liability. Economy, convenience and fairness also weigh against burdening this federal action with an excess overlay of state law. In its discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

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

Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency · filed 2001-08-20(c)(1)

The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Arpin’s claim under section 2103 because it raised an issue of first impression as to how that provision is to be applied. Arpin does not dispute this finding and therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion. See San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478 n. 12 (9th Cir.1998) (under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over novel pendent state law claims).

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

Key v. Grayson · filed 2001-09-05(c)(1)

The Court will also dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs claim under MPDCRA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) because that claim raises a novel and complex issue of state law.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims presenting novel state-law issues.

Crowley v. Cybersource Corp. · filed 2001-09-13(c)(1)

The decision to dismiss the remaining state claims without prejudice rests on another factor from § 1367(c). Where a state claim “raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over it. The state claims raised here address important issues regarding the transmission of information over the Internet. The papers submitted by the parties reveal, by their numerous references to general principles rather than analogous authority, that the California courts have not had ample opportunity to address the applicability of the California tort law at issue in this case to Internet commerce. It should be left to the California courts to, in the first instance, apply California law to this area. Accordingly, Amazon’s motion to dismiss the remaining state claims is granted without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim presenting novel questions of state law when judicial economy does not strongly favor retaining it.

Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n · filed 2002-03-06(c)(1)

Upon close scrutiny I have discovered that an accurate resolution of DSU’s arguments would require me to determine not one, but two distinct questions of first impression under New Jersey Law. Since, for reasons I will explain, there are no strong reasons of economy, judicial or otherwise, to keep the NJLAD and other contribution claims together in one litigation, I will exercise my discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) to dismiss without prejudice the supplemental NJLAD claim against DSU.

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

Ethex Corp. v. First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. · filed 2002-10-01(c)(1)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim. Federal district courts may refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when unsettled questions about the duty at issue and causation present a novel or complex issue of state law.

Cunningham v. Local 30, International Union of Operating Engineers · filed 2002-12-10(c)(1)

However, plaintiffs’ claim involves a union’s duty in the setting of a contract negotiation and a membership ratification vote, a subject that has not been explored in any depth by New York courts. Furthermore, even if plaintiffs could show that the union engaged in bad faith conduct with regard to the negotiations and vote, there remains a question regarding what kind of causal link must be demonstrated between the union’s misconduct and the plaintiffs’ injuries. The issue of causation in this context does not appear settled under New York law. For these reasons, which are explained in more detail below, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction when no unsettled or complex issue of state law has been identified.

Clark v. McDonald's Corp. · filed 2003-03-03(c)(1)

No unsettled or complex feature of state law applicable to this suit has been identified by the Defendants, which is grounds enough for rejecting their challenge under subdivision (c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) does not make an issue of state law novel or complex merely because state courts disagree when controlling circuit precedent resolves it.

Heinemann v. Howe & Rusling · filed 2003-04-29(c)(1)

Tomka is the law in this circuit, and simply because the state courts have not been in complete agreement on whether Tomka was correctly decided does not make the issue of individual liability “novel or complex.”

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain related state-law claims when they do not raise novel or complex issues of state law.

Mann v. Acclaim Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2003-04-29(c)

Moreover, this Court cannot conclude that the OCSPA claims in this ease raise such novel or complex issues of state law as to make exercise of supplemental jurisdiction inappropriate under § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a novel and complex state law claim; retaining such a claim can be an improper exercise of discretion.

K.P. v. Corsey · filed 2003-10-14(c)(1)

We are persuaded that how the N.J.L.A.D. applies to the facts in this case is a novel and complex issue of state law. ... In view of the foregoing uncertainties about applicable state law, we conclude that failing to remand the state law issues to the state courts was not a proper exercise of discretion under the circumstances.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims involving a novel issue of state law, including an unresolved question about a school district’s duty to supervise.

