28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(1) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction merely because parties make novel state-law arguments involving garden-variety causes of action.

Meier v. UHS of Delaware, Inc. · filed 2019-12-02(c)(1)

The only relevant statutory factor here is § 1367(c)(1), which states that the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when a claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law. ... The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs’ state-law ... claims—which Defendants acknowledge are based on “garden-variety” causes of action—are too novel or complex for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing a state-law claim without prejudice when it raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

Anderson v. Detroit Transit Company · filed 2020-01-27(c)(1)

However, the court will dismiss without prejudice Anderson’s PWDCRA claim against Walker individually. The claim involves a novel and complex issue of state law and the court will not continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining claim raising a novel and complex issue of state law after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Zhang v. County of Monterey · filed 2020-02-10(c)(1)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Zhang’s remaining claim under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1085. The court had already dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, and it determined that the claim raised a novel and complex issue of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when unsettled issues of state law and comity outweigh the efficiencies of retaining jurisdiction.

Muschette v. West Hartford · filed 2020-03-25(c)(1)

However, after considering the parties’ arguments in connection with the pending motion, and the authorities cited in their respective briefs, I think the motion requires resolution of unsettled issues of state law, which tips the balance in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

A pending petition for state supreme court review does not make a state law issue novel under § 1367(c)(1) when an intermediate state appellate court has already addressed the issue.

ESI/Employee Solutions, LP v. City of Dallas · filed 2020-03-30(c)(1)

The City claims that, because there is a petition for review of the Austin court’s order pending before the Texas Supreme Court, this case presents a novel issue of law. But as the State has correctly noted, such a reading of “novel” under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) would mean that, even where a state’s highest court had established a legal standard, any new set of facts involving the application of that standard in federal court would present a “novel” issue. The Court is unaware of any precedent supporting the City’s unusual interpretation and rejects such a strained and unworkable construction of the statute.

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.

Woolard v. Santiago · filed 2020-04-30(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

Smart v. City of Wichita, Kansas · filed 2020-07-14(c)(1)

However, when a state-law claim “raises a novel or complex issue of State law” the court does have discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.25 Here, whether plaintiffs’ negligence claim is viable or whether it must be construed as an untimely battery claim is a complex issue of Kansas law, the nuances of which Kansas courts are in the midst of defining. Under these circumstances, the court finds it prudent to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction when an unsettled issue of state law has not been shown to be unusual or complex.

Martin v. Public Service Company of Colorado · filed 2020-07-21(c)(1)

Though Mrs. Martin may be correct that Colorado courts have yet to address a failure to promote claim in which the job vacancy was not yet posted, she has not shown that this issue is unusual or complex such that this Court is ill-equipped to address it.

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

Avenmarg v. Humboldt County · filed 2020-08-04(c)(1)

Therefore, the court finds the issue to be a novel and complex issue of California law, and, thus, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

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

Smith v. DeGirolamo · filed 2020-09-25(c)(1)

The court believes the prudent course is to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, pursuant to § 1367(c)(1), and leave any novel questions of New York state law to be decided by New York state courts.

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.

Stevenson v. Quiros · filed 2020-12-07(c)(1)

Thus, the Court concludes that it is inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these 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 when the remaining state-law claims involve complex issues of state law better decided by a state court.

Abron v. Barrilleaux · filed 2021-01-15(c)(1)

Declining supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate where, as here, a state court is better positioned to determine the application of its own state statute, particularly in an area of complex state law.

Section 1367(c)(1) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over a foreign-law claim when its potential complexity rests on speculation about future legal developments.

Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. · filed 2021-01-22(c)(1)

In my view, that speculation does not introduce enough potential complexity to warrant declining jurisdiction over the Israeli law claims based on Section 1367(c)(1) considerations.

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.

Ariza v. Walters & Mason Retail, Inc · filed 2021-02-01(c)(1)

Under § 1367(c), the Court has “discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . in four situations.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Plaintiff does not cite, nor has the Court been able to locate, a single Florida case to clarify whether a trespass claim would lie under Florida law in the circumstances alleged in this case. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s trespass claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction for a purportedly novel state-law issue when the applicable state-law rule is settled.

Arnold v. Town of Camillus, New York · filed 2021-02-01(c)(1)

As the parties otherwise agree that Plaintiff's state and federal discrimination and retaliation claims should be litigated together, and since the application of Town Law § 67 to Plaintiff's New York State Human Rights law claims is well settled, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion insofar as she seeks remand of these claims.

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.

Lopez-Motherway v. City of Long Beach · filed 2021-03-15(c)(1)

The claim arrives by way of supplemental jurisdiction, and a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if a claim “raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). ... Therefore, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim for malicious prosecution.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim presents potentially novel legal questions whose resolution would delay the case.

Doe v. Fulton County School District · filed 2021-03-23(c)(1)

The Court recognizes that it may exercise supplemental authority over Plaintiff's Open Records Act claim but declines in its discretion to do so pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(c)(1). At this juncture, the Court views the ORA questions posed as falling potentially in a murky and novel legal terrain that would take some time to resolve and which would only further delay this case from moving forward promptly.

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

Giraud v. Feder · filed 2021-04-19(c)(1)

Because the Connecticut Supreme Court has yet to recognize a private cause of action for money damages for violations of Article First, Section 9 in the context of a claim for deliberate indifference to an incarcerated individual’s serious medical need, adjudicating the claim would necessarily raise novel or complex issues of state law. Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Giraud’s state constitutional claim.