Doe v. Lennox School District No. 41-4 · filed 2003-12-18(c)(1)

The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the claim involves a novel or complex issue of state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Since the South Dakota Supreme Court has not yet defined the duty to supervise in a factual setting similar to the factual setting in the case at hand, the extent of the duty to supervise is the type of issue over which the federal courts should hesitate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... In light of all of the circumstances presented in this case, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to reconsider exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when relevant state-law authority is sparse.

Charlene Brigham, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Brigham Carl Hall Gary Millsap Donald E. Reed v. Eug · filed 2004-02-03(c)

Because the district court appeared to consider the employees’ state-law claims identical to their federal claims, and because we now reverse that court's interpretation of the relevant federal laws, we also remand the employees' state-law claims to the district court for reconsideration — including whether the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over such claims is appropriate in the first instance given the paucity of state law authority on the precise topic at issue in this litigation.

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

Alex G. Ex Rel. Stephen G. v. Board of Trustees of Davis Joint Unified School District · filed 2004-07-30(c)(1)

The statute of limitations and immunity issues are both novel and complex issues of state law. Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the remaining claims raise novel or complex issues of state law.

Hoagland v. TOWN OF CLEAR LAKE, INDIANA · filed 2004-10-28(c)(1)

Courts may also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the supplemental claims raise “novel or complex issue[s] of state law.” ... Hoagland’s supplemental claims certainly fit this description; for example, Hoagland asks this Court to declare that Clear Lake, an Indiana town, has never been “recognized as a legal entity,” or in the alternative, determine the town’s physical boundaries.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when pendent claims require deciding novel and unresolved state law issues, especially when comity favors a state court decision.

Bray v. City of New York · filed 2004-10-28(c)(1)

Even if the doctrine of laches was not a bar, the need to adjudicate novel and complex state law issues militates against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. ... District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 where it would undermine judicial economy, fairness and' comity.

Section 1367(c)(1) supports declining supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim presents novel questions of state or local law that are best resolved by a state court.

Bray v. City of New York · filed 2004-12-23(c)(1)

Thus, the applicability of the parade permit requirement has not been adequately delineated by any federal or state court decision. As such, the City’s counterclaim presents novel questions of state and local law, which militate strongly against exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims while a plaintiff amends a federal claim and to dismiss the state claims without prejudice if the plaintiff does not pursue the federal claim.

Lieber Ex Rel. Invesco Balanced Fund/Inv v. Invesco Funds Group, Inc. · filed 2005-01-20

Pending action by Plaintiff to amend his § 36(b) complaint to name as Defendants the actual recipients of the disputed fees, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims, which do not presently merit dismissal, see infra p. 857. If Plaintiff chooses not to pursue a federal question claim, however, the Court will dismiss without prejudice the state law claims and Plaintiff may pursue them in state court.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law; it does not authorize federal review of such cases.

Morey v. Rhode Island · filed 2005-03-03(c)(1)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) "allows a federal court to review cases that raise novel or complex issues of state law,” Complaint at 1, the statute provides that "[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if — (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (emphasis added).

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

Mitchell v. Street · filed 2005-08-16(c)(1)

For the following reasons, based upon the discretion given to me as stated under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these two counts and dismiss them without prejudice. ... Additionally, I conclude that because Counts II and III raise novel and complex issues of state law, I will decline supplemental jurisdiction over these state constitutional claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim raising novel or complex issues of state law.

WWC HOLDING CO., INC. v. Sopkin · filed 2006-03-08(c)(1)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to Count VI alleging the Commission exceeded its authority under C.R.S. §§ 40-1-103 and 40-15-401. That claim raises novel or complex issues of state law and requires the interpretation of Colorado statutes that must be decided under the procedures for judicial review of agency action set forth in C.R.S. § 40-6-115 and C.R.C.P. 106.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction when unsettled state-law issues may determine the claim.

Williams Electronics Games, Inc. v. Garrity · filed 2007-03-19(c)(1)

The judge identified several issues of unsettled state law that may decide the outcome of Williams’s state-law claim, and this we know is an independent ground for relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims present novel or complex issues better resolved by state courts.