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

Giraud v. Cuevas · filed 2021-04-19(c)(1)

Because the Connecticut Supreme Court has yet to recognize a private cause of action for money damages for violations of Article First, Section 9 in the context of a claim for deliberate indifference to an incarcerated individual’s serious medical need, adjudicating the claim would necessarily raise novel or complex issues of state law. Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Giraud’s state constitutional claim.

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

Ortega v. City of St. Louis, Missouri · filed 2021-08-02(c)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises a novel or complex issue of State law. The Court here exercises its discretion and declines to consider plaintiff’s Count 11 claim of vicarious liability under the City Charter.

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

BROWN v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY · filed 2021-08-18(c)(1)

Given the lack of evidence that the Maine Legislature intended to create a private right of action and the novelty of this state law question, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count IX.

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

Catlett v. Washington · filed 2021-08-19(c)(1)

Given the importance of resolving novel issues of State law in the State Courts, this Court will exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Michigan State Constitution claim.

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

Baltas v. Erfe · filed 2021-08-31(c)(1)

The court concludes that it would be inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over potential claims under Article First § 8 of 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 “raises a novel or complex issue of State Law. . . .”).

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.

MOORE v. City of Syracuse · filed 2021-09-02(c)(1)

Under that statute, district courts are vested with the discretion to decline to exercise that jurisdiction if a claim “raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). ... In short, the Court is satisfied that determining whether Moore’s claims are timely would involve grappling with a novel issue of New York state law dealing directly with the administration of the state’s government. The Court must therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims require resolving a novel issue of state law concerning the administration of state government.

Johnston, M.D. M.P.H. v. City of Syracuse · filed 2021-09-02(c)(1)

In short, the Court is satisfied that determining whether Johnston’s claims are timely would involve grappling with a novel issue of New York state law dealing directly with the administration of the state’s government. The Court must therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

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.

Newbold v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri · filed 2021-09-07(c)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises a novel or complex issue of State law. The undersigned agrees with Judges Noce and Perry that supplemental jurisdiction should be declined with regard to this novel and complex issue of State law.

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

Davis v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri · filed 2021-09-13(c)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises a novel or complex issue of State law. The undersigned agrees with Judges Noce and Perry that supplemental jurisdiction should be declined with regard to this novel and complex issue of State law.

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

Balow v. Michigan State University · filed 2021-09-22(c)(1)

The Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim where it “raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” where it “substantially predominates” over the federal claims, or if, “in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(4). ... Here, Plaintiffs assert their ELCRA claim against individuals, which raises a novel issue of state law. The state court should decide that issue in the first instance.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims raising unsettled questions of state law and dismiss them without prejudice.

Dixon v. Lupis · filed 2021-09-24(c)(1)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claim asserted under Article First, § 4 or § 14 of the Connecticut Constitution and dismisses the claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that presents an unsettled issue of state law.

Gawlik v. Semple · filed 2021-09-27(c)(1)

Because Connecticut courts do not appear to have clearly addressed that issue, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim requires interpretation of an unsettled issue that state appellate courts have not addressed.

Laney v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri · filed 2021-09-28(c)(1)

Because the viability of Counts 3-5 and 7 against the City rests upon the interpretation of Missouri law that Missouri appellate courts have not yet undertaken, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

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

Laird v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri · filed 2021-09-29(c)(1)

As the other judges that have considered this issue have done, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the undersigned will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim because it raises “complex and unsettled questions of state law preemption over obscure municipal ordinance.” Street, 2021 WL 677909, at *14; Ortega, 2021 WL 3286703, at *19; Davis, 2021 WL 4148331, at *11. Such novel issues of state law should be addressed by the state courts in the first instance.

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

Gullett v. City of St. Louis · filed 2021-09-29(c)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises a novel or complex issue of State law. The undersigned agrees with Judges Perry, Noce and Autrey that supplemental jurisdiction should be declined with regard to this novel and complex issue of State law.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises novel and complex issues of state law more appropriately resolved by state courts.

Ziegler v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri · filed 2021-09-29(c)(1)

Three judges in this District recently declined to consider this claim, finding it raises novel and complex issues of statutory construction and conflicts of law that would be more appropriately resolved first by Missouri state courts. Davis, 2021 WL 4148331, at *11; Newbold, 2021 WL 4061066, at *11; Ortega, 2021 WL 3286703, at *19; Street, 2021 WL 677909, at *13-14. This Court agrees and likewise declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises novel and complex questions better resolved first by state courts.

Thomas v. City of St. Louis · filed 2021-09-29(c)(1)

Three judges in this District recently declined to consider this claim, finding it raises novel and complex issues of statutory construction and conflicts of law that would be more appropriately resolved first by Missouri state courts. Davis, 2021 WL 4148331, at *11; Newbold, 2021 WL 4061066, at *11; Ortega, 2021 WL 3286703, at *19; Street, 2021 WL 677909, at *13-14. This Court agrees and likewise declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim raising complex and unsettled questions of state law that should be addressed by state courts first.

Alston v. City of St. Louis, Missouri · filed 2021-09-30(c)(1)

As the other judges that have considered this issue have done, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the undersigned will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim because it raises “complex and unsettled questions of state law preemption over obscure municipal ordinance.” Street, 2021 WL 677909, at *14; Ortega, 2021 WL 3286703, at *19; Davis, 2021 WL 4148331, at *11. Such novel issues of state law should be addressed by the state courts in the first instance.

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

Giraud v. Cuevas · filed 2021-10-06(c)(1)

In my previous order, I determined that adjudicating that state constitutional claim would raise novel or complex issues of state law. Giraud’s inclusion of that claim in his amended complaint similarly does not alter that original conclusion or revive that claim, and the claim is therefore dismissed. ... I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim seeking monetary damages for a violation of Article First, § 9 of the Connecticut Constitution and dismiss that claim without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims involving novel or complex state law after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Smith v. Dunn (DEATH PENALTY) · filed 2021-10-15(c)(1)

In this action, Smith raises claims involving “novel and complex issues of state law,” specifically, the interpretation of state statutes and the application of a state constitutional amendment. (See Docs. 19, 20.) In deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims, this court must consider the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. See Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Labs., Inc., 803 F.3d 518, 537 (11th Cir. 2015). Upon consideration of these factors, the court concludes that it should decline to exercise jurisdiction in this instance.

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

Giraud v. Feder · filed 2021-11-02(c)(1)

In my previous order, I determined that adjudicating that constitutional claim would raise novel or complex issues of state law. Giraud includes no facts in his amended complaint that would alter my conclusion that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over that claim would not be appropriate, and the claim is therefore dismissed without prejudice. ... I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim seeking monetary damages for a violation of Article First, § 9 of the Connecticut Constitution and DISMISS that claim without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when state decisions provide sufficient guidance to resolve it.

Thoms v. Maricopa County Community College District · filed 2021-11-05(c)(1)

Thus, because the Arizona courts have provided sufficient guidance 3 on the interpretation and application of FERA, this Court will exercise supplemental 4 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claim.

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.

Ford v. Jindal · filed 2022-03-31(c)(1)

Furthermore, the Court finds that the proposed state-law claims raise novel and complex issues of state law. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims in Plaintiff’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint.

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

Britton v. Rodriguez · filed 2022-04-25(c)(1)

Because Plaintiff asserts state law claims that derive from the same factual predicate as his plausible Eighth Amendment excessive force claims, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s plausible state law claims that do not raise a novel and complex issue of 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 state-law claim that raises novel and complex issues, including unresolved questions about whether a municipal ordinance creates a private cause of action.

Woods v. City of St. Louis, MO · filed 2022-04-25(c)(1)

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

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.

Baltas v. Dones · filed 2022-04-27(c)(1)

Because Baltas’s section 52-556 claim raises a novel issue of state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim under § 1367(c)(1) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” that “raises a novel or complex issue of State Law....”).

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

Latimer v. AT&T Mobility LLC · filed 2022-06-01(c)(1)

The Court finds that unresolved state law issues regarding the stand-alone CEMA claim justify declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

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

Witzke v. Rieck · filed 2022-07-07(c)(1)

Because Witzke’s False Imprisonment Claim against Trooper McLean presents a novel and potentially difficult question of Michigan law, the Court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel and undeveloped issues of state law, even when they share facts with surviving federal claims.

Rahim v. Barsto · filed 2022-07-12(c)(1)

Thus, the Court concludes that it is inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these 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 a claim that raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

Faulk v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri · filed 2022-07-27(c)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises a novel or complex issue of State law. Upon consideration, the undersigned agrees that supplemental jurisdiction should be declined with regard to this novel and complex issue of State law. The Court therefore will dismiss Count XII without prejudice.

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

Carhartt, Inc. v. COSTA DEL MAR, INC. · filed 2022-08-26(c)(1)

Because adjudication of the legal issues raised by the MCPA claim would require a novel and complex interpretation of the Michigan law, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

De Mian v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri · filed 2022-09-06(c)(1)

The issues Olsten’s crossclaim raise are novel and complex issues of state law that have not yet been interpreted by Missouri appellate courts. ... As such, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the crossclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims when it is unclear whether state law provides private rights of action for those claims.

Baltas v. Chapdelaine · filed 2022-09-30(c)(1)

In addition, “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). In this case, it is unclear whether there are private rights of action for many of plaintiffs’ state constitutional claims. See Binette v. Sabo, 710 A.2d 688, 700 (Conn. 1998) (“Whether to recognize a cause of action for alleged violations of other state constitutional provisions in the future must be determined on a case-by- case basis.”). This counsels against exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Richard v. Martin · filed 2022-10-06(c)(1)

Given that ... the provisions at issue raise novel and undeveloped issues of state law, and out of deference to the State as the final arbiter of its own constitution, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims that the defendants violated Richard’s rights under Article First §§ 1, 3, and 8 of the Connecticut Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (“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 federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over novel and complex state constitutional claims when recognizing a private cause of action would require developing unsettled state law.

Santana v. Quiros · filed 2022-11-04(c)(1)

Because Counts Two and Five present a question of furthering state law on a case-by-case basis with regard to novel and complex claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Quint v. Lamont · filed 2022-12-06(c)(1)

Given that these are novel and undeveloped issues of state law—and out of deference to the State as the final arbiter of its own constitution—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Quint’s state constitutional claims.