Wilson v. PFS, LLC · filed 2007-05-31(c)(1)

At this point in time, the Unruh Act’s remedial provisions present novel and complex matters of state law that are “better left to the California courts” for interpretation and decision.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state law claims that raise novel and unsettled questions of state law.

Nelson v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, NY · filed 2007-07-02(c)(1)

On the facts before me, however, I do believe that remand of plaintiffs state law claims under § 1367 is both permissible and appropriate. Plaintiffs’ claims concerning the propriety of administrative warrants under New York law, the City’s authority to provide for such warrants, and the authority of NET officers to apply for and execute such warrants, all raise novel and unsettled questions of state law that would more appropriately be heard in the courts of New York State in the first instance.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim presenting a novel issue of state law, leaving the question to state appellate courts.

Erdman v. Nationwide Insurance · filed 2007-08-22(c)(1)

The issue appears to be one of first impression in Pennsylvania. Accordingly, the court believes that deference to the state appellate courts on this issue is appropriate and, therefore, will decline to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs PHRA claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (stating that a court may decline jurisdiction if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law”).

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

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. City of Walnut Creek · filed 2006-04-13(c)(1)

Because the scope of AT & T’s rights under § 7901 is a novel issue of state law, the Court will decline, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to assume supplemental jurisdiction over AT & T’s ninth claim for relief.

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

Kaye v. Board of Trustees of the San Diego County Public Law Library · filed 2007-12-11(c)(1)

The Court concludes that the Complaint’s fifth cause of action raises a novel or complex issue of State law under section 1367(c) and is appropriately resolved by the state courts.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state law claims without prejudice when they present novel issues of state law better addressed by state courts.

Richard v. Oak Tree Group, Inc. · filed 2008-02-12(c)(1)

Plaintiffs’ state law claims present novel issues of substantive state law. Neither party cites Michigan case law interpreting §§ 339.915(a), (e) and (f) in a similar situation. Comity cautions that this court should not create new state-law liability in this case. These issues should be addressed in the first instance by the Michigan state courts. For these reasons, plaintiffs’ state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim raising a novel or complex issue of state law.

Beechy v. Central Michigan District Health Department · filed 2008-04-23(c)(1)

Nevertheless, the district court found the claim posed a “novel or complex issue of State law,” id. § 1367(c)(1), that Michigan courts should ideally resolve without federal interference. ... Given the paucity of decisions interpreting the Right to Farm Act and our “interest in avoiding the unnecessary resolution of state law issues,” Hankins v. The Gap, Inc., 84 F.3d 797, 803 (6th Cir. 1996), we are not left with “a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment,” as required to find the district court abused its discretion.

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

Kujawa v. Palisades Collection, L.L.C. · filed 2008-05-01(c)(1)

Although plaintiffs claim under the MCPA likely parallels its claim under the FDCPA, plaintiffs claim under the MOC under the circumstances here presents a novel question militating against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

In Re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation · filed 2009-04-02(c)(1)

Section 1367(c)(1) states explicitly that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the claim raises a novel or complex issue of [sjtate law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). That is the case here.

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

Garcia Ex Rel. Marin v. Clovis Unified School District · filed 2009-04-16(c)(1)

In light of these considerations, the Court finds that this claim raises novel questions of state law that are better left for the state court system to resolve and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when foreign law claims present novel and complex issues.

In Re Urethane Antitrust Litigation · filed 2010-01-25(c)(1)

Accordingly, based on the presence of novel and complex issues of foreign law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' European law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims presenting complex and unsettled questions of state law.

Otero-Merced v. PREFERRED HEALTH, INC. · filed 2010-01-26(c)(1)

Given the above, we find that the question of whether individual liability exists under Puerto Rico antidiscrimination statutes is, as a general matter, a complex and unsettled issue of Puerto Rico law. When combined with our dismissal of Plaintiffs’ federal claims against Movants, see supra Part III.A, the centrality of the unsettled question compels us to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Puerto Rico antidiscrimination claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel and complex issues of state law.