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

Quint v. Martin · filed 2023-01-19(c)(1)

Given that these are novel and undeveloped issues of state law and out of deference to the State as the final arbiter of its own constitution, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Quint’s state constitutional claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (“The district court 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 a claim that raises novel or complex issues of state law.

Amancio v. Deperry · filed 2023-01-27(c)(1)

The claim against the Old Saybrook is precisely the type of “novel” and “complex issues of state law[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), over which, the Second Circuit has cautioned district courts against exercising their supplemental jurisdiction authority.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a novel, undeveloped state constitutional claim when economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor resolution by the state courts.

Ibbison v. Quiros · filed 2023-02-03(c)(1)

This is therefore a novel and undeveloped issue of state law, and the Court finds that economy, convenience, fairness, and comity will be served by deferring to the State of Connecticut as the final arbiter of its own constitution, see Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s excessive force claim under Article First, Section 7 of the Connecticut Constitution.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a former attorney’s fee dispute that raises numerous substantial state-law issues.

James v. Davies · filed 2023-02-06(c)(1)

Even this preliminary list leaves no doubt of the broad range of substantial state law issues raised by Intervenors’ and Plaintiffs’ dispute or that this dispute raises “novel or complex issue[s] of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

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

Mohr v. Erie County Legislature · filed 2023-02-27(c)(1)

Because Mohr’s federal claims are subject to dismissal for lack of standing, and in light of the apparently novel questions of state law raised in Mohr’s ... complaint, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim at this stage.

Section 1367(c)(1) does not favor declining supplemental jurisdiction when existing state law supplies guidance for resolving the state-law claims.

Lusk v. Guggenheim · filed 2023-03-14(c)(1)

Considering the first § 1367(c) factor, the court agrees with Newman that the plaintiffs’ claims do not raise novel or complex issues of state law.

Section 1367 allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims despite complex state-law issues when those issues are neither novel nor unsettled.

MC Trilogy Texas LLC v. City of Heath Texas · filed 2023-03-16(c)(1)

Although there are complex state-law issues involved in this case, the court is not persuaded that any issue is unsettled or novel rather than being simply complicated. ... Accordingly, the court concludes that it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over MC Trilogy’s state-law claims, and it declines to abstain under Pullman.

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

Rahim v. Barsto · filed 2023-04-10(c)(1)

The Court will not depart from its prior decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rahim’s claims under Article First, sections 9 and 20 of the Connecticut Constitution that raise new and undeveloped issues under state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

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

Asberry v. Little Rock School District · filed 2023-06-20(c)(1)

The novelty and complexity of the issue is an adequate ground on its own to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Beny v. University of Michigan · filed 2023-07-07(c)(1)

Because interpreting the scope of liability under the PWDCRA is a task “best reserved for review by the Michigan courts themselves, who have greater experience and interest in clarifying Michigan law,” the better course is to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the individual PWDCRA claim against defendant West.

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

Baltas v. Bowers · filed 2023-07-21(c)(1)

Accordingly, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Baltas’ claims under Article first, sections 1, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 20 of the Connecticut Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” raising “a novel or complex issue of State law”).

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

Thorsen v. Community Unit School District 300 · filed 2023-08-15(c)(1)

Therefore, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II and IV as it raises complex and novel issues 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.

Laurencin v. West Hartford · filed 2023-09-28(c)(1)

A district court may, however, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that “raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Laurencin’s state constitutional claim relies on a novel and undeveloped issue of state law, and several judges in this District have disagreed about its proper resolution.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims raising novel or complex state law issues, including an appeal of a zoning denial.

TERAMORE DEVELOPMENT LLC v. LOWNDES COUNTY GEORGIA · filed 2023-10-20(c)(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law.” ... Accordingly, the Court will follow the example set by other Georgia district courts and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count I because its claims involve appeals of a zoning denial.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim requires a complex and novel application of state trust law.

Jerry Falwell, Jr. v. Liberty University · filed 2023-12-04(c)(1)

The statutory exception to supplemental jurisdiction where the claim “raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(1), also applies here.

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

Gallagher v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 2024-02-09(c)(1)

Further, the Court finds that Gallagher’s state law claims raise complex issues of state law, and thus to the extent that any state law claims are not subject to administrative exhaustion, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

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

Ibbison v. Scagliarni · filed 2024-02-14(c)(1)

Given that this is a novel and undeveloped issue of state law, and out of deference to the State as the final arbiter of its own constitution, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s excessive force claim under Article first, section 7 of the Connecticut Constitution.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a novel issue better addressed by state courts.

Kane v. Loyola University Of Chicago · filed 2024-03-18(c)(1)

Because whether the PVSHEA implies a private right of action is a novel issue that is more appropriately addressed by Illinois courts, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ PSVHEA claim.

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

Jenkins v. Hartford Police Department · filed 2024-03-18(c)(1)

Absent sufficient guidance from Connecticut courts, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim insofar as it raises new and undeveloped issues under state law.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims raising an unresolved question whether the state provision is self-executing.

Phillips v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia · filed 2024-03-20(c)(1)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state claims because they raise “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 claims that raise novel or complex issues of state law.

Jordan v. Dept. of Correction · filed 2024-05-31(c)(1)

As Mr. Jordan raises claims of novel and undeveloped issues of state law, and out of deference to the State as the final arbiter of its state statutory law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Jordan’s claims brought under the Connecticut Constitution, the Protect Act, and the Officer Accountability Act.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law; that inquiry is distinct from LMRA preemption.

Sullivan v. Gelb · filed 2024-06-17(c)(1)

This is correct. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law . . . .” The law governing supplemental jurisdiction is distinct from that governing LMRA preemption.

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

Crispin v. State of Connecticut · filed 2024-08-19(c)(1)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim, which appears to raise a novel interpretation of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (noting that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that “raises a novel or complex issue of State Law....”).

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

Sakon v. State of Connecticut · filed 2024-09-04(c)(1)

“[I]t is inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [the plaintiff’s] claims brought under the Connecticut constitution that raise new and undeveloped issues under state law.” ... Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims under the Connecticut Constitution in Counts 1 and 3.

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.

Hague v. Kent, County of · filed 2024-09-09(c)(1)

At any rate, to the extent Hague has a right to pursue a claim under the Michigan Constitution, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim because it 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 a claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

Reyes v. The City of New York · filed 2024-09-30(c)(1)

Courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that “raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). As the Court found in the PI Order, “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.” Reyes, 2023 WL 7212192, at *10. Moreover, the federal claims remains in this action. Accordingly, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the Right to Record Act claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that raise complex issues of state law.

Brujac v. Sharp · filed 2025-01-08(c)(1)

In the instant case, plaintiff’s state law claims, if any, would raise complex issues of state law. As such, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction will be declined.

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

Rios v. Max Mara USA Inc. · filed 2025-01-10(c)(1)

Furthermore, courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that present novel or complex issues of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Here, the Court holds that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims would be inappropriate because of unsettled state law regarding the NYSHRL and NYCHRL pleading standards.

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

Calonge v. City Of San Jose · filed 2025-01-15(c)(1)

The Court therefore finds it appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the CPRA claim based on the novel and complex issues of state law at issue here.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims presenting an unsettled question of state law and dismiss them without prejudice.

Brown v. Avon Machining, LLC · filed 2025-01-17(c)(1)

Accordingly, this Court will decline to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Counts IV and V against Defendants Thompson and Walsh, and those counts will be dismissed without prejudice as to those Defendants only.

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

Thompson v. Beausoleil · filed 2025-02-07(c)(1)

Count Four proceeds under Connecticut state law, and while its claims are so related to Plaintiff’s federal claims that supplemental jurisdiction might be exercised, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (providing that federal courts “shall” have authority to hear such closely-related claims although there otherwise is no federal jurisdiction), the court finds that the claim presents a novel and complex question of state law, such that it should decline supplemental jurisdiction. Id. § 1367(c)(1).

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

Burgess v. Barone · filed 2025-03-04(c)(1)

Although the Court has permitted Plaintiff to proceed on his Eighth Amendment claims, the Court declines at this juncture to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because such claims raise novel questions of state law.

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

Linardos v. Juthani · filed 2025-03-21(c)(1)

In addition, because Ms. Linardos’s claims under the Connecticut Constitution “raise[] a novel or complex issue of State law,” the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, and any amendment would be futile. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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.

Sakon v. Connecticut · filed 2025-03-24(c)(1)

Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims under the Connecticut Constitution in Counts 5 and 9.

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

McBeth v. City of New York · filed 2025-03-28(c)(1)

Here, Plaintiff’s remaining claims involve unsettled questions of state law with respect to the pleading standards for NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims.

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

Lucas v. Quiros · filed 2025-04-18(c)(1)

Here, Plaintiff's claims present new contexts for a cause of action under the Connecticut Constitution, and because recognizing such a cause of action presents a novel and complex issue of state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claims and dismisses them without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to pursue them in state court.

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

Harnage v. Guadarrama · filed 2025-05-07(c)(1)

To the extent Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for asserted violations of Article First, §§ 1 and 20 of the Connecticut Constitution, I decline at this juncture to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because they raise novel questions of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(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”).

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

Gautier v. Los Angeles Police Department · filed 2025-06-17(c)(1)

Because the district court found that question to be complex and inadequately briefed, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice for filing in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

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.

Goldsboro v. Doe · filed 2025-08-05(c)(1)

This lack of clarity presents “a novel or complex issue of [s]tate law” permitting the court to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) does not require a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction merely because state courts disagree on a state-law issue.

Gordon v. Riverdale SNF, LLC · filed 2025-08-18(c)(1)

Ultimately, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that, where there is a split among state courts, a federal court need not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

SPECHT v. COUNTY OF HUDSON · filed 2025-09-08(c)(1)

Therefore, to the extent the Plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim rests on arguments about double discipline or progressive discipline, see Complaint ¶¶ 26-28, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1)'s novel or complex state-law issue factor does not favor remand when the pleaded claim rests on established state negligence principles.

Wiley v. Fleet Farm LLC · filed 2025-09-09(c)(1)

The Court agrees that the theories of liability pleaded by Plaintiffs against Truck Yard implicate well-established principles of state negligence law. Accordingly, this factor does not weigh in favor of remanding this case.

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

Omnis Health Life, LLC v. Optum, Inc. · filed 2025-09-17(c)(1)

It is also salient that the case presents at least one novel or complex issue of Maryland law, for which litigation in a State court is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (stating that district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it “raises a novel or complex issue of State law”).

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

Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York · filed 2025-09-30(c)(1)

Regardless of whether the issue has been adequately pleaded, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim, as it “raises a novel or complex issue of State law”—namely, whether a broken bone necessarily qualifies as a disability under NYCHRL. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim presenting an unresolved question of state constitutional law.