Rothman v. City of Northfield · filed 2010-06-10(c)(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New Jersey state law claims alleged against the School District Defendants, because the claims raise novel and complex state law issues.

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Con-Way Freight, Inc. · filed 2010-09-22(c)(1)

In the circumstances, we think that the better course is to allow the state courts to decide the matter since "the claim raises ... novel [and] complex issue[s] of State law." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1); Gregory v. Dillard's, Inc., 565 F.3d 464, 477 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 628 (2009).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim raises novel and difficult state law questions and substantially predominates over the federal claim.

Grutman v. Regents of the University of California · filed 2011-08-02(c)(1), (c)(2)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because Plaintiffs claim raises novel and difficult questions of state law, the resolution of which will have significant implications for enforcement of the UCRA. ... In addition, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction shall be declined because Plaintiffs claim for statutory damages under the UCRA predominates over her ADA claim for injunctive relief.

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

Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State Grange · filed 2012-01-19(c)(1)

Furthermore, the court concluded that “even if the parties had a reasonable justification for failing to raise this claim at the outset, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” because the “applicability of article II, section 37 to I-872’s enactment undoubtedly raises novel and complex issues of state constitutional law best decided by the state courts.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (providing that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law”). There was no abuse of discretion.

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

Jean-Laurent v. Wilkerson · filed 2012-05-21(c)(1)

Moreover, Jean-Laurent’s state law claims present some novel and complex issues regarding the application of the New York General Municipal Law as to which, as the Second Circuit has noted in this litigation, there is no clear authority.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a claim presents novel or complex issues of state law.

Brigham Oil & Gas, L.P. v. North Dakota Board of University & School Lands · filed 2012-06-05(c)(1)

Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary where the claims present novel or complex issues of state law.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits dismissal without prejudice of a state-law claim that raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

KG Urban Enterprises, LLC v. Patrick · filed 2012-08-01(c)(1)

We affirm dismissal of the state-law claim without prejudice, particularly because "the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims raise novel and complex questions of state law.

Donohue v. Mangano · filed 2012-08-20(c)(1)

The Court finds that these claims raise novel and complex questions of state law that are better left for the state court system to resolve, and thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when resolving a state law claim would require it to decide a difficult and unsettled state law question.

IWOI, LLC v. Monaco Coach Corp. · filed 2012-08-20(c)(1)

For all of these reasons, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that raise a novel or complex issue of state law.

Alraee v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia · filed 2012-09-05(c)(1)

The Court, however, will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Alraee’s state law claims because these claims raise a novel or complex issue of D.C. law.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise a novel or complex issue of state law.

Hernandez v. Polanco Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2013-08-23(c)(1)

With respect to Plaintiffs state-law claims arising from the restroom-space barrier, the Court determines that they raise “a novel or complex issue of State law” and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. 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 or complex issue of state law.

Peart v. Latham and Watkins LLP · filed 2013-10-23(c)(1)

Finally, the Court holds that Ms. Peart’s claims of breach of an implied contract, wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of DCHRA are not novel or complex issues of state law that lie beyond the ken of this Court.

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

Brown v. Hatch · filed 2013-10-30(c)(1)

This belief is rooted in the statutory language providing that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). The Court believes that the Michigan courts are better situated to address claims arising under Michigan law, particularly when the claims involve sensitive matters of state law such as those raised in the present action. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I — II, IV-V.

Section 1367(c)(1) does not justify declining supplemental jurisdiction based on asserted novel or complex issues of foreign law without adequate record support.

Mamani v. Berzaín · filed 2014-05-20(c)(1)

Without adequate record support, the Court declines Defendants’ invitation to forgo exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims on the ground that they involve “novel or complex” issues of Bolivian law.

Section 1367(c)(1) does not make state law claims too complex for supplemental jurisdiction merely because they are pleaded under the laws of multiple jurisdictions in the alternative.