HEARD · filed 2025-10-28(c)(1)

Given that the New Jersey Supreme Court has yet to address whether the New Jersey State Constitution requires probable cause or reasonableness when school searches are conducted in conjunction with or at the behest of law enforcement, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s New Jersey constitutional claims as to unreasonable search and seizure. ... Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), School Defendants’ and City Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s claim arising under Article I, Paragraph 7 is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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.

Cabral · filed 2026-01-06(c)(1)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining FRFRA claim since it “raises novel or complex issue of State law.”

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

Livingston v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America · filed 2026-01-22(c)(1)

To the extent Plaintiff requests that the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction, the Court disagrees that there are complex or novel issues of state law.

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

Grieb · filed 2026-01-29(c)(1)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Grieb’s remaining state-law claims since they “raise[] novel or complex issue[s] of State law.” 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a novel or complex state-law claim; the court may defer that decision when the claim remains unclear early in the case.

McLaney · filed 2026-02-10(c)(1)

A federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it raises a novel or complex issue of state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). However, making such a determination at this stage of the case would be premature. The case is still at its earliest stages, discovery has not yet commenced, and the full contours of Claim Two are unclear to the Court (and the Parties, as well). It would not be in the interest of justice to make such a determination at this time.

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

Dapelo v. De Mexico · filed 1991-06-20(c)(1)

The factors listed by the Supreme Court in Gibbs were recently codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), which includes in subsection (1) a provision permitting a Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction if the "claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law."

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim raises an unresolved question of state statutory immunity.

Williams v. Paxton · filed 2022-11-28(c)(1)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claims that Williams brings against the Doe defendants.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims raising unsettled questions of state law even when a federal claim remains.

Walsh v. National Westminster Bancorp., Inc. · filed 1995-12-15(c)(1)

The plaintiff is correct that § 1367(a) permits the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where even one federal claim remains. And, she is also correct that the law does not require the Court to decline jurisdiction in such a case. ... Section 1367(c)(1) specifically provides that a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction where “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” ... Accordingly, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs Second and Third causes of action under the New York State Human Rights Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when they predominate over federal claims or all claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Ganzi v. Washington-Baltimore Regional 2012 Coalition · filed 2000-05-25(c)(2), (c)(3)

This alone is a basis-for dismissal under subsection (3) of section 1367(c)(dismissal of all claims over which Court had original jurisdiction). The same may also be said of subsection (2), which permits dismissal where the common law claims predominate over the federal claim. That certainly is the case here where only one of the seven original claims in the Complaint was the RICO claim. ... In any event, subsections (2) and (3) each serve as an independent basis to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (3) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate or all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Harmon v. Bogart · filed 2020-11-09(c)(2), (c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to § 1367(c)(2) (claims substantially predominate over the claim in which the court had original jurisdiction) and (3) (dismissal of all claims over which it had original jurisdiction).

Section 1367(c)(2) and (3) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate or all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Pierce v. Hearne Independent School District · filed 2015-01-07(c)(2), (c)(3)

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Pierces’ federal claims, we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Pierces’ state-law claims against Trojacek’s father on the basis of the second and third Section 1367(c) factors.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims even when subsection (a) permits jurisdiction.

Doe v. Douglas County School District RE-1 · filed 1991-08-16(c)

Although I may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, see 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a) (effective Dec. 1, 1990), I decline to do so pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) limits a court’s discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction to the four grounds listed in that subsection.

Cedillo v. Valcar Enterprises & Darling Delaware Co. · filed 1991-10-01(c)

But the statute also cabins that discretion by mandating that supplemental jurisdiction be exercised unless one of the categories in § 1367(c) is met.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law counterclaims when none of its grounds for declining jurisdiction applies.

Tigard Electric, Inc. v. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n · filed 1992-02-19(c)

I further conclude that none of the bases for declining jurisdiction specified under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) apply, and it appears at this time that litigation of both the claims and counterclaims in a single forum will promote judicial economy.

Supplemental jurisdiction does not extend to state law claims when the federal claim is insubstantial.

Siefkes v. Nichols · filed 1992-02-28

When the federal law claim is insubstantial, a district court is not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. ... Siefkes’ state law claims are dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 limits when a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims.

Com. of Mass. v. Mosbacher · filed 1992-03-13(c)

Section 1367 may be read to make the exercise of such jurisdiction virtually mandatory. ... subsection (c) strictly limits the circumstances in which a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... None of those circumstances is applicable here.

Section 1367(c) does not permit a district court to remand part of an action properly removed by a foreign state under § 1441(d) while claims against the foreign state remain.

In re Surinam Airways Holding Company · filed 1992-09-23(c)

For the reasons set forth above, we now direct the district court to rescind that portion of its order remanding the plaintiffs' claims to state court on the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The court is further directed to exercise its jurisdiction over all of the claims asserted in the two consolidated actions removed to the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d).

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline a supplemental state law claim when state courts are better suited to interpret the governing state law.

Rose v. City of Los Angeles · filed 1993-01-22(c)

However, the California state courts are better suited to interpret the California laws. Under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) this Court declines to consider this claim.

Section 1367(c) permits, but does not require, a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when one of its listed grounds is present.

Globe Indemnity Co. v. Wrenn Insurance Agency · filed 1993-03-23(c)

In any event, if one or more of the above criteria are present, § 1367(c) says the Court may (not must) decline to exercise its jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not support supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff has no viable federal cause of action.

Occhino v. Lannon · filed 1993-05-17(c)(3)

As a consequence, this Court does not possess the supplemental jurisdiction to entertain those claims of the Plaintiff which are premised upon the Constitution and the Laws of the State of Minnesota.

Section 1367 does not warrant exercising supplemental jurisdiction to resolve a grievance about state officials’ interpretation of state law when the federal claim cannot remedy that alleged error.

Burgess v. Ryan · filed 1993-06-14

But Burgess and the defendants are not of diverse citizenship, and an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 would be inappropriate.

Section 1367 permits a federal district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related claims, so their possible inclusion in a federal action does not ensure the court will hear them.

Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Ins. Co. · filed 1993-07-09(c)

Moreover, if and when Quantum does attempt to bring its claims against the property insurers in the Federal action, there is no guarantee that the Federal court will assume jurisdiction over those claims. It is within the discretion of the Federal district court to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 does not call for supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law grievance that state officials misinterpreted state law in a federal constitutional suit.

Burgess v. Ryan · filed 1993-07-14

To receive relief for an error of state law, a party must make a claim under the state law itself, as in diversity litigation. But Burgess and the defendants are not of diverse citizenship, and an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 would be inappropriate.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the claims supporting federal jurisdiction are eliminated before trial.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · filed 1993-07-21(c)(3)

These claims are not based on federal law and no diversity jurisdiction has been alleged; therefore, jurisdiction in the district court was based on the supplemental jurisdiction provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (Supp. III 1991). In considering the discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has noted that "in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, that balance of factors to be considered ... will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 619 n. 7, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988). Thus, the district court's remand of the fifth and sixth causes of action was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal-law claims are eliminated before trial.

Travelers Insurance v. Keeling · filed 1993-07-21

We affirm the district court’s remand of the fifth and sixth causes of action seeking attorney’s fees for intentional misrepresentations. These claims are not based on federal law and no diversity jurisdiction has been alleged; therefore, jurisdiction in the district court was based on the supplemental jurisdiction provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (Supp. Ill 1991). In considering the discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has noted that “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, that balance of factors to be considered ... will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 619 n. 7, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988). Thus, the district court’s remand of the fifth and sixth causes of action was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367 limits a district court’s discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims related to a properly removed federal claim.

Reality Therapy Counseling & Recovery Center, Inc. v. Davis · filed 1993-09-17(c)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 limits a district court’s ability to refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims related to a properly removed federal claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state law claim, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Florea v. Clark County, Washington Gary Lucas, Sheriff of Clark County, Washington Timothy Spooner John Does, 1 · filed 1993-09-29(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Florea's pendent state law conversion claim. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing this claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after the only federal claim falls out of the case.

Harris v. Palmetto Tile, Inc. · filed 1993-10-14(c)

Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Title VII claim, which is the only federal claim in this suit. Moreover, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining supplemental claims and will remand those claims to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims when no reason justifies declining jurisdiction.

Hetchkop v. Gundolt Carpet Workroom, Inc. · filed 1994-01-06(c)

It follows that, where, as here the claims against Gundolt and Liberty derive from a common nucleus of operative facts, the Court should exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in this case, especially since there are no reasons set forth by Liberty that would justify deferring to the jurisdiction of the state court.

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

Toler v. Davis · filed 1994-02-18(c)

We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count II, the state malpractice claim.

A district court’s dismissal without prejudice of pendent state claims under § 1367(c)(4) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc. v. Babin · filed 1994-03-02(c)(4)

Similarly, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to dismiss without prejudice the plaintiffs’ pendent state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c) provides no basis to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the claim supplying original federal jurisdiction remains in the case after reversal of its dismissal.

Carr v. American Red Cross · filed 1994-03-04(c)

The district court also held in its February 22 order that to the extent any supplemental jurisdiction may be deemed to remain after the release was executed, it declined to exercise such jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c). Our ruling overturning the district court's order of dismissal results in federal jurisdiction remaining in the district court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when they raise complex state-law issues and the court has dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Allied Corp. v. Environmental Purification Advancement Corp. · filed 1994-03-09(c)

In the present case, the Court finds that the state law claims raise complex issues of state law which should be tried in state court. ... Furthermore, the Court has dismissed all federal claims brought by the Allied plaintiffs against Mt. Vernon and Admiral. Since the Court has dismissed all claims against these defendants over which this Court had original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the Allied plaintiffs’ state law claims against Mt. Vernon and Admiral.

Section 1367 presumes the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and permits a court to decline it on the four grounds listed in subsection (c).

Plumb v. Prinslow · filed 1994-03-14(c)

Section 1367 creates a presumption that supplemental jurisdiction should be asserted. The four grounds upon which the court may refuse jurisdiction are enumerated in § 1367(c). None of those grounds apply here.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only in its specified circumstances; when none applies, the court retains jurisdiction over related state claims.

Bright v. Roadway Services, Inc. · filed 1994-03-18(c)

None of the exceptions listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is applicable to the present case and, accordingly, the court retains jurisdiction over Counts II and III of the Complaint as against Roadway.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are no longer viable and the state law issues are complex.