David v. Signal International, LLC · filed 2014-08-12(c)(1)

At present, Plaintiffs’ state law claims are pled under Indian law, Texas law, and Mississippi law, and sometimes in the alternative. The fact that the claims are pled in the alternative does not render them complex. Once the parties fully brief, and the Court decides, which law applies to which state law claim, Signal’s fears of complexity will be abated. Signal has not pointed to any provision of state law which is so “novel” or “complex” as to warrant declining the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when a claim raises a novel or complex state law issue.

James v. Hampton · filed 2015-01-07(c)(1)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, among other reasons, if the claim “raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits, but does not require, a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

Bailey v. City of Chicago · filed 2015-03-06(c)(1)

This may well be the case, but § 1367(c)(1) states that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where a state law claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law; it does not require a district court to do so.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a claim presents sufficiently complex issues of Colombian law.

Doe v. Drummond Company, Inc. · filed 2015-03-25(c)(1)

After the district court explicitly noted that it had considered the briefs and evidentiary submissions before it, the court properly considered our guidance in Romero and concluded that the similar claims herein raised “sufficiently complex” issues, rendering it “impossible for th[e] court to navigate the Colombian law requisites.” The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the wrongful death claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims raise novel or complex issues of state law.

Hellwege v. Tampa Family Health Centers · filed 2015-04-10(c)(1)

First, while a court ordinarily must exercise supplemental jurisdiction, it may chose not to when, for example, “the state claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” ... In the present matter, the Court finds that whether Hellwege has alleged a private cause of action under either statute presents a novel and complex issue of state law.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims that raise novel issues of state law, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Cannon v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-04-17(c)(1)

Federal district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, among other things, “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Plaintiffs’ D.C. law claims appear to be novel. Our review of the District Court’s declination of supplemental jurisdiction is deferential. We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ D.C. law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits dismissal of a supplemental state-law claim raising a novel or complex issue of state law, and reinstatement of federal claims does not undo that ground for dismissal.

Smith v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of School Comm'rs · filed 2015-06-11(c)(1)

However, to do so would have been futile because the district court also dismissed the state claims under § 1367(c)(1). ... This court’s reversal of summary judgment on the federal claims would not have cured the novelty or complexity of the claims under Tennessee statute. As a result, the state statutory claims were no longer a part of the case after the district court dismissed them.

Section 1367(c)(1) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim is novel, even if it is not complex.

Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2015-09-03(c)(1)

Additionally, § 1367(c)(1) grants district courts the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, even if the claims were not complex—and they are complex— the claims’ novelty would be sufficient to vest the District Court with discretion.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim raising a novel or complex issue of state law; it does not warrant declining jurisdiction when the issue is sufficiently settled.

Center for Powell Crossing, LLC v. City of Powell · filed 2016-03-25(c)(1)

A federal district court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that “raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). The claim raised here is not so novel or complex as to warrant the court declining to exercise jurisdiction.

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

St. Augustine School v. Evers · filed 2017-06-06(c)(1)

And because the proper interpretations of “religious denomination” and “sponsoring group” present novel questions of state law, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state-law claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that presents a novel or complex issue of state law.

Emery v. Helder · filed 2018-02-05(c)(1)

There, the Court declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the ADTPA claim, finding that it presented a novel or complex issue of state |aw. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim where a novel or complex issue of state law is presented). ... The Court believes the same course of action should be taken in this case and therefore declines to exercise'supplemental jurisdiction over the ADTPA ciaim.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel issues requiring interpretation of state law.

Gorenc v. Klaassen · filed 2019-08-01(c)(1)

The state law claims also raise a novel theory in that they seek to impose liability on a private party for declining to enter into a contract with other private parties. Addressing this theory and the arguments for dismissing the state law claims appears to require interpretation of a state statute and a state administrative regulation. ... For these reasons, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts IV and V of plaintiffs’ Complaint, as against the Laborists and Adventist.