N.B.A. Credit Union, Inc. v. Hargrove · filed 1994-03-16(c)(1), (c)(3)

There are no viable federal claims in the instant action. On balance, considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants do not support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Credit Union’s state law claims. ... No trial on the Credit Union’s federal claims is necessary. The regulation of the Credit Union raises complex state law issues. Accordingly, the plaintiffs state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over novel and complex state law claims after resolving the federal claims.

Brodo v. Bankers Trust Co. · filed 1994-04-06(c)

Since the federal claims under TILA have been resolved, this court will decline to hear plaintiffs state law claims due to their novelty and complexity.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits discretionary dismissal without prejudice of pendent state claims, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Incorporated v. Babin · filed 1994-04-13(c)(4)

Similarly, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to dismiss without prejudice the plaintiffs' pendent state claims. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c) provides the exclusive grounds for declining supplemental jurisdiction over claims otherwise covered by the statute.

Executive Software North America, Inc. v. United States District Court For The Central District Of California · filed 1994-05-16(c)

It is clear that, once it is determined that the assertion of supplemental jurisdiction is permissible under sections 1367(a) and (b), section 1367(c) provides the only valid basis upon which the district court may decline jurisdiction and remand pendent claims.

Section 1367(c) provides the exclusive grounds for declining supplemental jurisdiction over pendent claims when subsections (a) and (b) permit it.

Executive Software North America, Inc. v. United States District Court for the Central District of California · filed 1994-05-16(c)

We hold that the district court erred by failing to recognize that section 1367(c) provides the exclusive means by which supplemental jurisdiction over pendent claims may be declined if its assertion is permitted by sections 1367(a) and (b).

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

Dreisbach v. Cummins Diesel Engines, Inc. · filed 1994-04-05(c)(3)

Assuming without deciding that this -court would have supplemental jurisdiction- over plaintiffs state law claims against Coy, Williams and CECO, it declines to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(8).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the complexity and size of the litigation provide compelling reasons.

Pasternak v. Colonial Equities Corp. · filed 1994-04-11(c)(4)

Second, even if the RICO claims and the pendent state law claims were “so related” as to warrant the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a), there are compelling reasons for declining supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(4), including the sheer complexity and massiveness of this litigation.

Section 1367 requires a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims unless a statutory exception applies; subsection (c)(4) permits declining jurisdiction only for compelling reasons in exceptional circumstances.

Executive Software North America, Inc. v. United States District Court For The Central District Of California · filed 1994-04-18(a), (c)(4)

Under section 1367(a), unless expressly precluded by a federal statute, a district court must exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state claims within its Article III jurisdiction unless section 1367(b) or one of the categories specifically enumerated in section 1367(c) applies. Furthermore, we hold that section 1367(c)(4), which permits a remand of state claims for "compelling reasons" under "exceptional circumstances," is narrower than the "economy, convenience, fairness, and comity" standard applied by the district courts under Gibbs.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all but an insubstantial federal claim.

Garro v. State Of Connecticut · filed 1994-05-09(c)(2)

In any event, Judge Cabranes would have been well within his discretion in declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claim after dismissing all but an insubstantial federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(2) (Supp. IV 1992); Cushing v. Moore, 970 F.2d 1103, 1110 (2d Cir.1992).

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to dismiss supplemental state claims after the federal cause of action has been adjudicated.

Aviel v. Maurice Dance Jay Tontz · filed 1994-04-14(c)

However, because the federal cause of action has been adjudicated, the district court has discretion to dismiss state claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim when trying it alongside a federal claim would confuse the jury and impede efficient trial management.

Gauthreaux v. Baylor University Medical Center · filed 1994-06-02(c)(4)

The Court finds that trying’both the state and federal claims before a jury,' but limiting the jury’s consideration to only the state law claim would likely hinder the pursuit of justice and result in confusion. ... The Court finds that there are compelling reasons to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law or when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

O'Connor v. Nevada · filed 1994-06-08(c)(1), (3)

We find two of those circumstances to exist in the present case: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law ... [and] (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (3).

Section 1367(c)(1) and (c)(3) permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state-law claim.

Warn v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians · filed 1994-06-14(c)(1), (c)(3)

In the alternative, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over this pendant state claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only when one of its four listed grounds applies; traditional discretionary considerations may then guide the decision.

Palmer v. Hospital Authority · filed 1994-06-21(c)

Rather, while supplemental jurisdiction must be exercised in the absence of any of the four factors of section 1367(c), when one or more of these factors is present, the additional Gibbs considerations may, by their presence or absence, influence the court in its decision concerning the exercise of such discretion.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim raises a novel issue of state law and all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

O'connor v. State Of Nevada · filed 1994-07-12(c)(1), (3)

We find two of those circumstances to exist in the present case: "(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law ... [and] (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(1), (3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the claim within its original jurisdiction when the remaining claims have no independent jurisdictional basis.

Cawthard v. Flagship Airlines, Inc. · filed 1994-07-18(c)(3)

When the Court dismisses a claim over which it had original jurisdiction and the remaining claims lack any independent jurisdictional basis, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Section 1367(c)(2) does not treat a one-claim difference between state and federal claims as sufficient to show that state claims substantially predominate.

Williams v. Huron Valley School District · filed 1994-07-19(c)(2)

In the case at bar, there are three state law claims and two federal law claims. The difference of one claim does not constitute the requisite “substantially predominate” factor in this case.